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, or are the result of summarized secondary sources. Thus, this quote is 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. Where Did This quote come From?
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 Marian Devoteee?" (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 Roman Catholic historian 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." 

The Original Sources
Back in 2015 I thought maybe I was missing something William Cole saw in WA 34.2:497,499. The primary source is easily confusing. It contains two different versions of Luther's sermon on the same page. 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, Cole is citing page 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 an 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" (Sermons of Martin Luther vol. 7(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000) p. 216).

Cole is within the textual ballpark with "Luther speaks of Mary as the 'highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ." However, does Luther go on to extreme devotion or veneration of Mary? No! He goes on to then say, "And this noblest woman on earth is to serve me and us all by bearing this child and giving him to be our own!" Mary becomes a servant in Luther's thinking.

What about "She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified"? I could not locate this in WA 34.2:497 - 500.  I suspect 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. There Luther states: "hochgelobt über allen Adel, Weisheit, Heiligkeit!" ([she] is highly praised above all nobility, wisdom, and holiness). Still, "personified" is missing. Curiously, Thomas O'Meara directly cites 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 (p.132), seemingly unaware of the odd similarity to the other quote. WA 34.2:497, 499 therefore does not say anything about Mary being the personification of nobility, wisdom, and holiness. In the context of the 1537 sermon, Luther once again uses Mary to present the contrast that between her high pedigree and her servanthood. 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"). 

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). 

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! (Sermons of Martin Luther vol. 7 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000) pp. 219).

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." 

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, the quote though 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 rendered 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. 

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!

Revised March 2026

Another Fake Luther Quote Cited by Roman Catholics Exposed: "There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know"

There's a popular Martin Luther quote that's been online for many years claiming Martin Luther believed in the Bodily Assumption of Mary. The quote states: 

"There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith."

Sometimes after citing the quote, the commentary given claims that "Luther did not pronounce clearly on the subject, but was content simply to affirm it."

I've been through this quote many times before. I've had the primary source context for many years, as well as a solid English translation. When I've tried to match up the Roman Catholic version with the English translation of the context... they just don't fit together nicely. The context sort of says what the Roman Catholic version says but spread out over a much wider context. I concluded, either Roman Catholics have haphazardly translated Luther's German, or the English version I have was poorly translated. 

It's neither.

I have solved this mystery! Luther did not write the exact quote Roman Catholics say he did. Rather, the quote is not Luther words, but are from William Tappolet, author of the book, Das Marienlob der Reformatoren. The quote is actually William Tappolet summarizing his personal view of Luther on the Assumption. Then he cites a sermon from Luther for proof (the one I've had for many years). Tappolet writes on page 55:

The italicized words which begin the paragraph are Tappolet's words, not Luther's (Throughout his book, Tappolet italicizes his own words).  Tappolet wrote,  

Daß die Jungfrau Maria im Himmel ist, daran kann nicht gezweifelt werden. Wie das geschehen ist, wissen wir nicht. Und da die Heilige Schrift nichts darüber aussagt, sollen wir uns darüber keine Glaubensartikel machen. Wir sollen, uns daran genügen lassen zu wissen, daß ‘die Mutter Gottes lebt, wie denn auch die Erzväter und alle Heiligen leben. Im „Sermon von der Himmelfahrt Mariä” vom 15. August 1522 lesen wir...

Or in English:

There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. We don't know how this happened. And since the Holy Scripture says nothing about it, we should not make any articles of faith about it. We should be satisfied with knowing that the Mother of God lives, just as the patriarchs and all the saints live. In the “Sermon of the Assumption of Mary” from August 15, 1522 we read...:

Tappolet then goes on to cite Luther's sermon. Roman Catholics probably began utilizing the English version of this quote by taking it from William Cole's article, Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?. Cole uses the quote as follows:

For Luther the Assumption seems not to be so much a matter of doubt as of little importance and this is perhaps the reason, as Max Thurian affirms, that Luther did not pronounce clearly on the subject, but was content simply to affirm it. It is in this sense that Walter Tappolet interprets the Reformer's sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption. Luther had said: "There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith ."... and then explained the significance for him: "It is enough to know that she lives in Christ, as God is not the God of the dead, but of the living..." [William J. Cole, "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" (Marian Studies), (1970), p. 123].

Tedium: William Cole miscited Walter Tappolet. Tappolet didn't write "Holy Spirit," he wrote "Holy Scripture" (Heilige Schrift). What's most important though, Cole references WA 10.3:268-269 (the sermon from 1522) and also... Tappolet, page 55. So, there's great probability Roman Catholics took this quote from Cole who originally took it from William Tappolet. In reality, Roman Catholics are citing Tappolet, not Luther!

Conclusion

I suspect now may occur, at least on some Roman Catholic webpages, the disappearing Luther quote act, which has different variations. Drumroll please:

Edited. Poof! Gone.

Or: Nope, we never cited this as a Luther quote. See.. it's not on our webpage anymore, so it never happened.

Or: the documentation will be fixed: yep, we're just great Roman Catholic researchers that figured out all of this stuff on our own. 

Or perhaps, William Cole will be thrown under the bus: Cole said it, he's an expert. It's his fault, not ours.

I've demonstrated above, William Cole made two errors: wrongly attributing the quote to Luther and mistranslating Tappolet. A third error I pointed out years ago is that Cole also miscited Roman Catholic writer Max Thurian in the same section. Cole says "... as Max Thurian affirms, that Luther did not pronounce clearly on the subject, but was content simply to affirm it." Thurian never said Luther simply affirmed the Assumption. He says Luther was content to make an assertion in 1522: "On the issue of the Assumption Luther does not speak precisely but is content to assert on August 15th, 1522..." There's nothing necessarily wrong with citing Cole. I've found useful information in his article. However, there is something wrong with not checking his references! Almost anyone can do this now. No excuses Roman Catholic apologists! Do your homework!

An obvious question remains... does the Luther sermon Cole and Tappolet cite prove Luther believed in the Bodily Assumption of Mary? I've been over that before also. Read the context for yourself, either by visiting my old blog entry, Baseley's English rendering of the sermon from Festival Sermons of Martin Luther, or the German text. The Bodily Assumption of Mary is being read into the context by Roman Catholics. 

Nowhere in the context does Luther admit to believing in the Assumption of Mary, nor does he admit he's celebrating the Feast of the Assumption of Mary. He's simply mentioning the liturgical day, and that:

",,,this Gospel tells us nothing about Mary being in heaven" (The Festival Sermons of Martin Luther, p. 145).

Original text: Darumb kan man auß disem Euangelio nitt haben wie Maria im hymel sey, und es ist auch nit von nöten (WA 10.3:268).

