Zwingli: "I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary"

Over the years I've worked through a Roman Catholic pop-apologetic webpage documenting the pro-Mariology of the Reformers. This propaganda is sometimes entitled, "The Protestant Reformers on Mary."  It highlights Marian quotes from Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, specifically with the intention of showing the early Reformers were either devoted to Mary, venerated her, or retained specifically Roman Catholic Marian dogmas. 

"The Protestant Reformers on Mary" webpage is set in the form of one-sided information which will only present quotes from the Reformers that coincide (or can be misconstrued) to support Roman Catholic Mariology. Anything the Reformers said that does not bolster Roman Catholic Mariology is often ignored. It is blatant propaganda: consider how often Roman Catholic apologists vilify the Protestant Reformation, yet if the Reformers say something that sounds like their version of Mariology, the original Reformers become the staunch supporters of Mary... leaders that all contemporary Protestants should learn a great lesson in Mariology from!

This quote from Ulrich Zwingli is typically cited in versions of The Protestant Reformers on Mary:

"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary." [ E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., (Rome, 1962), 456.]

This quote appears to be direct proof Zwingli used the phrase "Mother of God" and believed in Mary's Immaculate Conception. We'll give it to the defenders of Rome that Zwingli did indeed use the phrase, "Mother of God." That phrase was so ingrained in medieval culture, it would be more surprising if this early reformer did not use it. We'll also give it to Rome's defenders that Zwingli said nice things about Mary, like "esteem immensely." As to Zwingli adhering to the Immaculate Conception, it's not entirely certain if he actually held to it, despite such seemingly blatant quotes. Rome's online defenders never mention this. In fact, the very source they claim to have taken this quote from (Stakemeier) says on the same page, "It is difficult to prove that Zwingli directly affirmed the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin." The tertiary source they probably used for this quote also says, "On Z.'s attitude to the Immaculate Conception... of Mary there is no lengthy evidence."

Well see that whichever defender of Rome originally placed this quote online botched the documentation by using the wrong page number. This might sound like tedious nitpicking, but I'm not aware of any of Rome's defenders ever looking this quote up, putting it in a context (i.e. going "deep into history" as they claim) or having any knowledge of the source they're quoting... So, for at least two decades, the wrong online documentation has been provided, seemingly unchecked by Rome's propagandists. 

Here's what won't be in this blog entry: this entry is not an argument that Ulrich Zwingli completely rejected Mariology like many modern Protestants do (via arguments derived from the application of sola scriptura). Many of Zwingli's views on Mary reflect medieval Roman Catholicism. Zwingli was a transitional figure. One of his primary areas of concern was weening people away from excessive Mariolatry, particularly the intercession of Mary and the Saints. If he did accept the Immaculate Conception and later Protestantism denied it, that's an indication of how deeply rooted Mariolatry was in the early sixteenth century: even some of the most important reforming minds were infected by it. They were steeped in a tradition that wasn't easily peeled off by scriptural scrutiny.  

Zwingli, like Martin Luther, vehemently opposed a sine quo non of Roman Catholic Mariology: intercession. Rome's defenders seem to treat this denial like it's no big deal. However, all the distinctive Roman Catholic Marian attributes (Perpetual Virginity, Assumption, Immaculate Conception, etc.) are symbiotically related to her ability to intercede. Take away Mary's ability to intercede, whatever is left really becomes a curiosity of history rather than something profoundly important.   Zwingli's Mariology, however "Roman Catholic" it may sound at times, is such a curiosity of history. Even if he affirmed Mary's Perpetual Virginity, Assumption, Immaculate Conception, etc., it's like having Confederate money after the American Civil War. It doesn't mean anything significant.

Documentation: The Secondary and Tertiary Sources

What many do not realize is that twenty-five or so years ago, Rome's defenders flooded the Internet with-rage-bait-like quotes like this, intended to cause cognitive dissonance. Documentation could be vague and spurious... not necessarily wrong but not clear enough to be meaningful. This is one of those quotes.

This quote in this form has been around for decades, usually cut-and-pasted by Rome's defenders. I suspect none of them know anything about the documentation.  The quote is now immortalized on Wikipedia (unless someone un-imortalizes it!)... but at least someone via Wiki was savvy enough to include "citation needed." Kudos to whichever anonymous editor recognized propaganda. 

The usual online documentation provided is to a Roman Catholic secondary source (Stakemeier)... but upon analysis, I'll prove it was probably taken from a Roman Catholic tertiary source! Yep, that's going deep into history (read: sarcasm). The secondary source (Stakemeier) wasn't in English, so the tertiary source provided the English translation of Zwingli's remark.  It's impossible to know with precise certainty what the tertiary source is, but I strongly (if not... almost certainly!) suspect the English version of this quote originated from the 1982 Roman Catholic book by Michael O'Carroll:  Theotokos: a Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 378. Note the similarities in the text:

The popular online propaganda documentation version may be a combination of "De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, ed. K. Balic, O.F.M., Rome, 1962" from page ix and "5 Stakemeier, op.cit., p. 455, 6 Ibid., p. 456" from page 378. This is probably the result of one of Rome's defenders copying the quote out of this book way way back in the early days of the Internet but not having the ability (or desire) to locate the primary or secondary sources for Zwingli's statement.     

As of the writing of this entry, Stakemeier,'s De Mariologia et Oecumenismo does not appear to be available online... so I purchased it. De Mariologia et Oecumenismo is a collection of articles from multiple twentieth century authors written in Latin. The chapter by Stakemeier is entitled, De Beata Maria Virgine Eiusque Cultu Iuxta Reformatores. The author was Roman Catholic theologian Rev. Dom. Eduardus Stakemeier. The underlying gist of the article is ecumenical. In fact, the article ends with a positive shout out to Vatican II. One of the goals of the author is to demonstrate similarities between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism so as to reach out to them in a friendly ecumenical way. 

One thing becomes blatantly obvious when the text above from Michael O'Carroll is compared with the text from Stakemeier: all the Zwingli information used comes directly from Stakemeier.  O'Carroll reused Stakemeier's Zwingli quotes, translating them into English and citing him as the source. One also immediately sees that the popular online version of The Protestant Reformers on Mary contains a documentation error. The popular version says it's found on page 456. It isn't. It's on page 455. This means for at least two decades, Rome's defenders repeatedly using this quote never bothered to check the reference! Whoever copied it originally botched it. 

Another interesting anomaly is that both O'Carroll and Stakemeier present one quote of contrary evidence that Zwingli denied Mary's Immaculate Conception: 

O'Carroll: In a debate in Zurich in 1523 he said: “It was publicly decreed in the Council of Basle that the Mother of God was conceived without original sin, nevertheless no monk is so inept and stupid that he would not dare to contradict it publicly."

Stakemeier: In the first Zurich disputation, on January 29, 1523, he declares: "In the Council of Basel it was publicly decreed that the Mother of God was conceived without original sin, yet no monk is so inept and foolish that he would not dare to publicly contradict it."

Both Roman Catholic authors defuse this sole contrary quote by attributing it to Zwingli's denial of the Council of Basel, not the Immaculate Conception. However, some scholars see this statement from Zwingli as an example of internal bias / partisanship meant to safeguard one of Zwingli's close followers from the Bishop of Constance (Federer, Zwingli und die Marienverehrung, 25). The same scholar also notes that it's difficult to explain Zwingli's purported acceptance of Mary's lifelong sinlessness with his explicit exposition of original sin (26). Regardless, that Rome's defenders leave out anything contrary to their Marian beliefs demonstrates their propaganda subterfuge.

