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

A Concocted Roman Catholic Luther Quote: "Mary is the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ. She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures."

This picture has circulated Facebook for a few years... typically posted by Roman Catholics. I've been through this quote before, but it deserves a fresh look.  I now believe this quote is comprised of words from different sources... and some of the words presented in this picture are not a direct citation of Luther, but rather are from a secondary source, thus rendering this quote a concocted Roman Catholic hodgepodge at best or a fabrication and propaganda at worst. 

This one is a little tricky to work through.  

What is this Quote Saying?
While not present in the picture above, this quote usually consists of four sentences from Luther, not three:

1. Mary is the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ.

2. She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified.

3. We can never honor her enough.

4. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures.

When this quote is broken down into individual sentences, it demonstrates an over-the-top expression of Roman Catholic Mariology... said to come from the pen of Martin Luther.  Luther begins by calling Mary the "noblest gem" in Christianity, to then referring to her as the personification of nobility wisdom and holiness, then calling for her excessive honor... then weirdly qualifying all of this by preaching: do not go too far with these Marian facts. 

Not go too far? Think about it: Luther's just claimed Mary is almost as great as Jesus Christ, and like him, she's nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified! Luther also implies one should be in a perpetual state of honoring her... but... don't go too far in your honor and praise or you may injure Christ and the Bible! 

If you're skeptical that Luther actually said this in this order (or at all) or he's been taken out of context... then kudos to you for your discernment!

I contend that only sentences #1 and #3 are possibly based on Luther's Christmas sermon of 1531 (often documented as WA 34, 2, 497 and 499). Sentence #2 appears to be from a 1537 sermon. I've yet to discover a meaningful primary source for sentence #4. What complicates this even more is that in this typical English rendering, I believe sentences 2, 3, and 4 were not originally a direct citation of Luther, but rather a summary statement from a secondary English source. In essence, Roman Catholics have concocted a Luther quote to promote their version of Mariology.

Documentation & Partial Contexts
In my previous entries I determined the English version of this quote circulating the Internet appears to have been directly taken from William Cole’s article "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" (Marian Studies Volume XXI, 1970, p.131). Cole states:

In a Christmas sermon of 1531, Luther speaks of Mary as the "highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ." He goes on to claim that "she is nobility, wisdom and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures” (WA 34, 2, 497 and 499).

For years I've taken William Cole at his word that he utilized WA 34.2:497; 499 to construct the entirety of this quote (from two different pages separated by an entire page!). Back in 2015 though I discovered a curiosity of this Luther quote from Cole: there are phrases missing from WA 34.2:497; 499. "She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified" and "Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures" are not present on either of these pages in WA 34.2 cited by Cole. Now I think I know why. 

William Cole appears to have concocted this quote, at least in part, from possibly utilizing another secondary Roman Catholic source: Thomas O'Meara, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology (Cole cites O'Meara multiple times in his article).  In O'Meara's text (which predates Cole) we find the following: 

By the 1530’s Luther was stern in his condemnations. "The Salve Regina says too much." "The Papists have made Mary an idol." "We will keep celebrating the feast [of the Visitation] to remind us that they taught us apostasy." Yet, in Luther’s Christmas sermon of 1531, Mary is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Honor and prayer must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures.

Notice the words in bold type: these are almost the exact words cited by Cole as coming from Luther via WA 34, 2, 497 and 499 (except Cole says "praise" while O'Meara says "prayer"). Notice particularly: O'Meara does not document these assertions, nor is he directly quoting Luther from the Christmas sermon of 1531 (he does not contain Luther's words using quotation marks). It looks suspiciously like Cole lifted the quote from O'Meara. He then added the word "still" and botched the word "prayer" by using the word, "praise." 