"It is enough that we know that departed saints live in [Christ] God" (The Festival Sermons of Martin Luther, p. 145).

Original text: Es ist genügsam das wir wissen, das sy in Christo leben (WA 10.3:268).

"We do not make articles of faith out of what doesn't rest squarely on Scriptures" (The Festival Sermons of Martin Luther, p. 145).

Original text:  Darumb ist es genügsam, das wir wissen das sy leben, wie das aber ist, das ist uns nit von nöten zü wissen, und das hab ich darumb gesagt, das unser glaub alzeit auf dem gewissen stee und machen uns kain artickel des glaubens, da wir nit geschrift von haben, sunst kommen von tag zü tag new artickel des glaubens auf (WA 10.3:269). 

"Those things that are necessary to believe which you must always preserve, which Scripture clearly reveals, are to be markedly distinguished from everything else" (The Festival Sermons of Martin Luther, p. 145).

Original text: Darumb macht ain grossen underschaid under den dingen die da nötig seind züglauben und die nit nötig seind, anhalt eüch alzeit an das das die geschrift klar anzaiget, dann was die geschrift nit klar schleüßt, da bawet nit auff  (WA 10.3:269).    

There is no Luther-an affirmation of Mary's Bodily Assumption here!

Addendum: Lutheran Scholar Eric Gritsch Makes the Same Error on Luther and the Bodily assumption of Mary 

In an ecumenical dialog even the Lutheran scholar Eric Gritsch made the passing remark that "Luther affirmed Mary's Assumption into heaven but did not consider it to be of any benefit to others or accomplished in any special way" [H. George Anderson, J. Francis Stafford, Joseph A. Burgess (editors) The One Mediator, The Saints, and Mary, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VIII (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992), p. 241] Gritsch's main proof? This 1522 sermon. Keep your eye on the ball. Notice how careful Gritsch is: Luther is said to affirm Mary's Assumption into heaven but it was not "accomplished in any special way." In this brief synopsis offered by Gritsch, he appears to redefine what it means to be "Assumed" into heaven. What he gives with one hand, he takes away with the other, for being Assumed into heaven by its very nature is a special way of arriving in heaven!

Revised, March 2026

Martin Luther praised Mary and said that she should be honored in his very last sermon at Wittenberg? No!

Some of Rome's defenders think Martin Luther praised Mary and said that she should be honored in his very last sermon at Wittenberg. Here are some examples:

Even Martin Luther, despite criticizing the Catholic doctrines of Mary's intercession and mediation, insisted on venerating Mary... In his last sermon at Wittenberg, in January 1546, Luther preached: "Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the Holy Mother of God rather not to be honored? This is the woman who crushed the serpents head. Hear us, [Mary]. For your Son denies you nothing [Luther, Works, LI:128-29]. (link) (link)

But even Martin Luther had nice things to say about Mary: Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honored? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing. (Luther's Works, Weimar Edition, Volume 51) (link)

"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. (link)

Martin Luther, tragically, was devoted to Mary, shown by some splendid work in her honor. But during his break with Rome, his fundamental idea of Deus solus, more of an angry reaction to Rome rather than a theological stand, relegated Mary’s help not only to a minimum but to almost nil. Instead of going to Mary and vowing perpetual chastity, he went to Scriptures and married. Yet in his last sermon on 17 January 1546, as death was approaching, he spoke, revealing what was ingrained in his soul: “Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the Holy Mother of God rather not to be honored. This is the woman who crushed the serpent’s head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing;” then his talk gradually reverted to his Deus solus. It was a sad picture of a man who had to deny what he deeply believes in simply out of spite for the papacy that he learned to detest. (link)

The reluctance by some to acknowledge Mary’s unique role seems to be more about distancing ones self from the Catholic Church than a search for truth. All too often evidence takes a back seat to personal preference. Martin Luther was the father of the Protestant Reformation and I think it is safe to say that he was not the least bit shy when it came to distancing himself from the Catholic Church. And yet he wrote in a prologue to the Magnificat: "May the tender mother of God herself procure for me the Spirit of wisdom profitably and thoroughly to expound this song of hers." Also, in his last sermon at Wittenberg he said: "Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honored? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing." (link)

These are only a few examples. Many more could be given. The picture being put forth is that in his last Wittenberg sermon Luther "venerated Mary," "had nice things to say about Mary," "was devoted to Mary," and Luther had Mary "ingrained in his soul." Let's take a closer look to see if the actual context supports these interpretations. The context does not support these assertions.

Documentation

A curious feature of all the differing uses of Luther's last Wittenberg sermon is that the same form of the quote is put forth. Where did it come from? Did these defenders of Rome actually read WA 51 and translate this quote into English?  No, I don't think so. The oldest form of the quote (matching the translation offered above) I could locate was from Michael O'Carroll, Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary (1982), page 228. Notice in this rendering, "as death was approaching, he could thus recall the [Marian] piety of his early years":

And in this last sermon, on 17 January, 1546, as death was approaching, he could thus recall the piety of his early years: "Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the Holy Mother of God rather not to be honored? This is the woman who crushed the serpents head. Hear us.  For your Son denies you nothing. Bernard said too much on the gospel 'an angel was sent'... For of Christ alone, it was said 'Hear him.' Likewise, 'Behold the Lamb of God' etc. Not of Mary, or angels, or Gabriel" [WA 51, 128-129]. (link)

I don't have certainty that this was the source used, but I would not be surprised.  Another popular English citation is from Roman Catholic writer William Cole's article “Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?” (Marian Studies Volume XXI, 1970), p. 98. Cole presents it as:

Is Christ alone to be venerated?

Rather is not the Mother of God, too, to be honored?

She is the woman who crushed the serpents head.

Listen to us, Mary.

Your son honors you.

He refuses you nothing.

This poetic rendering is not the work of William Cole, but rather from Bishop Daly of Ardagh as presented in The Irish Catholic, May 1969 in an article entitled, "Luther Loved Mary." Cole indicates that Daly’s study was an example of a “simplistic, uncritical, one-sided evaluation[s] of Luther’s Marian stance…” (p 98-99). Such could similarly be applied to Rome's cyber-defenders who mis-read Luther's last Wittenberg sermon.  William Cole goes on to cite more of Luther's comments from this very sermon and agrees with those who conclude Luther forbids praying to Mary, he denied the intercession of Mary, and he "dissuaded or excluded her invocation" (Cole, p. 158).