Documentation: The Primary Source

Here is the text in question, found on page 455 of my 1962 edition (not 456 as their propaganda claims) from  Stakemeier,'s De Mariologia et Oecumenismo:

The missing key to this puzzle created by The Protestant Reformers on Mary is to discover which primary source Stakemeier took this quote from. Here is his documentation: 

(172) CR, Zwinglii Opera, 2, 189: opus articulorum sive conclusionum, art. 20.

"CR" stands for "Corpus Reformatorum." This is a largest collection of writings from some of the popular sixteenth century Reformers.  "Opera 2, 189" can be found here. It refers to one of the volumes containing Ulrich Zwingli's writings. 

Context

Here is the relevant text, with the quote being part of the last sentence: "Also halt ich viel von der Mutter Gottes , der ewig reinen unbefleckten Magd Maria, viel von allen denen , die um Gottes Ehr und Willen sind gestorben; ob aber sy got für nich bittind, das wellend wir hernach sehen."

This text comes from Zwingli's detailed explanation of his 67 Articles. These 67 Articles were presented as a public disputation January 27, 1523. This explanatory text (according to Stakemeier) was presented July 14, 1523 (half a year later). The text in question is in regard to Article 20: "That God desires to give us all things in his name, whence it follows that outside of this life we need no mediator except himself." Why is Zwingli mentioning Mary's sinlessness? Is he expounding on it? No, he's making a passing comment while involved in a different argument: intercession. The entire sentence reads, 

"So I have great respect for the Mother of God, the eternally pure, immaculate Virgin Mary, and great respect for all those who died for God's honor and will; but whether they intercede with God for me, we shall see later." 

By "later" Zwingli will strongly argue against the intercession of the saints and Mary. That's the intent of this sentence when placed back in context. Think of the shock value of what going here in 1523: Zwingli is going to argue against the societally ingrained tradition of Mary's intercession. It is completely logical to place this denial with the positive disclaimer "Also halt ich vil von der müter gottes , der ewig reien, unbefleckten magt Maria."

Conclusion
It's not at all clear to me from this context if Zwingli was giving a passing affirmation to the Immaculate Conception or if he was using the popular Marian speech of his day. I say this because he was not exegeting his position on Mary in the primary source. He was involved in a much different discussion: saint mediators that intercede other than Jesus Christ (which he strongly denies). Rome's defenders never mention this. This extreme difference in his Mariology was not included in The Protestant Reformers on Mary. Why? Because it does not serve their propaganda campaign. Zwingli, like Martin Luther, vehemently opposed a sine qua non of Roman Catholic Mariology: intercession of the saints. Rome's defenders seem to treat this denial like it's no big deal. However, all the distinctive Roman Catholic Marian attributes (Perpetual Virginity, Assumption, Immaculate Conception, etc.) are symbiotically related to her ability to intercede, both in the sixteenth century and now. Take away Mary's ability to intercede, whatever is left becomes a curiosity of history rather than something profoundly meaningful, ecumenical, or something proven using sola scriptura by the early reformers.  

It's true the early sixteenth century reformers did have views on Mary that sometimes do not coincide with Protestants today. This isn't rocket science. The Marian climate of Zwingli's proto-Protestant world is not the Marian climate of the current theological landscape, or even that which came after the first generation of Reformers. When Zwingli broke with Rome, he was, like Luther, a transitional figure. To steal a concept from Alister McGrath: the Reformers demonstrated both continuity and discontinuity with the period which immediately preceded it. It shouldn't be at all surprising then to discover elements of Zwingli's Mariology that echoed the medieval theological worldview. Contrarily, it should also not be surprising to discover there were elements of Zwingli's understanding of Mary that broke with the medieval theological worldview, like Mary's intercession.

Some scholars deny Zwingli adhered to Mary's Immaculate Conception, despite his use of such flowery Marian language. See my blog entry here about some of those authors claiming Zwingli denied the Immaculate Conception. Rome's online defenders do not appear to be interested in any such research that contradicts their propaganda. I've not come across any of them digging deep into this history and refuting it.  Even on the very page the quote comes from found in Stakemeier, it states: "It is difficult to prove that Zwingli directly affirmed the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin." This sentence was purposely left out by whichever defender of Rome pulled this Zwingli quote out originally. True, Stakemeier does then go on to mention a small handful of Zwingli quotes that seem to indicate he adhered to the Immaculate Conception, but he never presents a definite positive answer. The best he arrives at is that the pro-Immaculate Conception Zwingli quotes "seem" to prove it. Why is this? Because as far as I can tell, Zwingli does not seem to have ever expound on Mary's Immaculate Conception. 

Luther: "She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."

Over the years I've worked through a Roman Catholic web article that allegedly documents the Mariology of the early Protestant Reformers. The article is sometimes called, The Protestant Reformers on Mary. Here is a Martin Luther quote that's usually included in this presentation:

Mary the Mother of God. Throughout his life Luther maintained without change the historic Christian affirmation that Mary was the Mother of God: "She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."[Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], volume 24, 107].

If you're puzzled as to why this quote is supposed to be shocking to Protestant eyes, it means you're probably not a garden variety fundamentalist that has theological spasms whenever you come upon the phrase Mother of God. Luther used this phrase occasionally but did not use it as a term of invocation or worship like Roman Catholics do. When he used it, it was either an expression of the common vernacular of the sixteenth century, a term of respect for her as someone profoundly used by God in a significant way, or it was primarily to say something about Jesus, not Mary. The context below will bear this out. 

Documentation

The origin of this quote may be from a 1992 Catholic Answers article by Father Mateo, CRI's Attack on Mary: Part 1. The article states, 

Throughout his life Luther used and defended Mary’s title “Mother of God” against all comers. “She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God.”(Jaroslav Pelikan, ed., Luther’s Works (St. Louis: Concordia), vol. 24, 107.) (I wonder about CRI’s consistent failure throughout to mention Protestant sources in praise of Mary.)

It's possible Father Mateo actually mined this quote out of Luther's writings himself. Or: someone took Mateo's words, changed them a little bit, adding Weimar to the documentation.

As is frequently the case with Roman Catholic propaganda, the documentation is spurious. Someone mixed together the English and German / Latin editions of Luther's writings. This quote isn't from WA 24 in the Weimar edition of Luther's writings, it's from volume 24 of the English edition of Luther's Works. The quote is found in WA 45:557-559. In English, it is found in Luther's Works, LW 24:106-107. The text is from Martin Luther's exposition of the Gospel of John 14:16.  

 

Context

We say of every human being that he eats, drinks, digests, sleeps, wakes, walks, stands, works, etc., although the soul participates in none of these activities, but only the body. And yet this is said of the entire person, who has a body and a soul. For it is one person, by reason not only of the body but of both the body and the soul. Again, we say that man thinks, deliberates, and learns. According to his reason or soul, he can become a teacher or master, a judge, councilor, or ruler. Neither the body nor any one of its members gives him this competence. And yet we say: “He has a clever head; he is sensible, learned, eloquent, artistic.” Thus it is said of a woman that a mother carries, bears, and suckles a child, although it is not her soul but only her body that makes her a mother. And still we ascribe this to the entire woman. Or if someone strikes a person on the head, we say: “He has struck Hans or Greta.” Or if a member of the body is injured or wounded, we think of the whole person as being wounded.