Back in 2015 I thought maybe I was missing something Cole saw in WA 34.2:497,499. The primary source is confusing. It contains two different versions of Luther's sermon on the same page, and both versions are a mixture of German and Latin. As I've been revisiting this source, I've yet to discover the entirety of what Cole or O'Meara are claiming is actually there. True, there are aspects of this quote that appear to be from WA 34, 2, 497 and 499 (actually, 500). For instance, Cole says "Luther speaks of Mary as the 'highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ.'" This sentence may be based on WA 34.2:497, 

Here's a broader context from the English translation:

17. Ah, Lord God, everyone ought open his hands here, take hold of and joyfully receive this child, whom this mother, the Virgin Mary, bears, suckles, cares for, and tends. Now, indeed, I have become lord and master and the noble mother, who was born of royal lineage, becomes my maid and servant! Ah! for shame, that I do not exult and glory in this, that the prophet says, This child is mine, it was for my sake and for the sake of us all that he has been born, to be my Savior and the Savior of us all! That is the way in which this mother serves me and us all with her own body.  Really we all ought to be ashamed with all our hearts. For what are all the maids, servants, masters, mistresses, princes, kings, and monarchs on earth compared with the Virgin Mary, who was born of royal lineage, and withal became the mother of God, the noblest woman on earth? After Christ, she is the most precious jewel in all Christendom. And this noblest woman on earth is to serve me and us all by bearing this child and giving him to be our own! It is about this that this beautiful festival preaches and sings: "To you this night is born a child Of Mary, chosen virgin mild; This little child, of lowly birth, Shall be the joy of all the earth. This is the Christ, our God and Lord, Who in all need shall aid afford; He will himself your Savor be From all your sins to set you free."

 Cole also quotes Luther saying, "We can never honor her enough." This sentence appears to be based on WA 34.2:500, not WA 34.2:499 (this documentation issue is yet another error perpetuated by contemporary Roman Catholics),

Here's a broader context from the English translation:

24. Under the papacy only the mother has been praised and extolled. True it is, she is worthy of praise and can never be praised and extolled enough. For this honor is so great and wonderful, to be chosen before all women on earth to become the mother of this child. Nevertheless, We should not praise and extol the mother in such a way as to allow this child who has been born unto us to be removed from before our eyes and hearts and to think less highly of him than of the mother. If one praises the mother, the praise ought to be like the wide ocean. If either one is to be forgotten, it is better to forget the mother rather than the child. Under the papacy, however, the child has all but been forgotten, and attention riveted only on the mother. But the mother has not been born for our sakes; she does not save us from sin and death. She has, indeed, begotten the Savior! for this reason we are to wean ourselves away from the mother and bind ourselves firmly to this child alone!

It looks to me like Cole tried to document O'Meara's summary words with WA 34, 2, 497 and 499 (since O'Meara wrote, "Christmas sermon of 1531"). The problem though is O'Meara made errors. First, it's doubtful Luther told anyone in 1531-532 to pray to Mary. Second, the phrase "She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified" may possibly be based on an entirely different sermon from 1537 found in WA 45:105 where Luther states: "hochgelobt über allen Adel, Weisheit, Heiligkeit!" Curiously, O'Meara does directly cite this phrase from Luther on page 80 of his book: "No woman is like unto thee! you are more than an empress or a queen! you are more than Eve or Sarah; blessed above- all nobility, wisdom or saintliness!" William Cole also cites this quote in his article (132), seemingly unaware of the odd similarity to the other quote and that WA 34.2:497, 499 doesn't say anything about Mary being the personification of these virtues.  

I have yet to directly locate "Honor and praise [prayer] must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures." If, as I believe, O'Meara is responsible for this sentence, and merely intended it to be summary statement, he says as much in his book:

Luther’s principle for Marian theology appears in a final sermon on the Feast of the Assumption. If Mary detracts from Christ and God (and Luther is becoming more convinced that she has done so in the past), then we must practice christocentric moderation. Mary must be honored, but Christ must be the matrix of this veneration. Mary exists for Christ alone, and this is the view of the Bible.