The quotes above do reference WA 51:128-129. WA 51 includes two versions: a Latin version with some German words mixed in and a full German version (both on the same pages). The name of this sermon is Die letzte predigt Doctoris Martini Lutheri heiliger gedechtnis, So ehr gethan hat zu Wittenberg, am andern Sontag nach Epiphanias Domini, den xvij. Januarij. Im M. D. xlvj. Jhar. In English the title is rendered, The Last Sermon in Wittenberg, Rom. 12:3, January 17, 1546. Technically, Luther did not write this sermon text. The printed words are from the notes of Georg Rörer who heard and took notes on Luther's sermon. The sermon was published not long after Luther's death in 1549 (See LW 51:371).   The English rendering of the entire sermon is in LW 51: 375-376.

Context

Therefore, when we preach faith, that we should worship nothing but God alone, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as we say in the Creed: “I believe in God the Father almighty and in Jesus Christ,” then we are remaining in the temple at Jerusalem. Again, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him” “You will find him in a manger”. He alone does it. But reason says the opposite: What, us? Are we to worship only Christ? Indeed, shouldn’t we also honor the holy mother of Christ? She is the woman who bruised the head of the serpent.  Hear us, Mary, for thy Son so honors thee that he can refuse thee nothing. Here Bernard went too far in his “Homilies on the Gospel ‘ Missus est Angelus .’ ”  God has commanded that we should honor the parents; therefore I will call upon Mary. She will intercede for me with the Son, and the Son with the Father, who will listen to the Son. So you have the picture of God as angry and Christ as judge; Mary shows to Christ her breast and Christ shows his wounds to the wrathful Father. That’s the kind of thing this comely bride, the wisdom of reason cooks up: Mary is the mother of Christ, surely Christ will listen to her; Christ is a stern judge, therefore I will call upon St. George and St. Christopher. No, we have been by God’s command baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, just as the Jews were circumcised. Therefore, just as the Jews set up all over the land their own self-chosen shrines, as if Jerusalem were too narrow, so we also have done. As a young man must resist lust and an old man avarice, so reason is by nature a harmful whore. But she shall not harm me, if only I resist her. Ah, but she is so comely and glittering. That’s why there must be preachers who will point people to the catechism: I believe in Jesus Christ, not in St. George or St. Christopher, for only of Christ is it said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”; not of Mary or the angels. The Father did not speak of Gabriel or any others when he cried from heaven, “Listen to him [LW 51:375-376].

Original text #1  ic Paulus: quando praedicamus fidem, quod nihil nisi Deus adorandus pater Domini nostri Iesu Christi, ut dicimus: Credo in Deum patrem et in Iesum Christum. Illi manent bey dem Tempel zu Jerusalem. Item ‘hic est filius meus dilectus, Hunc audite’. ‘Invenietis eum in praesepi.’ Der sols allein thun. Quid nos? Num solum Christus adorandus? Ey sol man die heilige Mutter Christi nicht auch ehren? Haec est mulier, quae contrivit caput serpentis. Audi nos. Nam filius te honorat, tibi nihil negat. Bernardus hat im zuviel gethan uber das Evangelium: “Missus est Angelus.” Deus mandavit parentes colendos. Invocabo Mariam, ea pro me orabit filium, et filius patrem, qui audit filium, ut pictura de Deo irato et Christo iudice, cui monstrat mater ubera, Christus ostendit patri irato vulnera. Maria Christo ubera. Das treibt die hübsche Braut sapientia rationis: Maria est mater Christi. Certe Christus eam audiet. Christus iudex, possem Georgium, Christophorum invocare. Non, Nos baptisati in nomine patris, filii et Spiritus sancti. Ut Iudaei mandante Deo circumcisi. Sed ut ipsi instituerunt electitios cultus per totam regionem quasi Hierusalem angustior, Ita nos. Ideo ut iuvenis libidini, natu grandior avaritiae mus wehren, Sic ratio naturaliter est meretrix. Aber sie sol mir nicht schaden, si repugnem. Sed sie ist zu schon und gleisset. Da sollen prediger sein et homines weisen auff den Kinderglauben: Credo in Iesum Christum, qui conceptus etc. ‘qui tollit peccata mundi’. Nos: in Georgium, Christophorum credo. Minime. Quia de solo Christo dictum: ‘Hunc audite’. Item ‘Ecce Agnus Dei’ etc. Non de Maria, Angelis, Gabriele (WA 51:128-129).  

Original text #2: Also wenn wir vom glauben predigen, das man nichts sol anbeten denn allein Gott, der da ist ein Vatter unsers Herren Jhesu Christi, wie wir im glauben sprechen: Ich gleube in Gott den Vatter, almechtigen unnd in Jhesum Christum, da bleiben wir bey dem Tempel zu Hierusalem, ‘Dis ist mein geliebter Son, den höret’, ‘Ihr werdet ihn finden in der Krippen’, der sols allein thun. Aber die vernunfft sagt hie das widderspiel: Sol man denn allein Christum anbeten? Ei sol man die heilige Mutter Christi nicht auch ehren? Die ist das weib, welches der Schlangen hat den kopff zutretten, Erhöre uns, Maria. Denn dein Son ehret dich also, das ehr dir nichts kan versagen. Hie hat ihm Bernhardus zuviel gethan im Evangelio ‘Missus est Angelus’ etc. Gott hat befohlen, man sol die Eltern ehren. Ich wil Mariam anruffen, die wirt für [Bl. B4] mich den Son bitten, und derselbige den Vatter, welcher den Son wirt erhören. Daher ist das gemeld, wie Gott zürnet und Christus dem Vatter die wunden, Maria aber Christo ihr brüste zeiget. Das treibt die hübsche Braut, der vernunfft weisheit, Maria ist des HERRn Christi Mutter, vorwar so wird sie Christus erhören, Christus ist ein gestrenger richter, Ich will S. Georgen, S. Christoffel anruffen, Nein, wir sind aus Gottes befehl getauffet im namen des Vaters, des Sons und des heiligen Geists, gleich wie die Jüden beschnitten. Darumb wie die Jüden durchs gantze land von ihnen selbst erwelete Gottesdienst haben angerichtet, gleich ob were Hierusalem zu enge, Also haben wir auch gethan, Derhalben wie ein junger Gesel mus der bösen lust wehren, ein Alter dem Geitz, Also ist die vernunfft von art und natur ein schedliche hure, aber sie soll mir nicht schaden, wenn ich allein ihr widderstrebe. Ja, sie ist aber schöne, sie gleisset uber die massen fein. Da sollen Prediger sein unnd die leute weissen auff den Kinder glauben: Ich gleube in Jhesum Christum, nicht in S. Georgen odder S. Christoffel. denn alleine von Christo wirt gesagt: 'Sihe das Lamb GOTTES, welchs die sünde der Welt hinweg nimpt', nicht von Maria odder Engeln. Der Vatter schreiet vom Himel herab: 'Diesen höret', nicht vom Gabriel etc. Darumb sol ich bey dem Kinder glauben bleiben, da kan ich mich der vernunfft erwehren, wenn die widderteuffer geifferen: Die Tauff ist wasser, was kans ausrichten? O der Geist mus es thun. Hörestu es, du schebichte, ausssetzige hure, du heilige vernunfft, das geschrieben stehet: 'Diesen höret', der da sagt: 'gehet hin und teuffet alle Heiden', 'wer gleubt und getaufft wirt"...(WA 51:128-129). 