I am using these simple illustrations to demonstrate how two distinct natures must be differentiated in the Person of Christ and yet how this still leaves the Person a whole and undivided entity. Whatever Christ says and does, both God and man say and do; yet each word and action is in accord with the one or the other nature. He who observes this distinction is safe and on the right path. He will not be led astray by the erroneous ideas of heretics, ideas which come into being solely because they do not properly join what belongs together and is united, or because they do not properly separate and distinguish what must be distinguished.

Therefore we must adhere to the speech and expressions of Holy Writ and retain and confess the doctrine that this Christ is true God, through whom all things are created and exist, and at the same time that this same Christ, God’s Son, is born of the Virgin, dies on the cross, etc. Furthermore, Mary, the mother, does not carry, give birth to, suckle, and nourish only the man, only flesh and blood—for that would be dividing the Person—but she carries and nourishes a son who is God’s Son. Therefore she is rightly called not only the mother of the man but also the Mother of God. This the old fathers taught in opposition to the Nestorians, who objected to calling Mary “Mother of God” and refused to say that she had given birth to God’s Son.

Here we must again confess with our Creed: “I believe in Jesus Christ, God the Father’s only Son, our Lord, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered, was crucified, died.” It is always one and the same Son of God, our Lord. Therefore it is certain that Mary is the mother of the real and true God, and that the Jews crucified not only the Son of Man but also the true Son of God. For I do not want a Christ in Whom I am to believe and to whom I am to pray as my Savior who is only man. Otherwise I would go to the devil. For mere flesh and blood could not erase sin, reconcile God, remove His anger, overcome and destroy death and hell, and bestow eternal life." (LW 24:106-107).

Original text: Denn also redet man von einem iglichen menschen: Der mensch isset und trincket, dewet¹, schlefft, wachet, gehet und stehet, arbeitet x., welches er be] doch nach der seele keines thut, sondern allein der leib. Und doch von der ganzen person, so leib und seel hat, gesagt wird. Denn er ist ein mensch nicht allein des leibs, sondern beide, des leibs und der seel halben. Widerumb sagt man auch von im: Der mensch dencket, tichtet, lernet. Denn nach der vernunfft oder seelen kan er werden ein Lerer oder Meister, Richter, Rat, Regent, welchs im der leib nach des leibs gliedmas keines gibt. Und dennoch spricht man: Das ist ein geschickter kopff, vernünfftig, gelert, weise, wol beredt, künstreich. Also sagt man von einem weibe: Die mutter tregt, gebirt oder seuget das kind. So sie doch nicht nach der seele, sondern allein nach dem leib eine mutter heisst. Doch gibt man solchs der ganzen weiblichen person. Item, wenn einer einen menschen für den kopff schlegt, so spricht [M. S. ij] man: Dieser hat Hansen oder Greta geschlagen. Also wenn ein glied verleget oder verwundet wird, so heisst es den ganzen menschen verwundet. 

Das sage ich zum groben Gleichnis, das mans verstehe, wie man inn der person Christi die zwo naturn unterschiedlich teilen und doch die person ganz und ungetrennet zusamen lassen mus. Das, was Christus redet und thut, das hat beide, Gott und mensch geredt und gethan, und doch ein iglichs nach der einen natur. Wer solch unterscheid helt, der kan sicher und recht faren, das er sich nicht lasse irre machen der Ketzer irrige gedancken, welche allein daher komen, das sie nicht recht zusamen fügen, was zusamen gehöret und eines ist, oder nicht recht von ander scheiden und teilen, was man unterscheiden sol.

Darumb sollen wir bey der Schrifft rede und wort bleiben und den Artikel also behalten und bekennen, das dieser Christus ist warhafftiger Gott, durch den alle ding geschaffen sind und bestehen. Und widerumb der selbige Christus, Gottes son, wird geborn von der jungfrawen und stirbt am Creutz x. Item: die mutter Maria tregt, gebirt, seuget und neeret nicht den menschen allein oder fleisch und blut, Denn das were die person getrennet, Sondern sie tregt und neeret einen son, der da ist Gottes son, Darumb heisßt sie recht nicht allein des menschen, sondern auch Gottes mutter. Wie auch die alten Veter solchs geleret haben wider die Nestorianer, welche wolten einen strich hiedurch machen, das Maria nicht solt Gottes mutter heissen. Und wolten nicht sagen, das sie hette Gottes son geborn.

Hie wider müssen wir sagen, wie unser glaube lautet: Ich gleube an Jhesum Christum, Gottes des Vaters einigen Son, unsern HErrn, von Maria der jungfrawen geborn, gelidden, gecreutziget und gestorben x. jmer der selbige einige Gottes Son, unser HErr. Das es warhafftig heisse: Maria ist des rechten, warhafftigen Gottes mutter, Und die Jüden haben nicht allein des menschen son, sondern warhafftigen Gottes son gecreutziget. Denn ich wil nicht eines solchen Christi, an den ich sol gleuben und jn anruffen als meinen Heiland, der ein lauter mensch ist, Sonst füre ich zum Teuffel. Denn lauter fleisch und blut künde nicht die sunde tilgen, Gott versünen und seinen zorn wegnemen, den tod und die helle uberwinden und zustören, noch das ewige leben geben (WA 45:557-559).

Conclusion
Luther's using the rich Christ-centered usage of Theotokos (God Bearer, Mother of God) when discussing the incarnation and Jesus Christ’s Deity. Conservative Protestant theology would agree with him.  This quote may be a shocker to fundamentalist types, but not to the Lutherans, Anglicans, or the Reformed. Notice that Luther specifically mentions the heretical Nestorians. If Roman Catholic apologists are interacting with modern Nestorians that are fond of Luther, using this Luther quote could be useful!

Dr. James White once described te phrase Mother of God as "the single most misused theological term around." Contemporary Protestants distance themselves from the title, "Mother of God," for good reason. When Rome's defenders bring up the phrase, Mother of God, they have gone beyond what Luther usually means by it. They attach excessive veneration and her intercession. What was once a rich theological term expressing a doctrinal truth about Jesus Christ developed into praise to Mary and her intercession. If you agree to use this term in dialog with a Roman Catholic apologist, use it like Luther did. Use it to say something about Jesus Christ, not Mary!   

Revised March 2026

Roman Catholics Botch Another Luther quote: "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin...Christ, we Believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact."

It's laughable: Roman Catholic apologists sometimes struggle to even quote Martin Luther correctly when he's on their side! Over the years I've worked through a Roman Catholic article that "documents" the Mariology of the Reformers. The article is sometimes called, "The Protestant Reformers on Mary." Here is a Martin Luther quote that's usually included:

It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. … Christ, we Believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

While Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, this quote is still bogus... partly in its documentation and partly in its English rendering. What it amounts to is a Roman Catholic scholar utilized another Roman Catholic scholar without checking the references, and then one of Rome's defenders did their typical cut-and-paste propaganda, making two quotes (from two different sources) one quote, and now this deceptive citation is splattered all over the Internet. 

Documentation
Please resist the temptation to skip over the tedium of documentation, for it will demonstrate how poorly some Roman Catholic apologists can handle primary sources when it comes to Luther's view of Mary.  