The "final sermon" being referenced is from 1522... but Luther does not say what O'Meara says he does. You can see the context here. There isn't anything about honoring Mary by practicing "christocentric moderation." Maybe O'Meara was simply summarizing the quote above from WA 34.2:500 ("We should not praise and extol the mother in such a way as to allow this child who has been born unto us to be removed from before our eyes and hearts and to think less highly of him than of the mother"...etc.)? Could this be what O'Meara summarized as "Still honor and prayer must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures"? If it is, it's a terrible synopsis!

Conclusion

Let's first recount the tedious errors.

1. Luther isn't being directly cited by contemporary Roman Catholic apologists. They are citing William Cole's article, "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?"

2. Many Roman Catholics claim to be using one linear quote, yet their own documentation demonstrates the quote comes from three pages of text shrunk down to four sentences.  

3. Of the four sentences in the quote, only two of them can possibly be construed to come from the same primary source (WA 34.2).

4. Three of the English sentences are a summary statement from a secondary source (Thomas O'Meara, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology). That source isn't quoting Luther, and it doesn't provide meaningful documentation.

5. William Cole miscited O'Meara by using the English word "praise" (O'Meara used "prayer"). Contemporary Roman Catholics perpetuate this error.

6. Quote #3 is from a completely different sermon (WA 45:105). There is nothing in WA 34.2:497,499 about Mary being the personification of nobility, wisdom, and holiness.

7. WA 34.2:499 is not where quote #3 is potentially located. If it's in this text at all, it's on page 500.

8. Quote #4 is either a poor summary statement of WA 34.2:500, an unrelated summary statement to WA 34.2:500, or is a Luther quote from some other source. 

Ultimately, this botched citation appears to originate from Thomas O'Meara, then picking up momentum from William Cole. There is a sense in which I cut these old writers some slack. They composed their material by utilizing physical books and typewriters. They did not have the digital technology available now. They were scholars often much more competent than we are. They had to work much harder in presenting their material. I'm more amazed by the work they did rather than the errors they made!

Now though, a number of contemporary Roman Catholic webpages and books are freely utilizing this quote... none apparently taking the time to verify it. This unfortunately, is typical of contemporary Roman Catholic apologetics. I don't cut any of them slack. They have the same digital technology I have. If I can figure it out, they can also.

A reputable English translation of this sermon can be found in The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, Vol. 7 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), p. 209-220. The sermon is entitled, "Festival of Christ's Nativity" (first sermon), based on Isaiah 9:1-7. I've had this information available online since 2015. Many of the English citations above were taken from this source. This English translation appears to have combined both versions of the sermon found in WA 34.2 along with the footnotes.

I mention this source for those of you who've made it to this point in this entry and think: well, Luther did say Mary is "the noblest woman on earth" and "after Christ, she is the most precious jewel in all Christendom." I urge you: track this sermon down. Luther barely mentions Mary. She is not the focus of the sermon, at all. Roman Catholics have culled content together (from multiple sources) to create a caricature. They will ignore the entire point of this sermon in order to elevate Mary and bring Luther in as their supporter. 

As I've stated in the past, there's no denying Luther said nice things about Mary. Luther though abandoned the distinction between latria and dulia. If you search out all the times Luther used the word “veneration,” you will find an entirely negative meaning applied to the term. 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 Luther to be devoted to or venerate Mary? If you look closely at the text that begins with point 24 above, Luther chastised the papacy for its treatment of Mary. So, challenge Roman Catholic apologists to define their terms. They need to be able to tell you what Marian devotion is. They cannot be allowed to equivocate: Luther saying nice things about Mary does not equal Rome's version of devotion.  I do not deny that Luther spoke favorably about Mary, but when Catholics say "honor" or “devotion,” they mean something quite different than Luther!

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.

John Calvin, The Mother of God, and The Great Protestant Cover-up

Here's a John Calvin quote that repeatedly appears on polemical Roman Catholic web-pages:

"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.

Why would Rome's defenders be citing such a seemingly innocuous comment from Calvin? What's so controversial about Calvin saying "Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord" (Luke 1:43) or that the child in the womb of Mary was God incarnate? Calvin, to my knowledge, has never been charged with denying the divinity of Jesus. Nor have I ever found any charges that Calvin believed the child in Mary's womb was merely a man that became divine at some later date (Calvin explicitly argues against that). What's going on with the defenders of Rome?