Conclusion
In this sermon, Martin Luther did not say or imply that “Mary should be honored.” His main point is that Jesus Christ alone should be worshiped. Luther mocks those who would call upon Mary or venerate her. Luther insists that those who seek Jesus Christ through Mary do so by the use of “reason,” and “reason is by nature a harmful whore. It is foolish reason that states:

...shouldn’t we also honor the holy mother of Christ? She is the woman who bruised the head of the serpent.  Hear us, Mary, for thy Son so honors thee that he can refuse thee nothing.

Foolish reason also states:

God has commanded that we should honor the parents; therefore I will call upon Mary. She will intercede for me with the Son, and the Son with the Father, who will listen to the Son. So you have the picture of God as angry and Christ as judge; Mary shows to Christ her breast and Christ shows his wounds to the wrathful Father. That’s the kind of thing this comely bride, the wisdom of reason cooks up: Mary is the mother of Christ, surely Christ will listen to her; Christ is a stern judge, therefore I will call upon St. George and St. Christopher.

This context shows the importance of checking facts. In context, Luther isn't speaking about venerating Mary, honoring Mary, being devoted to Mary, showing that Mary was "ingrained in his soul," or recalling the Marian piety of his younger days before he died. Nor is he explaining the difference between the veneration and worship of Mary. Lest one think I am attacking only Roman Catholics with this sort of contextual tedium, I would similarly say the great scholar Heiko Oberman nodded. Oberman alludes to this text and says,

The warm praise which Luther has for the Mother of God throughout his life, his last sermon on 17 January 1546 included, is not based upon the great qualities of Mary herself but upon the grace granted to her. As a person, Luther can say, the Virgin Mary is not greater than Mary Magdalene, the sinner, since through faith all Christians are equal[Heiko A. Oberman, The Impact of the Reformation, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,1994), 242].

I don't see any sort of "warm praise" in "his last sermon on 17 January 1546." Luther’s tone is quite sarcastic and mocking. One of Rome's defenders thinks the actual negativity expressed by Luther is simply addressed to Bernard: "... in context, this sermon is actually critical of 'Bernard's' use of honor - Bernard, in Luther’s opinion went too far. Luther still supports honoring Mary, just not so far as Bernard went" (link no longer available). There are no comments from Luther in this context supporting the "honor" of Mary... whatever that means... saying nice things about Mary is not quite what Rome means by honoring Mary! I could just as easily describe Mary as the "Mother of God" without any inkling of veneration. In context, Luther accuses human reason and then goes on to give the example of Bernard's reasoning specifically.  He then returns to criticizing reason generally. When Luther asks, "shouldn’t we also honor the holy mother of Christ?" the implied answer is: NO!

Addendum
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2007. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.

Revised March 2026

Revisiting Luther on the Assumption of Mary

To the left: Peter Vischer's sculpture of the Coronation of the Virgin which has been erroneously said to adorn Luther's burial vault.

I recently came across of one Rome's defenders pointing out that Luther preached a sermon on the Feast of the Assumption of Mary in 1522. This person was enamored with Luther's opening comment,

"Today the festival of our dear Lady, the Mother of God, is observed to celebrate her death and departure above..."

The quote was said to demonstrate "Luther praises and celebrates a Marian feast" and that "Fr. Luther’s sermon...demonstrate[s] the Assumption was not only part of the regula fidei, but even one of the progenitors of the various Protestant religions himself also held this belief." There you have it: clear proof Luther believed in the Assumption of Mary and celebrated it! This quote comes from the same context this popular Luther statement about the Assumption comes from :

"There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith... It is enough to know that she lives in Christ." -Martin Luther (Sermon, Feast of the Assumption of Mary, 1522)

As is typical of many of Rome's defenders, they read history with Mary-glasses on. We'll see below Luther's view of the Assumption is not  as it is being portrayed, either in context, or throughout the majority of his career as a Reformer.

Documentation
The quotes cited are authentic. They can be found in WA 10 (3), 268. The entire English context of this sermon is now available online, thanks to Joel Basely's fresh translation of Luther's Kirchenpostille in The  Festival Sermons of Martin Luther (Michigan: Mark V Publications, 2005), p. 144-151. Baseley explains in his introduction to these sermons,

Luther's goal in issuing the festival sermons was to wean his people away from the adoration and veneration of the saints which had crept into the church in order to lead them back to venerate Christ alone and to serve not the dead but the living saints in need, according to Christ's command (Baseley, introduction).

Now if you've gotten this far in this entry, you've probably noticed the dissonance. Luther is cited above saying "Today the festival of our dear Lady, the Mother of God, is observed to celebrate her death and departure above...," and "There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven," but Baseley, the translator says this sermon was intended to move people away from the adoration and veneration of the saints. What's going on? Well, keep your eye on the ball. Rome's defenders are doing a bit of textual sleight of hand.

Context
The sermon indeed does begin with some comments from Luther on the Assumption of Mary. Below is the entirety of his 1522 introductory remarks in regard to this feast day. It amounts to a mere three paragraphs so he could get Mary out of the way and to then move on to preach a sermon that has nothing to do with Mary. In other words, the introduction serves as an explanation as to why he will not be preaching on the Assumption of Mary on August 15, 1522!

Today the festival of our dear lady, the mother of God, is observed to celebrate her death and departure above. But how little this Gospel corresponds with this is plain. For this Gospel tells us nothing about Mary being in heaven. And even if one could draw from this text every detail about what it is like for a saint to be in heaven, it would be of little use. It is enough that we know that departed saints live in God, as Christ concludes in Matthew [Matthew 22] based on the passage in Exodus [Exodus 4] where God says to Moses, "I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob," that God is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living.

These passages sufficiently prove that they live. But we should not try to figure out what their life is like up there for it is not necessary for us to know. It is also not necessary to discover it. Reason is incapable of it. Some great masters have understanding about some things and yet not about this. For there are three states of life. First, as a child lays in his crib he lives in God but hardly perceives it Second, when we sleep we also are alive and are scarcely aware of it. Thirdly, when we definitely are aware and experience that we are living, even then we don't know how.