The reference is partly spurious. Whoever put it together combined the Weimar (not "Weimer") edition of Luther's works (German and Latin) and then added in a mention of the English edition. In the English edition there is no such quote in volume 11 on pages 319-320. Nor is there a page 510 in volume 6 of the English version.  "Pelikan" and "Concordia" had nothing to do with either of these volumes of the Weimar edition. 

The reference to the first sentence should simply be to WA 11:319-320. "V.6 p.510" refers to the second sentence ("Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact"). That quote comes from WA 6:510.

The reason both these references were put together is that whichever Roman Catholic apologist first put this quote online probably utilized Michael O'Carroll, Theotokos, a Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Notice, O'Carroll uses the same English rendering:

Likewise, L. was true to Catholic tradition on the virginity. “It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin.” “Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. [WA 11, 319-320; WA 6,510].

But wait.... O'Carroll isn't directly quoting WA 11 or WA 6! He's quoting another Roman Catholic author, Thomas O'Meara. O'Carroll refers to O'Meara in a nearby reference as a general source for Luther's Mariology. O'Meara uses the same English rendering and documentation:

It is an article of faith that Mary is the mother of the Lord and still a virgin.

Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. [WA 11, 319, 320; WA 6, 510].

O'Meara claimed to be providing a "summary in Luther's own words." Is he summarizing Luther "in his own words" but not directly quoting him? It appears so... maybe this is why nowhere on pages 319-320 does Luther say, "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin."  The closest thing to it is on page 320:

This text reads in English, "But the Scripture stops with this, that she was a virgin before and at the birth of Christ; for up to this point God had need of her virginity in order to give us the promised blessed seed without sin" (LW 45:206). If this is the text O'Meara is summarizing, he's done a poor job. 

O'Meara's English rendering of the second quote is closer to the Latin original but still problematic. WA 6:510 states,

O'Meara gave this sentence a little more "umph" by summarizing Luther as saying "Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact." Rather, the quote reads, "Christ is believed to have been born from the inviolate womb of his mother" (WA 36:32).

The context of both sentences are fascinating. Notice below what Rome's defenders leave out in the context of the first sentence: "Now just take a look at the perverse lauders of the mother of God. If you ask them why they hold so strongly to the virginity of Mary, they truly could not say. These stupid idolators do nothing more than to glorify only the mother of God; they extol her for her virginity and practically make a false deity of her." Notice with the second sentence, the context has nothing to do with the virginity of Mary. She's used as a passing rhetorical argument concerning transubstantiation. 

Contexts

Sentence #1

Now just take a look at the perverse lauders of the mother of God. If you ask them why they hold so strongly to the virginity of Mary, they truly could not say. These stupid idolators do nothing more than to glorify only the mother of God; they extol her for her virginity and practically make a false deity of her. But Scripture does not praise this virginity at all for the sake of the mother; neither was she saved on account of her virginity. Indeed, cursed be this and every other virginity if it exists for its own sake, and accomplishes nothing better than its own profit and praise.

The Spirit extols this virginity, however, because it was needful for the conceiving and bearing of this blessed fruit. Because of the corruption of our flesh, such blessed fruit could not come, except through a virgin. Thus this tender virginity existed in the service of others to the glory of God, not to its own glory. If it had been possible for him to have come from a [married] woman, he would not have selected a virgin for this, since virginity is contrary to the physical nature within us, was condemned of old in the law, and is extolled here solely because the flesh is tainted and its built-in physical nature cannot bestow her fruit except by means of an accursed act.

Hence we see that St. Paul nowhere calls the mother of God a virgin, but only a woman, as he says in Galatians 3 [4:4], “The Son of God was born of a woman.” He did not mean to say she was not a virgin, but to extol her virginity to the highest with the praise that is proper to it, as much as to say: In this birth none but a woman was involved, no man participated; that is, everything connected with it was reserved to the woman, the conceiving, bearing, suckling, and nourishing of the child were functions no man can perform. It is therefore the child of a woman only; hence, she must certainly be a virgin. But a virgin may also be a man; a mother can be none other than a woman.

For this reason, too, Scripture does not quibble or speak about the virginity of Mary after the birth of Christ, a matter about which the hypocrites are greatly concerned, as if it were something of the utmost importance on which our whole salvation depended. Actually, we should be satisfied simply to hold that she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity. We certainly need not be so terribly afraid that someone will demonstrate, out of his own head apart from Scripture, that she did not remain a virgin. But the Scripture stops with this, that she was a virgin before and at the birth of Christ; for up to this point God had need of her virginity in order to give us the promised blessed seed without sin (LW 45:205-206).

Sentence #2

Therefore it is an absurd and unheard-of juggling with words to understand “bread” to mean “the form or accidents of bread,” and “wine” to mean “the form or accidents of wine.” Why do they not also understand all other things to mean their “forms or accidents”? And even if this might be done with all other things, it would still not be right to enfeeble the words of God in this way, and by depriving them of their meaning to cause so much harm.

Moreover, the church kept the true faith for more than twelve hundred years, during which time the holy fathers never, at any time or place, mentioned this transubstantiation (a monstrous word and a monstrous idea), until the pseudo philosophy of Aristotle began to make its inroads into the church in these last three hundred years. During this time many things have been wrongly defined, as for example, that the divine essence is neither begotten nor begets; that the soul is the substantial form of the human body. These and like assertions are made without any reason or cause, as the Cardinal of Cambrai himself admits.

Perhaps they will say that the danger of idolatry demands that the bread and wine should not be really present. How ridiculous! The laymen have never become familiar with their fine-spun philosophy of substance and accidents, and could not grasp it if it were taught to them. Besides, there is the same danger in the accidents which remain and which they see, as in the case of the substance which they do not see. If they do not worship the accidents, but the Christ hidden under them, why should they worship the [substance of the] bread, which they do not see?

And why could not Christ include his body in the substance of the bread just as well as in the accidents? In red-hot iron, for instance, the two substances, fire and iron, are so mingled that every part is both iron and fire. Why is it not even more possible that the body of Christ be contained in every part of the substance of the bread?

What will they reply? Christ is believed to have been born from the inviolate womb of his mother. Let them say here too that the flesh of the Virgin was meanwhile annihilated, or as they would more aptly say, transubstantiated, so that Christ, after being enfolded in its accidents, finally came forth through the accidents! The same thing will have to be said of the shut door [John 20:19, 26] and of the closed mouth of the sepulchre, through which he went in and out without disturbing them (LW 36:31-32).

Conclusion

While Luther believed in the perpetual virginity, this quote has been botched by Rome's defenders in a number of ways:

1. As I've demonstrated, the reference popularly used online was the result of a sloppy confusing cut-and-paste (from a secondary source) melding together the German / Latin by including a mention of the English edition. 

2. This quote is two separate sentences from two different treatises, joined together for the sake of propaganda.

3. In context, Luther does not say perpetual virginity is an "article of faith that Mary is mother of the Lord," or "we believe." These phrases appear to be the renderings of Roman Catholic author Thomas O'Meara, summarizing Luther. Hence, the first sentence is not a quote from Luther and the second sentence includes a mistranslation. 

4. While the context of the first sentence addresses perpetual virginity, the context of the second sentence does not; Luther is using it to make a rhetorical argument about transubstantiation. 