This version of the Calvin quote above comes from an early pop-apologetic Roman Catholic web-page entitled, The Protestant Reformers on Mary I've never been able to determine who originally  put this web-page together (see my review here).  The page goes back at least as early as 2000. Whoever did put it together, I doubt they realized how often the content would be cut-and-pasted for years, now, decades. This old web-page was dedicated to showing "fundamentalists" "that the 'Reformers' accepted almost every major Marian doctrine and considered these doctrines to be both scriptural and fundamental to the historic Christian Faith." Without overtly saying it, what it appears the web-page is attempting to do is demonstrate that Calvin believed Mary was "the Mother of God," that controversial title oft-used by Roman Catholics dripping with the devotion to and the intercession of, Mary; or, as the encyclical of Pope Pius XII from 1954 states,

From the earliest ages of the Catholic Church a Christian people, whether in time of triumph or more especially in time of crisis, has addressed prayers of petition and hymns of praise and veneration to the Queen of Heaven. And never has that hope wavered which they placed in the Mother of the Divine King, Jesus Christ; nor has that faith ever failed by which we are taught that Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, reigns with a mother's solicitude over the entire world, just as she is crowned in heavenly blessedness with the glory of a Queen.

Other Roman Catholic websites are more overt that their "Mother of God" meaning is intended to be extrapolated from Calvin's words. Using this quote, John Pasquini states in his books Catholic Answers to Protestant Questions and True Christianity the Catholic Way, "Even John Calvin recognized the reality of Mary as the Mother of God!" EWTN hosts a web-page that states, "The French reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) also held that Mary was the Mother of God."  Raymond De Souza uses the quote as proof  that "Luther, Calvin and Zwingli preserved it intact in their systems of distorted doctrines" and that "Protestantism, unhesitatingly called the Holy Virgin 'Mother of God (theotokos).'" The Seekers Guide to Mary says, "Calvin also held that Mary was the Mother of God" and use the quote "In Calvin's own words." These are but a few examples from a seemingly endless pool of Google hits. 

As their argument typically goes, the original Reformers had a rich, almost Roman Catholic Marian piety, but, as The Protestant Reformers on Mary web-page says, "Unfortunately the Marian teachings and preachings of the Reformers have been "covered up" by their most zealous followers - with damaging theological and practical consequences." Why did this happen? Because the descendants of the Reformation had "iconoclastic passion"  towards Marian piety. Now, it's up to Rome's defenders to do deep historical research into the Reformation and demonstrate to modern-day Protestants how far they've strayed from likes of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. One Roman Catholic web-page utilizing the Calvin quote argues, "The longer and the further Protestant strayed from the Catholic Church, the more watered down all the Catholic Truths became including their love and devotion to Mary. But originally, the three main fathers of Protestantism loved their heavenly mother."  Now, "Mother of God" is a phrase rarely used by Protestantism, mostly ignored, sometimes derided and abhorred.

Let's take a closer look at this quote, check the documentation, put it back in its context, and then explore John Calvin's use of the phrase and concept, "Mother of God." Let's see what happens when we dare to uncover what Calvin thought about the phrase and concept, "Mother of God." We'll find there actually is a "cover-up" going on, but it's not a hiding of of Calvin saying "Mother of God" in his extant treatises.

Documentation
I suspect that the English version of this quote may have originally been taken from Michael O'Carroll, Theotokos, a Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary, p. 94. Note the similarities of its popular Internet use to the English rendering from O'Carroll:

O'Carroll's book documents two Calvin quotes here, "CR, 45, 348 and 35." Notice how this old EWTN page seemingly lifted the Calvin quotes from O'Carroll. The author of the EWTN article, Dr. Robert J. Schihl, mentions the information was an excerpt from his own book, A Biblical Apologetic of the Catholic Faith. I suspect that the popular online presentation of the documentation (John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 35) was placed in this form by Dr. Schihl (see page 131 of his book). It appears to me that Dr. Schihl lifted O'Carroll's Calvin quotes and presented the research as his own and filled out the references. Interestingly, Dr. Schihl actually quotes O'Carroll on the same page, but never mentions him as his Calvin source. Or, it may be Dr. Schihl just cut-and-pasted someone else's use of O'Carroll. Someone, at some time, translated these Calvin quotes into English and my guess is it was O'Carroll, not Schihl or any of the online Roman Catholic polemicists.