Now since here on earth God deals with us in this meager prison (that is barely half a life), in such a way that we barely perceive how we live here, how much more can He give life in heaven where it is spacious and where is true life. So we cannot set up any definite limits or establish a rule as to how the saints live there since even here dreaming and crazy people live, but we can't imagine how. It is enough to know that they live. But it is not necessary for us to know what that life is like. That is why I have always said that our faith always must rest upon what is known. We do not make articles of faith out of what doesn't rest squarely on Scriptures, else we would daily make up new articles of faith. For this reason, those things that are necessary to believe which you must always preserve, which Scripture clearly reveals, are to be markedly distinguished from everything else. For faith must not build itself upon what Scripture does not clearly prove. So since the Scripture clearly says here that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all believers live, then it is necessary for you to believe that the mother of God lives. You can leave it in our gracious God's hands what that life is like. Enough said about this festival. We will say something about the Gospel [Festival Sermons of MartinLuther (Michigan: Mark V Publications, 2005) pp. 145-146].

Scholarship on These 1522 Quotes
A careful reader will notice nowhere in this context does Luther admit to believing in the Assumption of Mary, nor does he admit he's celebrating the Feast of the Assumption of Mary. He's simply mentioning the liturgical day, and that the"Gospel tells us nothing about Mary being in heaven."  "It is enough that we know that departed saints live in God." "We do not make articles of faith out of what doesn't rest squarely on Scriptures." "Those things that are necessary to believe which you must always preserve, which Scripture clearly reveals, are to be markedly distinguished from everything else." There is no Luther-an affirmation of the Assumption here. This though has not stopped some of Rome's scholars from saying this sermon serves as proof that Luther believed in the Assumption of Mary. In his article, Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" William Cole states,

For Luther the Assumption seems not to be so much a matter of doubt as of little importance and this is perhaps the reason, as Max Thurian affirms, that Luther did not pronounce clearly on the subject, but was content simply to affirm it. It is in this sense that Walter Tappolet interprets the Reformer's sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption. Luther had said: "There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith ."... and then explained the significance for him: "It is enough to know that she lives in Christ, as God is not the God of the dead, but of the living..." [William J. Cole, "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" (Marian Studies), (1970), p. 123].

Or consider Thomas O'Meara's similar conclusion:

In 1522 Luther preaches on the feast of the Assumption, apparently taking this belief for granted, although he notes that it is not an article of faith. He observes that the gospel says nothing of this, and the burden of his message is that it is more important to know that the saints are in heaven, and that we will join them, than to know how they got there (WA 10, III 268) [Thomas O'Meara's Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966) p. 118].

Here's a fine example of two Roman Catholic scholars with Mary-glasses on, doing some textual sleight of hand. For these writers, Luther believed in Mary's miraculous Assumption into heaven but it was "of little importance" and he takes the belief "for granted." Oddly, Cole and O'Meara are probably being informed by Rome-friendly Protestant ecumenical sources (Thurian and Tappolet) for their conclusions. Cole explicitly says he's citing someone else's opinion, that of Max Thurian. Thurian stated,

On the issue of the Assumption Luther does not speak precisely but is content to assert on August 15th, 1522: 'From this gospel one cannot draw any conclusion about the fashion in which Mary is in heaven- it is not necessary any more to know the fate of the saints in heaven. It is enough to know that they dwell in Christ as God says in Matt. 22: 32: "God is not a God of the dead but of the living' making reference to the text of Exodus 3. 6: "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob"' (ibid., 55)." (Thurian, Mary Mother of the Lord, Figure of the Church, p.197)

Contrary to Cole, Thurian never says Luther simply affirmed the Assumption. He says Luther made an assertion in 1522. William Cole appears to have read into what Thurian stated. For all of these scholars, the fundamental analysis is flawed: they basically posit that since Luther didn't deny Mary's Assumption in this sermon, he must have believed in Mary's Assumption. Not denying something is not proof for believing something.  Remember:

...An argument from silence is recognized by all to be quite weak. It implies that one must have almost total evidence before demonstration is possible. If this is the case, one could argue cogently that there may have been airplanes in the time of Christ. Dewey M. Beegle, Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973), p. 178.

In an ecumenical dialog even the Lutheran scholar Eric Gritsch made the passing remark that "Luther affirmed Mary's Assumption into heaven but did not consider it to be of any benefit to others or accomplished in any special way" [H. George Anderson, J. Francis Stafford, Joseph A. Burgess (editors) The One Mediator, The Saints, and Mary, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992), p. 241] Gritsch's main proof? This 1522 sermon.Keep your eye on the ball again. Notice how careful Gritsch is: Luther is said to affirm Mary's Assumption into heaven but it was not "accomplished in any special way." In this brief synopsis offered by Gritsch, he appears to redefine what it means to be "Assumed" into heaven. What he gives with one hand, he takes away with the other, for being Assumed into heaven by its very nature is a special way of arriving in heaven!

Rome's Cyber-Defenders
Many years ago now these irresponsible conclusions from Cole and O'Meara were taken by Rome's cyber-apologists and plastered all over the Internet. One need only search the phrase, "There can be no doubt that the virgin Mary is in heaven." Here's a few examples:

Assumption. Although he did not make it an article of faith, Luther said of the doctrine of the Assumption: "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 [link].

There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ. (Sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time Martin Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption) [link].

You might also keep in mind that Martin Luther himself endorsed this doctrine four centuries before it was authoritatively defined, writing that, "There can be no doubt that the virgin Mary is in heaven, how it happened, we do not know" (Luther, Works, X:268). [link].

As far as the assumption goes, he did not pronounce clearly on this subject, but was content simply to affirm it. William J. Cole "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" (Marian Studies), (1970), 123 [link].

Why would these pop-apologists be so interested in Luther believing in Mary's Assumption? From how I've encountered these people, the motivation seems to be to cause dissonance in the minds of non-Roman Catholics. There are at least two arguments going on. First,  Luther believed in sola scriptura, but look: he also adheres to our Mariology. If one really wanted to be a true Protestant, stop projecting current Protestant attitudes about Mary back on to the founder of Protestantism! Second, Roman Catholics are typically fairly critical of Martin Luther. But when it comes to the topic of Mary, Luther becomes the staunch supporter of Mary; a leader that all contemporary Protestants should learn a great lesson in Mariology from.

Other Statements From Luther on the Assumption of Mary
William Cole goes on to document some of Luther's other comments on the Assumption of Mary, and based on how the Luther quotes this entry began with were treated, these other quotes deserve a fresh look as well. Cole states,

If in 1530, he uses strong language in his Admonition to the Ministers, calling for the elimination of the Assumption as an aspect of the "hypocritical church," [WA 30 (2), 351] the accent should be placed more on his animosity towards the Church and the celebration of one of its feasts than on the Assumption [William J. Cole, "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" (Marian Studies), (1970), 123-124].