5. Rome's defenders do not mention in their propaganda treatments of Luther's Mariology that from the very context one of these sentences is alleged to come from, Luther refers to such defenders as "perverse lauders of the mother of God" and "stupid idolaters" that "extol her for her virginity and practically make a false deity of her." They tend to leave such comments out to make it look like they are on the same page as Luther. They are not.

Some Protestants may be bemused that Luther accepted the perpetual virginity of Mary. Don't be. I realize Rome's defenders love to point it out. If you are in a discussion with a Roman Catholic apologist and they bring it up, point out the irony: they believe Luther was wrong about almost everything, a diabolical heretic... unless the subject is Mary... then everyone should listen to him.

During the Reformation period, Mariolatry was out of control, especially early on. it does not surprise me at all that the early Reformers maintained some of it, while later generations did not. My contention is they embraced the error of perpetual virginity because they were engulfed in a world of excessive Mariolatry, caused by those Luther referred to as, "papists." While the early Reformers did not shed all of it during their lifetimes, those that came after them eventually did.  The early Reformers were transitional. In all periods of church history, there is continuity and discontinuity with the period which preceded it and comes after it. It does not surprise me at all they retained certain things later generations would reject. They were in a unique place in history, a place drenched in obsessive Mariolatry infecting folk piety and elite belief.

Also ask Rome's defenders why they allow themselves the magic formula of "development of doctrine" but deny it to the early Reformers and later generations of Protestants. For instance, it is obvious Luther's Mariology was more pronounced than Calvin's (Calvin's career overlapped with Luther but significantly went on after Luther's death). While Luther would cling to Mary as perpetually virgin, Calvin takes an almost agnostic view, barely mentioning it, and when he does, he downplays it (it's interesting that Rome's defenders perpetually quote the same sparse quotes from Calvin). The Protestant theologians which came after Calvin typically continue to move away from perpetual virginity (with a few exceptions).

Addendum: Must Lutherans believe the perpetual virginity of Mary is an article of faith?

But what about Luther saying Mary's perpetual virginity is an article of faith? Besides the fact that he didn't say it at least in the quote under scrutiny in this entry, isn't it part of the official Lutheran Book of Concord? Here's an interesting tidbit from the WELS web entry, Subscribing to the Lutheran Confessions in which they respond to the question, "The confessions speak of Mary as Semper Virgo (always-virgin) in the Smalcald Articles [24]. What defense do we have of this? Can I be a called worker if I don't agree with this portion of the Book of Concord?" They answer in part:

The Latin refers to Mary as pure, holy, and always-virgin. It is noteworthy that the German simply refers to the pure, holy Virgin Mary. If the confession was concerned to assert perpetual virginity for Mary, the author of the German version bungled the job totally because no reference to always-virgin appears in the German. It seems that the Latin sempervirgine was simply a stock phrase for describing the virginity of Mary. The article is not concerned to make any assertion about Mary beyond the fact that she bore a child without any participation by a human father.

And also:

Scripture makes no assertion that Jesus was born without the normal physical effects of childbirth on the body of his mother. It makes no assertion that Mary remained virgin after the birth of Jesus. Already in the ancient church there were three theories about Jesus’ brothers and sisters who are mentioned in the gospels. One theory is that these were actually Jesus’ cousins. Another is that these were children of Joseph, whose first wife had died before he married Mary. Both of these theories were motivated at least in part by the desire to preserve Mary’s virginity even after Christ’s birth. There is no direct evidence to support them in Scripture. The third idea is that these ‘brothers’ were children of Mary and Joseph born in a natural way after Christ’s birth. This third view is the most natural understanding of the passages in which Jesus, Mary, and these brothers and sisters appear together. See, for example, Matthew 12:46 and 13:55. Luther and many of his contemporaries seem to have retained the opinion that Mary had no other children besides Jesus, but most recent Lutheran theologians lean toward the third view. In the quotation from his ‘Large Confession concerning the Holy Supper’ which is cited in FC, TD, VII, Luther refers to the belief that Mary bore Jesus ‘with a closed womb’ as a possibility believed by some. Pieper treats both matters as open questions (III, p. 307-309). Our subscription to the confessions makes no assertion about the duration of the virginity of Mary because neither Scripture nor the confessions make any such assertion.” [Why Bible-Believing Lutherans Subscribe to the Book of Concord, pages 7-8]

Addendum 2 WA 11:319-320

Addendum 3: WA 6:510

Zwingli: "The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow"

Over the years I've worked through a Roman Catholic pop-apologetic webpage documenting the Mariology of the Reformers. This propaganda is sometimes entitled, "The Protestant Reformers on Mary."  It highlights Marian quotes from Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, specifically with the intention of showing the early Reformers were either devoted to Mary, venerated her, or retained specifically Roman Catholic Marian dogmas. 

"The Protestant Reformers on Mary" webpage is usually set in the form of one-sided information which will only present quotes from the Reformers that coincide (or can be misconstrued) to support Roman Catholic Mariology. Anything the Reformers said that does not bolster Roman Catholic Mariology is often ignored. It is blatant propaganda: Consider how often Roman Catholic apologists vilify the Protestant Reformation, yet if the Reformers say something that sounds like their version of Mariology, the original Reformers become the staunch supporters of Mary... leaders that all contemporary Protestants should learn a great lesson in Mariology from!

This quote from Ulrich Zwingli is typically cited in "The Protestant Reformers on Mary": 

"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow" [Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 427-428.]

For an example of the most general popular usage of this quote, the anonymous authors over at Wikipedia use it and state, "Some early Protestant Reformers venerated and honored Mary." Most of the other usages of the quote I checked (typically by Roman Catholics) imply the same thing. It's easy to see why Rome's defenders would cherry-pick this quote. Zwingli appears to be placing Mary in a high place of divine importance.  Zwingli doesn't say, "the more you love Christ, the more you should honor Paul or Abraham." He specifically places Mary in a unique category of honor, perhaps using the moral imperative, or normative, "should." The gist possibly being communicated with the use of this quote, is that... if you honor and love Christ, one has the moral obligation to grow in their esteem and honor of Mary. 

Was Zwingli venerating and honoring Mary... just like Roman Catholics do? Was he implying people have a duty to esteem and honor Mary?  Let's take a closer look at this quote and see what's going on.  We'll see with this quote, first, the word "should" is not what Zwingli originally meant. Second, this quote was only partially translated. The end of the sentence was left off, allowing Rome's defenders the needed ambiguity to make Zwingli appear to be venerating Mary... just like they do!

Documentation and Historical Background

Before even attempting to search the primary source out, one of the first questions I consider is the origin of the English translation. Ulrich Zwingli did not write in English, so someone, at some time in the past, did the work of translating his German into English. Then, someone lifted the English quote from this secondary source and put it on the Internet. As far as I can tell, this quote, in this English form, has been multiplying throughout cyberspace for at least twenty years!

It's very likely this quote comes from Thomas O'Meara, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966), p.144. Over the years, I've noticed quotes from the Reformers about Mary originating from this book. I'm not entirely certain that O'Meara did the English translation, but it seems likely. I have not found this specific English translation in any other book previous to O'Meara's publication. 