The "CR" reference provided by O'Carroll refers to the Corpus Reformatorum, which is an old collection of Latin Reformation writings. The series contains a number of volumes of Calvin's writings. Here is a link to where Joannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia vol. 45 can be found, and here is the text of the quote in question being referred to on page 35:

The text being cited is Calvin's comment on Luke 1:43. This text has been translated into English, most popularly by William Pringle in the 19th century, as part of  Calvin's Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists. A modern English translation is also available in print.  The translation below is from Rev. Pringle (link). The quote under scrutiny is in bold type.

Context

43. And whence is this to me? The happy medium observed by Elisabeth is worthy of notice. She thinks very highly of the favors bestowed by God on Mary, and gives them just commendation, but yet does not praise them more highly than was proper, which would have been a dishonor to God. For such is the native depravity of the world, that there are few persons who are not chargeable with one of these two faults. Some, delighted beyond measure with themselves, and desirous to shine alone, enviously despise the gifts of God in their brethren; while others praise them in so superstitious a manner as to convert them into idols. The consequence has been, that the first rank is assigned to Mary, and Christ is lowered as it were to the footstool. Elisabeth, again, while she praises her, is so far from hiding the Divine glory, that she ascribes everything to God. And yet, though she acknowledges the superiority of Mary to herself and to others, she does not envy her the higher distinction, but modestly declares that she had obtained more than she deserved.

She calls Mary the mother of her Lord. This denotes a unity of person in the two natures of Christ; as if she had said, that he who was begotten a mortal man in the womb of Mary is, at the same time, the eternal God. For we must bear in mind, that she does not speak like an ordinary woman at her own suggestion, but merely utters what was dictated by the Holy Spirit. This name Lord strictly belongs to the Son of God “manifested in the flesh,” (1 Timothy 3:16) who has received from the Father all power, and has been appointed the highest ruler of heaven and earth, that by his agency God may govern all things. Still, he is in a peculiar manner the Lord of believers, who yield willingly and cheerfully to his authority; for it is only of “his body” that he is “the head,” (Ephesians 1:22, 23.) And so Paul says, “though there be lords many, yet to us,” that is, to the servants of faith, “there is one Lord,” (1 Corinthians 8:5, 6.) By mentioning the sudden movement of the babe which she carried in her womb, (ver. 44,) as heightening that divine favor of which she is speaking, she unquestionably intended to affirm that she felt something supernatural and divine.

Conclusion
First, the tedious part of this Calvin quote, the documentation, demonstrates how deep many of Rome's defenders actually go in their studies of church history.  I suspect Michael O'Carroll, actually did pull out Calvin's writings in Latin and translate particular quotes into English. As for the bulk of usages I've seen of this Calvin quote on-line, this English rendering has simply been cut-and-pasted endlessly, along with documentation to the Latin text, as if Rome's cyber-polemicists actually utilized "Calvini Opera" or the Corpus Reformatorum! This sort of endless cut-and-pasting strongly suggests Rome's apologists never checked the actual context, nor did they know or care that a useful English version of the entire context has been widely available since the 19th century.