This reference from Cole is found in LW 34: 54, 57. Yes, "The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin"  is listed, and Luther describes it as "The things which have been practice and custom in the pretended church." Cole is correct, it is listed along side of other feast days, indicating Luther probably had at least the Assumption feast day in view. Interestingly, Luther does though also include, "Mary made a common idol with countless services, celebrations, fasts, hymns, and antiphons" as also stemming from the hypocritical church. I would agree, the quote from Luther here is ambiguous.  But, why is the Feast day of the Assumption of Mary an aspect of the hypocritical church? Luther goes on to explain that the articles he negatively listed were considered necessary articles of faith by the church when in reality they are not. Contrarily, they "seriously storm against and corrupt the Christian faith and the truly necessary things" [LW 34:59].

William Cole then presents another quote on Luther and the Assumption:

Even what Tappolet considers "the most important place" a sermon on the Feast of the Visitation 1544, is capable of this benign interpretation: 

“The feast of the Assumption is totally papist, full of idolatry and without foundation in the Scriptures. But we, even though Mary has gone to heaven, should not bother how she went there. We will not invoke her as our special advocate as the Pope teaches. The pope takes away the honor due to the Ascension of our Lord, Christ, with the result that he has made the mother like her Son in all things” (WA 52, 681) [William J. Cole, "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" (Marian Studies), (1970), 124].

Cole makes a historical error. This sermon was not from 1544, It was preached in 1532 (see WA 52, XXIV). The reason for the 1544 date is Tappolet utilized Veit Dietrich's Hauspostille of 1544. Eric Gritsch actually places the preaching of this sermon in 1522, on the same day and month as the sermon this entry began with (The One Mediator, p. 241), but this is an error. The heading of the sermon indicates it was a sermon on the Visitation, "held according to the ordinances of Brandenburg and Nuremburg on the day of Mary's Ascension." In terms of historical context, Luther's comments in the sermon come around two years after the previous statement. The sermon states,

The feast of the ascension of Mary is completely papist, that is, full of blasphemy and established without any grounding in Scripture. For that reason we have let it lapse in our churches and have used the day to preach about how Mary went over the mountain to visit her relative Elizabeth and what happened there. In the first place there is no sign in Scripture of the feast of the ascension of Mary so that the papists themselves just use a saying from Jerome, who is supposed to have said: "I do not know whether she ascended into heaven in her body or out of her body." And how is anyone supposed to know this when there is nothing in Scripture about it? The most annoying and dangerous thing about making this ascension into a feast is that people honor the Virgin Mary and call to her, as they sing in the response: "O you pure Mother of God, we ask that you, because you were taken up to heaven, be gracious to us and make us citizens in heaven."

But we Christians do not know of any ascension that we can enjoy except for that of our dear Lord Jesus Christ, who ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God, and intercedes for us. For that reason we can console ourselves in his Ascension and know that we will enjoy this, that we will also come to heaven and shall be heard here on earth by him in everything we ask for in his name. for that reason it is a wonderful, exalted and comforting feast, the Ascension of Christ, that the Virgin Mary enjoyed just as we do. We however, even if she has already gone to heaven, cannot enjoy her ascension, and should not for that reason call to her or to take comfort in her intercession as the pope teaches and through this shames and dishonors the Ascension of our Lord Christ, because he wants to make the mother equal to the son in everything. [Translation from Susan C. Karant-Nunn and Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks  Luther on Women: A Sourcebook (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 46-47]

Cole is correct that Luther's primary target is the Feast of the Assumption. This target though is closely tied to the lack of any Scriptural evidence for the Assumption of Mary. Luther goes on to describe a feast celebration that does have a scriptural pedigree, the Ascension of Jesus Christ. Contrary to such a damning context,  Cole concludes,

In summary, we can see that if the Feast is rejected, it is for reasons extraneous to the fact itself, which Luther never denied. essentially, as Luther himself said in the same sermon the reason he does not celebrate it, "although she has gone to heaven" is that he sees it is a source of justifying invocation to Mary.

Once again, we see here that Cole simply assumes what he's never proved, that Luther accepted the Assumption of Mary. Cole's "benign interpretation"is a malignant interpretation of the context. Luther says there's nothing in Scripture about it, and because of that, her ascension into heaven is not to be celebrated.

Not mentioned by William Cole is something from late in Luther's life. In Luther's later writings on Genesis towards the end of his career, he discusses how the Scriptures do not record the death of many Biblical women, including Mary. Luther is discussing how the Bible details the death and burial of Sarah:

Then one should much rather consider how Abraham delivered a beautiful funeral address about Sarah. For in the Holy Scriptures no other matron is so distinguished. Her years, lives, conduct, and burial place are described. In the eyes of God, therefore, Sarah was an extraordinary jewel on whom extraordinary love was bestowed, and she is mentioned deservedly by Peter as an exemplar for all saintly wives. He says (1 Peter 3:6) that she called Abraham lord and that “you are her daughters.” To all Christian matrons Peter holds her up as a mother.

Scripture has no comments even on the death of other matriarchs, just as it makes no mention of how many years Eve lived and of where she died. Of Rachel it is recorded that she died in childbirth (Gen. 35:16–19). All the other women it passes over and covers with silence, with the result that we have no knowledge of the death of Mary, the mother of Christ. Sarah alone has this glory, that the definite number of her years, the time of her death, and the place of her burial are described. Therefore this is great praise and very sure proof that she was precious in the eyes of God." (LW 4:189-190)

While this isn't directly related about the Assumption of Mary, it does demonstrate Luther made attempts to remain consistent on Mary's end. Notice how Luther treats Mary. He doesn't speak of some cryptic way in which Mary disappeared off the earth. No, she's placed in a list with others whose deaths are not recorded in Scripture and are passed over in silence. Are we to assume, based on Luther's words, that all the women were Assumed into Heaven? For those wanting to affirm the Assumption, no lack of information will stop them from finding the Assumption.

Luther and the elimination of the Feast of the Assumption
We should not take for granted that, as Cole states, Luther "used strong language" for the elimination of the Feast of the Assumption. Eric Gritsch similarly points out Luther went on to abandon the festival of Mary’s Immaculate Conception and her Assumption:

“He rejected the festivals of Mary's Immaculate Conception, December 8, and her Assumption, August 15.” [Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII, 240].