If the quote came from O'Meara, whichever Roman Catholic apologist originally mined this quote out of Mary In Protestant and Catholic Theology may have let their zealous worldview get in the way. Notice how O'Meara frames the quote:

According to O'Meara, even though Zwingli wrote something nice about Mary, "...he denied any special merit or work to Mary and was strongly opposed to any invocation to her." On the same page he mentions Zwingli's rejection of any mention of Mary in prayer as a "more drastic departure from Catholic tradition than Luther's" and that for Zwingli, images of Mary do not belong "in places of worship." For O'Meara, Zwingli had a Mariology, but there were significant deviations from the popular Marian piety of the sixteenth century. Rome's cyber-defenders don't mention that! 

A simple web search of this quote reveals extensive cut-and-pasting, including it being featured in published books. If documentation is given, it's similar to what's been provided above. Going with the assumption that O'Meara is the English source for this Zwingli quote, let's closely look at it: "Zwingli, Opera, CR 1, 427-428." What's being cited is the Corpus Reformatorum, specifically a volume dedicated to Zwingli's writings. "CR 1" is the first volume presenting Zwingli's writings (the actual volume in the overall set is 88). This volume (from 1905) has been digitized. 

In O'Meara's bibliography for "Reformation Marian Theology" many of the sources are in German. He lists a few German articles on Zwingli, and includes Tappolet's influential book, Das Marienlob der Reformatoren. I mention this because it could very well be that O'Meara did not actually consult a primary Zwingli source for this quote. This does not mean the secondary source he may have taken the quote from was necessarily inaccurate. It means there is more of a possibility for tedious and contextual errors. For instance, Either O'Meara got the page numbers wrong for this quote, or he was working with a different edition: I did not locate the quote on pages 427-428. Rather, the quote is on page 426. I have not located any edition yet in which the quote is on pages 427-428.

The quote comes from, "Ein predig von der reinen gotzgebärerin Maria," Sept. 17, 1522 ("Sermon on Mary, the Pure Mother of God").  This date is in interesting because technically, Zwingli was still a Roman Catholic when he preached the sermon on Mary. Shortly after the sermon (October 10, 1522), Zwingli gave up being a priest. This source states, 

After this sermon Zwingli made his break with the Roman Catholic Church. On October 10, 1522 the Zurich council released him from his priestly duties by creating a preaching office. This was not the introduction of the Reformation, that was still over two years away, and the breaking of the Lenten fast and public criticism of saints and images in the churches remained contrary to the will of the magistrates, but it marked Zwingli's definitive break with the Catholic priesthood.

An edited excerpt of the sermon has been partly translated into English here. An interesting sectional overview can be found here. For English speakers, this overview gives a fair and helpful overview of the entire sermon... and it was done by a Roman Catholic scholar. 

According to this source, the sermon was prompted by a disputation Zwingli was earlier involved in which he critiqued traditional Mariology. This source mentions, "For four hours they disputed on prayers to the Virgin Mary and the saints, with Zwingli convincing [French preacher Francis] Lambert [of Avignon] that such prayers were unscriptural." An overview:

After this disputation, rumors spread that Zwingli had denigrated Mary. Zwingli's later sermon on Mary is therefore a "defense against those accusations which charged him with having defamed the Mother of God in public and lowered her prominence" (source). This author continues about the sermon:  

He clearly recognizes the term "Mother of God" as well as her permanent and unblemished virginity. However, he definitely rejects Mary's mediatorship and the religious veneration accorded her person. Faith in Christ is diminished when in the confessional the reciting of the Ave Maria (cf. Luke 1:28) is ordered. The right veneration of Mary is to see in her an example of strict morals, modesty, and firmness in faith: "If you seek to honor Mary especially, follow her in her purity, innocence and firm faith" (z 1, 426, 22f).

Context

Hierumb so wüsse ein ieder, das dis die höchst eer ist, die man Marie mag thủn, das man die gůthat' ires suns, uns armen sünderen bewisen, recht erkenne, recht ere, zů imm louffe umb alle gnad; denn gott hat inn gesetzt ein gnädigung für unser sünd durch sin eigen blüt, ja so wir sölchen glouben zů imm habend Rom. 3. 25. Denn er ein einiger mitler ist zwüschend got und den menschen, in dem, das er sich ein rantzung oder loßgelt ußgeben hatt für alle menschen 1. Tim. 2. 31. Ja, der die zůversicht und vertruwen zů dem sun Marie hat, der hat sy am höchsten geeret; denn all ir eer ist ir sun. Und so ich ieman fragte: Was ist das gröst ding ann Marien, weyß ich wol, er mußte antwurten: Das sy uns den sun gottes, der uns erlößt, geboren hat. Ist nun ir gröste eer ir sun, so ist ouch ir gröste eer, das man den recht erkenne, inn ob allen dingen lieb hab, imm ewenklich danckbar sy umb die gúthat, uns bewisen. Dann ie me die eer und liebe Christi Jesu wachßt under den menschen, ie me das werd und eer Marie wachßt, das sy uns den so grossen doch gnädigen herren und erlöser geborn hat. Wiltu aber Mariam besunderlich eeren, so volg nach irer reinigkeit, unschuld und vestem glouben, und so du ein Ave Maria bettest und bedacht hast zum ersten den fürnemen handel unserer erlösung, wie obstat, gedenck darnach, das die, so großer gnaden und eeren von got begabet, ist nüt deß minder arm xin, hat durchächtung, schmertzen und ellend müssen lyden, in den dingen sy aber allen unabgewendt bliben ist. Und tröst darnach din armůt und widerwertigkeit mit iro, das sölche iamer so gewüß den menschen gegnen? 

Textual Issues

One will notice that the context given above is in German... but in actuality, it's in a type of German / Swiss dialect. Checking independently with a few friends, I can safely provide this updated English translation of the quote in question:

"The more the honor and love of Christ Jesus grows among the people, as it grows, also the honor of Mary grows because she has born for us the very great and gracious Lord and Savior."

or:

"The more honor and love for Jesus Christ grows among the people, the more worth and honor for Mary grows for bearing us the great yet benevolent Lord and Savior." 

George Tavard likewise translates the text similarly, and includes more of the context:

The more the honor and love of Christ Jesus has increased among humans, the more has the honor and appreciation of Mary increased, since she has born for us such a great and gracious Lord and redeemer. But if you wish especially to honor Mary, follow her purity, her innocence, and her strong faith. And when you say an Ave Maria and you have first thought what a great thing, as was said above, it is for our redemption, think also secondly that, with this great grace and honor given her by God, she has not become less poor herself and she has had to bear persecution, pain, and misery, in which however she has remained with a strong heart. And therefore may you, with your poverty and your weariness, find an example in her: This misery that is so well known to humans must be born, since the Holy Mother of God was not sheltered from it...

Compare all of this with what's been floating around the Internet for twenty years:

"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow."

First, O'Meara says Marian honor should grow among people. The word "should" being used sounds like it may be being used as a moral imperative (a moral action that must be done). The use of the word "should" leads to questions as to whether the sentence is descriptive or normative. Is the sentence describing something that is the case (descriptive), or is it describing something that ought to happen (normative)? Whichever the translator intended, of the three alternate translations above, none include "should."  One source told me the word "should" isn't in the original text. 

The solution as to descriptive or normative is solved by the context. Notice O'Meara's English version didn't translate the entire sentence! He left out, "...because she has born for us the very great and gracious Lord and Savior." Zwingli is being descriptive.  Zwingli wasn't saying honor Christ and increase your honor of Mary. Zwingli was stating a historical fact: The more the honor and love of Christ Jesus increased throughout church history, the more has the honor and appreciation of Mary increased as well. 