Second, if there really is some sort of cover-up going on, isn't the context interesting as to how Calvin comments about praising Mary? If Calvin had some sort of deep devotion to the "Mother of God" where's the proof?  Calvin says that many people are guilty of praising in a "superstitious manner" and making idols: "The consequence has been, that the first rank is assigned to Mary, and Christ is lowered as it were to the footstool." Then in regard to Elizabeth, Calvin admits that Mary has a higher distinction than other people, but through the testimony of Elizabeth he says it's because Mary "obtained more than she deserved." When Calvin then goes on to comment on the phrase "the mother of her Lord" and  says the child in Mary's womb was "eternal God," there is an obvious lack of  praise and devotion directed toward Mary for anything she had done or deserved. David F. Wright observed,

It is Calvin's complaint against 'the papists' that their praises of Mary have obscured her greatest honour of all, and have robbed the Son of God of his own in order to dress her up in the sinful spoils of robbery. 'The praises of Mary, where the might and sheer goodness of God are not entirely set forth, are perverse and counterfeit.' So Calvin betrays some concern at the parallelism of the salutation of Elizabeth. 'Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!' (Luke 1:42). The connecting particle must be taken in a casual sense, for the blessedness of Mary is due to that of Christ [David Wright, Chosen By God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective, (London: Marshall Morgan and Scott, 1989) 178]. 

Earlier in his commentary, Calvin commenting on Luke 1:28 said that "Mary is blessed" "does not, in my opinion, mean, Worthy of praise; but rather means, Happy." Commenting on Luke 1:42 Mary is said to "blessed" because "God bestowed the remarkable honour of bringing into the world his own Son." Probably shocking to Calvin's original audience, he says,  "To carry Christ in her womb was not Mary’s first blessedness, but was greatly inferior to the distinction of being born again by the Spirit of God to a new life."  Yes, Calvin refers to Mary as "holy virgin" a few times in his commentary, but he never expounds on it in such a way as to lead his readers into any sort of devotion or praise of Mary. He goes as far as saying that while praising the day the Son was brought into the world, it should simply remind us of "the distinguished honor which God was pleased to bestow on Mary, in making her the mother of his Only Begotten Son." Being reminded of Mary's motherhood is a far cry from devotion to Mary as the "Mother of God." Commenting on Luke 1:48, Calvin says:

Hence we see how widely the Papists differ from her, who idly adorn her with their empty devices, and reckon almost as nothing the benefits which she received from God. They heap up an abundance of magnificent and very presumptuous titles, such as, “Queen of Heaven, Star of Salvation, Gate of Life, Sweetness, Hope, and Salvation.” Nay more, to such a pitch of insolence and fury have they been hurried by Satan, that they give her authority over Christ; for this is their pretty song, “Beseech the Father, Order the Son.”' None of these modes of expression, it is evident, proceeded from the Lord. All are disclaimed by the holy virgin in a single word, when she makes her whole glory to consist in acts of the divine kindness. If it was her duty to praise the name of God alone, who had done to her wonderful things, no room is left for the pretended titles, which come from another quarter. Besides, nothing could be more disrespectful to her, than to rob the Son of God of what is his own, to clothe her with the sacrilegious plunder.

Let Papists now go, and hold us out as doing injury to the mother of Christ, because we reject the falsehoods of men, and extol in her nothing more than the kindness of God. Nay, what is most of all honourable to her we grant, and those absurd worshippers refuse. We cheerfully acknowledge her as our teacher, and obey her instruction and commands. There certainly is no obscurity in what she says here; but the Papists throw it aside, trample it as it were under foot, and do all they can to destroy the credit of her statements. Let us remember that, in praising both men and angels, there is a general rule laid down, to extol in them the grace of God; as nothing is at all worthy of praise which did not proceed from Him.

Third, isn't it peculiar that Calvin never actually uses the phrase, "Mother of God" in the quote we've been examining?  Certainly it can be deduced from the context that "Mary is mother of the Lord" and the "mortal man in the womb of Mary is, at the same time, the eternal God." Why didn't Calvin just use the phrase "Mother of God"? Here's where it gets interesting: as I've gone through Calvin's writings, the phrase "Mother of God" or "Theotokos" is oddly missing. Could it be that the phrase is missing because future generations of Protestants expunged it from Calvin's writings as part of the nefarious Reformation Marian piety cover-up?