“According to Luther Mary should be honored in festivals that focus on Christ, which is why he eventually rejected the celebrations of her Immaculate Conception (December 8), her birth (September 8), and her Assumption (August 15). He did honor her in the festivals of the Annunciation (March 25), the Visitation (July 2), and Purification (February 2), since these are connected with the birth of Christ. "We dare not put our faith in the mother but only in the fact that the child was born."[Ibid. 241]

“Luther continued to preach on these festivals, but stopped preaching on the other three festivals after 1523.”[Ibid. 382]

Addendum: Luther's Burial Vault Does Not Prove Belief in the Assumption of Mary
This is an argument that doesn't pop up as much anymore. Roman Catholic apologist Mark Shea once said: "For Luther the Assumption was a settled fact...indeed Luther's burial vault in the Wittenburg church on whose door he had posted his ninety five theses was adorned with the 1521 Peter Vischer's sculpture of the Coronation of the Virgin." Peter Stravinskas likewise states,

Most interesting of all, perhaps, is the realization that his burial chamber in the Wittenberg church, on whose door he had posted his 95 Theses, was adorned with the 1521 Peter Vischer sculpture of the Coronation of the Virgin, with the inscription containing these lines: Ad summum Regina thronum defertur in altum: Angelicis praelatia choris, cui festus et ipse Filius occurrens Matrem super aethera ponit. This "archaeological" fact would seem to speak volumes about Luther's final thoughts on the place of Mary in the life of a Christian.

Sorry Gentleman. This sculpture is not on Luther's tomb, but rather: "the plate is the tombstone for Henning Goden, Jurist and last Catholic Provost of the Castle Church." See my previous entry here.

Luther: "The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart"

Here's an oft-used Martin Luther quote, usually presented by defenders of Roman Catholicism:

"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart" (Sermon, September 1, 1522) 

If you search the Internet for this quote, you'll find it has traveled far, even making its way to a handful of (mostly Roman Catholic) books. One of Rome's online defenders uses this quote to prove "Luther held to the idea and devotional practice of the veneration of Mary and expressed this on innumerable occasions with the most effusive language." Another using this quote says, "Even Martin Luther, despite criticizing the Catholic doctrines of Mary's intercession and mediation, insisted on venerating Mary." Yet another using this quote says, "Not only was devotion to Mary a spiritually helpful practice, but it was an almost intrinsic aspect of healthy spirituality."

We'll see that in context, this quote doesn't substantiate any of these statements. Rather, the quote serves as an excellent example of why context matters. While Rome's defenders use the quote as positive proof that Luther venerated Mary, in context the quote actually says something negative about the veneration of Mary being inscribed in the very depths of the human heart. It says the contrary: that having the veneration of Mary being inscribed in the very depths of the human heart is excessive and should be avoided.

Let's take a look.

Documentation
The quote is often mis-documented as "Sermon, September 1, 1522." This sort of sparse documentation is a good indicator that the person using the quote copy and pasted it from a secondary source, never bothering to look it up. 

The quote in this form may have originally come from two secondary Roman Catholic sources, one of which may have come close to plagiarizing the other. One of Rome's defenders seems to have taken it from Thomas O'Meara's Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966). On page 123, O'Meara states,

To the end of his life Mary was to be honored and to be imitated. Luther never stopped preaching on her feast days. After all, he had written on September 1, 1522: "The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."(46)

46. WA 10, III, 313.

Sometimes the quote is documented as "Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works (Translation by William J. Cole) 10, III, p.313" (for instance, this is how some of the versions of the now anonymous The Protestant Reformers on Mary webpage reads). While this documentation does include accurate information, it does include some information that's ambiguous and incomplete at best: William Cole was not a translator of the Weimar edition of Luther's Works. This documentation error most likely refers to William Cole’s article “Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?” (Marian Studies Volume XXI, 1970), p.131. Cole states:

In spite of the most strenuous criticism of the actual practice of Marian devotion, Luther never deviated from this opinion to the end of his life: Mary was always to be honored, as a matter of record Luther himself never stopped preaching on her feast days and remained true to his own statement of September 1, 1522: "The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart." (139)

139. WA 10, III, 313.

There is a strong possibility that Cole took this quote from O'Meara. Cole cites Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology in his article on page 108. He concludes a point by referring to a summary statement from O'Meara, "Thus, as Father Thomas O'Meara has pointed out so well...". It's also interesting there's a similarity in pointing out Luther's preaching on Marian feast days previous to the quote in question. The most striking similarity though is that both of Rome's literary defenders refer to the wrong date of the sermon, September 1, 1522. The correct date is September 8, 1522.  Both authors correctly refer to WA 10, III, 313.  

In an earlier Beggars All entry on this quote, I presented larger English excerpts of this context from WA 10 III. Since then, the entirety of the sermon has been translated into English.  I am grateful to the translation work of Joel Baseley for this English rendering. He put together a fresh English translation of these sermons, many of which had not been translated into English previously. I'm not sure if Baseley realized the modern Roman Catholic polemical use of many of these sermons. His work inadvertently gave me the contexts for a number of Roman Catholic propaganda Luther quotes.

This sermon was part of Luther's Kirchenpostille (festival sermons). Baseley explains in his introduction to these sermons,

Luther's goal in issuing the festival sermons was to wean his people away from the adoration and veneration of the saints which had crept into the church in order to lead them back to venerate Christ alone and to serve not the dead but the living saints in need, according to Christ's command.

According to this introductory comment, this Luther quote that states "The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart" is actually part of a collection of sermons intended to wean people away from venerating the saints! Amazing.

Basely translated the title of this sermon, "The Day of the Nativity of Mary. He identifies it as a sermon on Matthew 1 preached on September 8. In the original WA 10.3, there are two versions of the sermon presented on the same page (presented below).

Context

Today's feast of the blessed Virgin celebrates her birth. We also read today in the beginning of Matthew the accounting of part of the family tree including the great ancestors of Jesus Christ.  But you know, my friends in Christ, that the honor given to the mother of God has been rooted so deeply into the hearts of men that no one wants to hear any opposition to this celebration. There is rather a desire to further elevate it and make it even greater. We also grant that she should be honored, since we, according to Saint Paul's words [Romans 12] are indebted to show honor one to another for the sake of the One who dwells in us, Jesus Christ. Therefore we have an obligation to honor Mary. But be careful to give her honor that is fitting. Unfortunately, I worry that we give her all too high an honor for she is accorded much more esteem than she should be given or than she accounted to herself.

So from this comes two abuses. First Christ is diminished by those who place their hearts more upon Mary than upon Christ himself. In doing so Christ is forced into the background and completely forgotten. The other abuse is that the poor saints here on earth are forgotten.