Zwingli then explains the correct way to "especially honor Mary": "follow her purity, her innocence, and her strong faith." One does not honor Mary for her intrinsic qualities of greatness or intercession. George Tavard (a Roman Catholic scholar) interprets Zwingli's notion of correct devotion:

Conclusion

In summary: the quote, "The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow," has significant difficulties. First, it's often documented incorrectly. Second, it was actually written while Zwingli was still technically a Roman Catholic and also previous to the introduction of the Reformation in Zurich ("... the introduction of the Reformation, that was still over two years away, and the breaking of the Lenten fast and public criticism of saints and images in the churches remained contrary to the will of the magistrates..."). Third, the word translated "should" is not in the original text. The use of "should" without a context makes the quote at best ambiguous, at worst incorrectly either an imperative or a normative statement. Fourth, Zwingli explains the correct way to "especially honor Mary": "follow her purity, her innocence, and her strong faith." The honor is for one to modify their behavior by mirroring Mary's behavior. Zwingli reserves worshipful honor to Christ.  

I realize Rome's apologists read this blog. I can visualize some of them tapping away a rebuttal. Before they do this, I would respectfully ask they keep the following point in mind.

1. Zwingli had a Mariology

I believe that Ulrich Zwingli had a Mariology, in fact, I would agree with George Tavard when he said Zwingli was "the most Marian figure of the Reformation" among the early Reformers.  Yes, Zwingli said things about Mary modern Protestants would not say. He believed things about Mary that modern Protestants would not. Rome's defenders need to balance this though with the historical truth that Zwingli's Mariology also differed with the Roman Catholic Mariology of his day, particularly popular beliefs about Mary.

2.  Zwingli said nice things about Mary

There's no denying Zwingli said nice things about Mary. A point I've often made in regard to Luther, applies to Zwingli as well: saying nice things about Mary is not the same thing as Roman Catholic Marian devotion and honor, both then and now. The question that needs to be asked is what exactly is Marian devotion and veneration? What does it mean for a Roman Catholic to be devoted to or venerate Mary, and what does it mean for Zwingli to be devoted, honor, or venerate Mary? Rome's defenders should not be allowed to equivocate. Zwingli saying nice things about Mary does not equal Rome's version of devotion. I do not deny that Zwingli spoke favorably about Mary, but when Roman Catholics say "honor" or “venerate,” they mean something different than Zwingli, as demonstrated above.

3.The transitional early Reformers

Like Luther, there are quotes about Mary from Zwingli peppered throughout his writings that may "surprise" a reader. I suspect the quotes would be most surprising to someone ignorant of church history, particularly those unaware of the ebb and flow of trends and traditions, both within Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. It's true that the early Reformers made comments about Mary that current Protestants would not make. But similarly, there are comments made by Protestants today that would probably surprise the early Reformers. This isn't, to use the cliché, rocket science. The Marian climate of the early Protestant world is not the Marian climate of the current theological landscape. When the Reformers broke with Rome, they were, in some regard, transitional figures. To steal a concept from Alister McGrath: the Reformers demonstrated both continuity and discontinuity with the period which immediately preceded it. It shouldn't be at all surprising then to discover elements of the Reformer's Mariology that echoed the medieval theological worldview. Contrarily, it should also not be surprising to discover there were elements of their understanding of Mary that broke with the medieval theological worldview. Such is the case with this Zwingli quote. 

Addendum: Zwingli's Opposition to the Worship of Mary

By far, the best Zwingli blog is Zwinglius Redivivus by Jim West. He has posted, Zwingli's Opposition to the Worship of Mary.  He located this section from
The Latin Works and the Correspondence of Huldreich Zwingli (Vol. 2):

II. From this, most gracious King, you see clearly that we do not dismiss the saints nor the sacraments, nor move them from their place, as some men say that we do, but that we keep and guard them in their proper place and dignity, that no man may use them wrongly. We do not insult Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, when we forbid that she be adored with divine honors; but when we would attribute to her the majesty and power of the Creator, she herself would not permit such adoration. For true piety has one and the same character among all men and is the same in all, because it originates by one and the same Spirit. It cannot even be imagined, therefore, that any created being should at the same time be pious and suffer the worship due the Deity to be offered to himself. So also the Virgin Mother of God will as much the less accept the worship due the Deity as she is high above all created beings and reverently devoted to God, her Son. It is a mark of insanity in godless men and demons when they allow divine honors to be paid to them. This is proved by the images of demons and the arrogance of Herod, of whom the first, by teaching worship of themselves, deceived the world to its destruction, and the second, not refusing the divine honors offered him, was struck with phthiriasis, that he might learn to recognize the feebleness of man.

How a 16th Century Roman Apologist Understood the Mariology of the Reformers

Those of you familiar with basic Reformation history should know the name of Roman Catholic theologian and apologist, Johann Eck.  Johann Eck's 404 Theses, 1530 is an interesting look at how he understood the beliefs of the Reformers. Eck was perhaps the top Roman apologist of his day.

Here is a brief summary as to how Eck understood the Mariology of the Reformers. I present this because there are Roman apologists today that argue "the Reformers accepted almost every major Marian doctrine and considered these doctrines to be both scriptural and fundamental to the historic Christian Faith." Sometimes they'll go as far as saying the Mariology of the Reformers has been "covered up." Note below, Eck was certain the Reformers had a quite a different "Mariology" than what was the norm during the 16th Century.

Against Mary:

91] Christ said to Mary: "What have I to do with thee!" meaning: Because you are a woman you think that some special favor will be shown you by me on the ground of a merit of prerogative. Understand, however, that you have no more influence with me than the woman who was a sinner, or the Syrophenician (Melanchthon) .

92] Christ permitted Mary to err (Luther). And Joseph wanted to desert her under the suspicion of adultery (ib).

93] When Christ preached, the centurion had greater faith than Mary; for while Christ gave his mother great faith at the conception and nativity, afterwards it was not, or only rarely, so great, and meanwhile he permitted it to waver (Luther).

94] The contradictory of the statement that the Blessed Virgin was conceived without original sin has not been censured ( Luther.)

95] We certainly are just as holy as Mary (Luther). On this account, we are unwilling to have her as an advocate.

96] That on the day of the nativity of Mary we use the Epistle concerning the wisdom of God, and the Gospel concerning the nativity of Christ, is a falsehood and blasphemy ( Luther, the Nurembergers).

97] The "salve regina, " "regina cceli" are improper, and do a wrong to Christ, since they ascribe to a creature what belongs to God (Heathen; the Nurembergers; Luther).

98] Your prayer, says Luther, is just as precious as that of Mary, because you can aid me just as much as she.

99] Christ was unwilling to comply with the curiosity of Mary, when she asked for a miracle when the wine failed (Zwingli).

100] Claustra virginitatis Mariae in partu fuerunt aperta et dimota (Luther.)

101] I hate no festival more than that of the Conception of Mary, and that of Corpus Christi (Luther).

Luther "interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was 'born of a woman' alone"

A Roman Catholic webpage states:
"Perpetual Virginity- Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary's perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was "born of a woman" alone."

This is another quote from the propaganda piece, The Protestant Reformers on Mary. In terms of polemical value, there's really nothing about this quote that shows "...the Marian teachings and preachings of the Reformers have been 'covered up' by their most zealous followers - with damaging theological and practical consequences." First, it's certainly common knowledge that Luther affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary. Second, Luther's interpretation of Galatians 4:4 isn't in regard to perpetual virginity, but rather the virgin birth.