According to Roman Catholic writer Thomas O'Meara, "Calvin nowhere calls Mary Theotokos or the Mother of God." O'Meara states, "...the reason for his hesitancy on the use of the term 'Mother of God' seems to be based upon a fear of falling into what he saw as the excesses of the past." O'Meara then refers to a letter Calvin wrote "to a French Calvinist community in London in 1552."  Calvin wrote September 27, 1552 to the French Church in London. They had written to him and asked, "Is it lawful to call Mary the Mother of God?" Calvin responds, 

Concerning the other debatable points, I doubt not but there may have been somewhat of ignorance in their reproving the way of speaking of the Virgin Mary as the mother of God, and together with ignorance, it is possible that there may have been rashness and too much forwardness, for, as the old proverb says, The most ignorant are ever the boldest. However, to deal with you with brotherly frankness, I cannot conceal that that title being commonly attributed to the Virgin in sermons is disapproved, and, for my own part I cannot think such language either right, or becoming, or suitable. Neither will any sober-minded people do so, for which reason I cannot persuade myself that there is any such usage in your church, for it is just as if you were to speak of the blood, of the head, and of the death of God. You know that the Scriptures accustom us to a different style; but there is something still worse about this particular instance, for to call the Virgin Mary the mother of God, can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions. And he that would take a pleasure in that, shews clearly that he knows not what it is to edify the Church.

O'Meara concludes,

It is not an explicit rejection of Ephesus—for which Calvin has great respect—but rather the effect which this title had on devotional life in the past that explains why Calvin preferred other titles for Mary.

And this is exactly why Calvin avoided it and why many within Protestantism do today. James White once described this title as "the single most misused theological term around." Contemporary Protestants distance themselves from the title, "Mother of God," for good reason. The term has evolved in its usage. What was once a rich theological term expressing a doctrinal truth about Christ developed into a venerating praise to Mary. The gist of the term became heavily Mariological in popular piety, abandoning its Christological heritage (see my old comments here on this).  Calvin rightly says, "...for to call the Virgin Mary the mother of God, can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions." Elsewhere Calvin stated:

For the Sorbonnists, who so often make mention of their herd, (gregis,) have here proved, that they are a herd of swine. That invocation of the Virgin which they have hitherto used in seeking the grace of the Spirit, who sees not to be execrable blasphemy? to say nothing of those titles full of anathema, by which, while they would honor the Virgin, they most grievously insult her, calling her “the Queen of Heaven, and Treasury of Grace.” We hear how Christ tells us, that he will send the Spirit of truth from the Father, and bids us ask in his own name, (John 14:26; 15:26.) This, therefore, is the right rule of asking, and the sure method of obtaining. But to flee to the Virgin, passing by Christ, and in prayer to address her instead of God, who sees not to be a profane practice? It is assuredly altogether alien from the Word of God. Nay, there is extant a Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage, forbidding the invocation of saints at the altar. Here, also they (the Sorbonne) give a still clearer manifestation of their absurdity, when they say that this salutation is prescribed to us by the gospel. It is true, Gabriel was sent, as Luke relates, to salute the Virgin in these terms; but are we Gabriel? When was this ever commanded to us? What access have we to the Virgin, for the purpose of holding conference with her? Besides, why use the salutation at the time when they implore the influence of the Spirit, unless to pervert it into a form of prayer?

Yes, there's a cover-up going on, but it's not on the Protestant side. It's with Rome's defenders attempting to reinterpret John Calvin as a supporter of their particular brand of Mariology.  It's only by equivocating and playing fast and loose with terms does John Calvin become a supporter of Rome's Mary, the blessed and holy "Mother of God." Rome's defenders pour much more into the term "Mother of God" and Calvin realized this. There was a blatant attempt by Calvin and the Genevan government to suppress Romanism. That Calvin conscientiously avoided using "Theotokos" is just one instance of what was going on at the time. For example, there was a Genevan law in place which forbade parents to name their children after popular saints. One man spent a few days in jail for naming his child after a saint that had a shrine in the area!