Documentation
No Documentation is given.

Context
4. But when the time had fully come, God sent forth His Son, born of woman, born under the Law,
5. to redeem those who were under the Law.

That is: “After the time of the Law had been completed, and Christ was now revealed and had delivered us from the Law, and the promise had been spread abroad to all nations, etc.”

Note carefully how Paul defines Christ here. Christ, he says, is the Son of God and of the woman. He was born under the Law on account of us sinners, to redeem us who were under the Law. In these words Paul has included both the Person and the work of Christ. The Person is made up of the divine and the human nature. He indicates this clearly when he says: “God sent forth His Son, born of woman.” Therefore Christ is true God and true man. Paul describes His work in these words: “Born under the Law, to redeem those who were under the Law.”

It seems that Paul insults the Virgin, the mother of the Son of God, by calling her simply “woman.” This bothered some of the ancient fathers, who would have preferred that he use the title “virgin” here rather than “woman.” But in this epistle Paul is dealing with the most important and sublime subject matter: the Gospel, faith, Christian righteousness, the definition of the Person of Christ, the meaning of His work, what He undertook and accomplished on our behalf, and what blessings He brought to us miserable sinners. The magnitude of this awesome subject matter was the reason why he did not consider the matter of virginity. It was enough for him to proclaim the inestimable and infinite mercy of God, that God saw fit to have His Son born of the female sex; therefore he mentions, not the worthiness of this sex but merely the sex itself. By mentioning the sex he indicates that Christ Himself was made a true man by birth from the female sex. It is as though he were to say: “He was born, not of a male and a female but merely of the female sex.” When he merely mentions the female sex, therefore, his phrase “born of woman” is the same as though he were saying “born of a virgin.” 

Luther, M. (1999, c1963). Vol. 26: Luther's works, vol. 26 : Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (26:367). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

John Calvin Most Commonly Referred to Mary as "Holy Virgin"?

Here's an alleged John Calvin fact:

"John Calvin: It has been said that John Calvin belonged to the second generation of the Reformers and certainly his theology of double predestination governed his views on Marian and all other Christian doctrine . Although Calvin was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was 'Holy Virgin'."

This is another quote from the propaganda piece, The Protestant Reformers on Mary. This article states, "...the Marian teachings and preachings of the Reformers have been 'covered up' by their most zealous followers - with damaging theological and practical consequences." The quote from Calvin is supposed to suggest that Calvin most often called Mary, "Holy Virgin" while later Protestants do not. Keep in mind, "Holy Virgin" does not mean Calvin held to the immaculate conception (he did not). The phrase was  simply a common way to refer to Mary.

Since no documentation is given, I'm not sure exactly where this fact came from. It's possible it came from David F. Wright (ed.), Chosen By God, Mary in Evangelical Perspective (London: Marshall Pickering, 1989), p. 175 via a Roman apologist like Peter Stravinskas. Wright states,

Calvin insists that Mary 'cherished the Son of God as much in her heart through faith as in her womb by conception... Mary's happiness in bearing Christ in her womb is not the fist thing — that honour actually is second in degree to [her] rebirth into newness of life by the Spirit of Christ' She was pronounced blessed in believing. 'It is quite absurd to teach tat we are to seek from her anything which she receives otherwise than we do ourselves.' Calvin commonly speaks of Mary as 'the holy Virgin' (and rarely simply as 'Mary' preferring 'the Virgin' etc), and also reasons that 'no great effort is required from us to clear her from all fault' when her response to Gabriel 'How will this be?' (Luke 1:34), appears to put a false limit on God's power. But even if Calvin rarely depicts Mary expressly as a sinner, he objected to her specific exclusion from the reach of original sin by the Council of Trent. he also argued that the Purification of Mary and Joseph in the temple (Luke 2:22-4) was necessitated by the universality of original sin — although even here his language is general rather than particular in its reference. Zwingli likewise often called Mary 'pure, holy, spotless', without offering an unambiguous commitment to either her immaculate conception or her sinlessness.

It appears to me that this comment from Wright that Calvin commonly speaks of Mary as the "Holy Virgin" turned into Calvin most commonly refers to Mary as the "Holy Virgin" at the hands of a Roman Catholic defender.  I assume it's within the realm of possibility that someone has gone through Calvin's writings and kept score, but I doubt that any of the current Roman defenders have done so.  While not meant to be conclusive, I did a basic search for the term "Holy Virgin" in my Ages Software, The Comprehensive John Calvin Collection. I counted approximately 30 instances of the phrase. When I searched for the term "Mary" (taking into consideration the various women named Mary in the Bible), I gave up counting, because the name was used so frequently. Unless the English translators of Calvin's writings have inserted the name "Mary" where it says in the original "Virgin" or "Holy Virgin," it appears to me David Wright is in error when he says Calvin rarely uses "Mary" preferring "the Holy Virgin" or "the Virgin."

The Protestant Reformers on Mary

Over the years I've worked through a basic Roman Catholic article that documents the Mariology of the Reformers. The article is sometimes called, "The Protestant Reformers on Mary." For instance, if you Google search one of the first lines, you can see how far this little piece of propaganda has traveled. The article exists in various forms, but this appears to be one of its most basic: The Protestant Reformers on Mary. You can find versions of this webpage as far back as 2000. Sometimes the article ends with "Unfortunately the Marian teachings and preachings of the Reformers have been 'covered up' by their most zealous followers." No they have not! A look at the evidence shows no such thing.

At this point, if I ever did know who compiled the quotes for the article and placed the article in its basic form, I no longer remember. It's obvious that whoever did it took the quotes from secondary sources, because the footnotes typically refer to out-of-print non-English sources. A few years ago one Roman Catholic layman did attempt to give a version of the article some credibility by taking my research documenting the actual contexts and revising the basic article.

Since I still find this propaganda cited, below are links of those quotes and propositions I've been able to find contexts for over the years. As I come across more information, I'll revise this entry.

Martin Luther

"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God" [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], volume 24, 107.]

"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin." [2 Martin Luther, op. cit., Volume 11, 319-320.]

Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary's perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was "born of a woman" alone

The Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn)

"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..." [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], Volume 4, 694.]

"There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know"  [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works (Translation by William J. Cole) 10, p. 268.]

To the end Luther continued to proclaim that Mary should be honored. He made it a point to preach on her feast days.

"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart" [ [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works]

Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing."Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546. [Translation by William J. Cole) 10, III, p.313.]


John Calvin

The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was "Holy Virgin."

"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God" [ John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 35.]

"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ." Calvin translated "brothers" in this context to mean cousins or relatives" [ Bernard Leeming, "Protestants and Our Lady", Marian Library Studies, January 1967, p.9.]

"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor" [John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 348.]

"To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son." [ John Calvin, A Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke (St. Andrew's Press, Edinburgh, 1972), p.32.]


Ulrich Zwingli

"It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God" [ Ulrich Zwingli, In Evang. Luc., Opera Completa [Zurich, 1828-42], Volume 6, I, 639]

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin" [ Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 424.]

Zwingli used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.

"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary." [ E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., (Rome, 1962), 456.]

"Christ ... was born of a most undefiled Virgin" [Ibid.]

"It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother"  [Ibid.]

"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow" [Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 427-428.]