Rome's defenders could counter all this and simply say John Calvin believed in the title "Mother of God" because he believed in the concept that Mary was the mother of Jesus who is God. But what would be the point?  The same argument could be made of me and countless others. No, we reject the deep devotional and intercessory role that their use of the phrase "Mother of God" implies within a Roman Catholic worldview.


Addendum #1, Trent Horn
I first wrote about Calvin's use of the phrase "Mother of God" back in 2013. While revisiting this subject I came across Rome's defender Trent Horn commenting on Calvin's rejection of using the term "Mother of God." Mr. Horn says,

Some Protestants object to Mary’s divine maternity not on biblical, logical, or historical grounds, but on practical ones. According to them, even if Mary is the Mother of God, Christians should not say she is because that can mislead less educated people. For example, Calvin said, “To call the Virgin Mary the mother of God can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions.”26 Matt Slick says, “The term, ‘mother of God,’ runs the risk of suggesting that Mary is somehow divine and part of the Godhead.” Gustafson likewise claims it is “creepy” to call Mary the Mother of God because this conjures up images of Mary being God’s wife.

This objection is as weak as saying that we should not refer to Jesus as God’s Son because that runs the risk of suggesting that God has a wife or that God engaged in sexual relations with Mary. This is not a hypothetical concern as early Mormons like Brigham Young understood Jesus’ identity as “Son of God” to mean Jesus was “begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers”. Many Muslims reject the Incarnation precisely because they think it entails that God physically begot Jesus through Mary. This shows that a doctrine should not be rejected just because it can be misunderstood. If that were the case, our faith would have few or possibly no doctrines at all!

26. John Calvin, Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters , vol. 5, ed. Jules Bonnett (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983), 362. Michael O’Carroll, however, documents Calvin saying, “The mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God.” O’Carroll, Theotokos , 94

I've included Horn's footnote because he included the same Calvin quote this entry is focused on. Did he include it to demonstrate some sort of inconsistency in Calvin's thought? Regardless, Horn makes a logical point, that simply because a phrase can be misunderstood or abused does not mean the term should be avoided. I've similarly tried to remind people that the word "Catholic" does not necessarily mean, "Roman Catholic." Some of the people I've used the word on are obviously confused, until I explain it to them. Think also of how our current society pours an entirely different meaning into the word "gay." What was once intended to mean "lighthearted and carefree" now means "homosexual." When Calvin avoided the term "Theotokos," it was consciously done as part of the ongoing societal Reformation efforts which sought to expel as much Romanism as possible from Geneva. It makes perfect sense he would pass along this advice to other Reformation efforts throughout Europe.

Should Protestant today avoid the term?  I would never argue as Horn's examples of Slick and Gustafson do. Those are wacky examples, for sure. I personally don't have a problem with the phrase if it's understood in a Christological sense rather than a Marian sense. I see this debate more like debating with a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness as to who Jesus is. Rome's apologists presents a different "Mother of God" than than which is found in sacred Scripture. When one reads a Mormon writing mentioning Jesus, a careful reader pours in the meaning of who Jesus is according to the Mormons. The same goes for Roman Catholic writings about the Mother of God. I'm all for reclaiming misused words for proper service in the "Catholic" church!

Addendum #2
Thomas O'Meara includes an alternate English translation of Calvin's comments about Mary in his letter from September 27, 1552 to the French Church in London:

I have no doubt that there has been some ignorance in that they have reproved this fashion of speaking of the Virgin Mary as the mother of God, and because of their ignorance it is likely that they have assumed a temerity and brashness which is too great. . . . However, to continue in fraternal friendship with you I am not able to disguise the fact that I find it wrong to have this title ordinarily attributed in sermons about the Virgin, and for my own part I would not think that such language was good or proper or convenient. . . . You know that scripture accustoms us to a rather different manner of speaking, but there is something worse here—for it could give scandal. To speak of the Mother of God instead of the Virgin Mary can only serve to harden the ignorant in their superstition. And he who is content with that shows quite clearly that he is not aware of what is edifying in the Church [Calvin, Lettres anglaises (Paris: Berger-Levrault, 1959), pp. 180-181].