I would allow a high regard for Mary and her praise, just so long as you do not get carried away and consider making a law out of it so that she must be honored as a condition for your salvation. For the Scriptures have recorded nothing about her birth or life. So your hearts must not be placed upon her and she must not be exalted above her proper status. The monks invented all this abuse. They wanted to praise the woman. They have used Mary as an excuse to invent all kinds of lies by which she could be used to establish their twaddle. They have used Scriptures to drag Mary by the hair and force her to go where she never intended. For the Gospel that is read today reveals Christ's nativity, not Mary's. See how many lies have come out of this which we can in no way tolerate. I can surely allow her to be honored but not in a way that belies the Scriptures (Festival Sermons of Martin Luther, pp. 157-158).

Original text, version #1: Ir wist, mein freund, das gar tieff in die hertzen der menschen gebildet ist die ere die man thüt der mütter gotes, also auch das man nicht gern dawider hört reden, sonder allain meret und grösser macht. Nun lassen wirs auch geschehen das man sy eret, dieweil wir in der schrifft schuldig seind ainander fürzukommen mit der ere, wie Paulus sagt Ro. xij. das ainer den anndern soll halten als ain obern umb des willen, der in uns wont Jesus Christus. Darumb ist man ir auch ain eer schuldig, aber da sehe man zü, das man sy recht ere, dann man ist also tyeff in die ere getretten, das man sy höher hebt dann man sol, darauß zwen schaden kommen seind: Ain abbruch Christo, das man meer hat die hertzen auff sy gestellt dann auff Christum selbst, das Christus gleich hinder ins finster gestellt ist unnd sein gantz vergessen. Darnach ist noch ain grosser schad darauß kommen, das auch dem gemainen volck ain abbruch geschehen ist, das man die mutter gottes und der hailigen dienst und ere so hoch erhaben hat, dardurch man der armen vergessen hat. Ich laß geschehen das du vil von ir haltest, sy hoch preyseast, aber also ferr das dein güter won nicht herauß breche und werd ain gesetz darauß. Darumb hat die schrifft gar nichts von ir geburt geschriben, auff das wir sy nicht so hoch erheben und unser hertzen auff sy stellen sollen. Nun haben die Münch der weiber ere preysen wöllen und sye so hoch erhept, unnd damit sy das bestetigeten, müsten sy lugen brauchen unnd die schrifft dahin zwingen do sye nit hyn gehört. Dann das Euangelium, das man heüt list, das zeücht sich auff Christi geburt und nicht Marie. Also seind lugen her kommen, das ist nu in kainen weg züleyden (WA 10.3:313-314).

Original text, version #2:Ir wyst, mein freundt, das gar tief in die herzenn der menschen gebildet ist die ehr so man erbeut der muter gottes, ia auch also tieff, daß nie mantz gern hört dar wider reden, sunder mehr und größer macht. Nu laßen wirs auch geschehen das sy geehrt wirt, die weil wir in der geschrifft schuldig seind an andren für zu kommen mit der ehr wie Paulus sagt, darum ist man ir auch ein ehr schuldig.

Aber da ist wol fur zu sehen das sy recht werde geehrt. Wan daß volk ist also tieff in dise ehr getretten, das sy fil höher wirdt geehrt dan recht ist, dar auß zwen schaden kommen: Ein abbruch Christo, das dye herzen der menschen mer auff sy dan auff Christum selbs gestellt seind, Christus ist doch gleich hinden in das fynster gesetzt und sein gantz vergeßen.

Der ander schad, daß auch dem gemeinen volck darvon ein mercklicher abbruch geschicht, wan die weil die muter gottes unnd der heiligen dienst und ehr also hoch erhaben ist, wirdt der armen durfftigen christen vergeßen. Ich las geschen das du fil von ir helst, sy gros lobst unnd preisyßt, aber also ferr das deinn gütter wann nit her aus breche unnd mache ein gesetz dar aus. Darum hat auch die geschrifft gar nichts von irer geburt beschrieben, da mit und keiner sein hertz auff sy stell. Nu haben pfaffen und munch der weiber ehr herfur ziehen wellen und Mariam so hoch erhept, das sy uns ein gottin (nach art der heiden) aus diser demutigen dienerin gemacht habenn. Solichs nu zu bestettigen müsten sy lugen brauchen und die geschrifft bey dem har da hin ziehen und zwingen da hyn sy nit gehort. Secht das euangelion, so heut gelesen ist, zeucht sich auff Cristi geburt und nit Marie. Also seind lugen her kommen, das doch nit zu leiden ist (WA 10.3:313-314). 

Conclusion
In context, Luther's point is that whatever respect Mary was due to her, the Roman church of his day had collectively gone far beyond it."The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart" is not a positive statement, but a negative statement. This sentence placed back in its context is in regard to excessive Marian devotion, a devotion so rooted in the human heart that "no one wants to hear any opposition to this celebration" of the feast of Mary's birth. Luther goes on to wish this festival day in regard to Mary should be forgotten, "For there is nothing in the Scriptures about it [Mary's birth]" (p. 158). Luther also says,

 "We are just as holy as Mary and the other saints, no matter how great they are, when we only believe in Christ" (p. 158).

"Her being given great grace is not done so that we should venerate her, but out of God's mercy for her. For we could not all be God's mother, but apart from that she is just like us and must also come to grace through the blood of Christ as we do" (p. 158).

And so on. Luther's view of the saints was still in transition during 1522. Reading through this short sermon demonstrates this. The veneration rooted so deeply in the hearts of Luther's hearers was not a positive thing. He's pointing out the result of excessive Marian piety.

Luther's Mariology is fascinating, not so much because I either care about learning Mariology or even what Luther thought about it. Rather, my fascination is the way in which Rome's defenders appeal to Luther in support of Mariology, often at the expense of research and a context. The quote examined above demonstrates that if a context is examined, it may say something quite different than what Rome's defenders are claiming. Ad fontes!

Addendum #3: Roman Catholic Historian Hartmann Grisar on the Quote

As long as he admitted the invocation of Saints, Luther assigned a prominent place  to that of the Blessed Virgin.  " She is to be invoked," he writes in 1521," that God may give and do according to her will what we ask."  After he had changed his mind concerning the saints, he was unwilling to allow this any longer. 

Owing, however, to the after effects of his Catholic education, here particularly noticeable in him, we meet with many beautiful sayings of hi  in support of the worship  of Mary, although as time went on he grew ever more hostile to it. 

" You know," so he says in a sermon published in 1522, "that the  honour  paid to  the Mother of God is so deeply implanted in the heart of man  that we dislike to  hear it spoken against, but would much rather  it were fostered and encouraged."5 

5 Ibid., 10, 3, p. 313=15(2), p. 495. Church-postils, Sermon on Mary's Nativity.

Hartmann Grisar, Luther IV, p. 500.

Addendum #2 Luther Rejected Preaching on Marian Feast Days
Both Roman Catholic writers Thomas O'Meara and William Cole say Martin Luther did not stop preaching on Marian feast days. They are partially in error. Luther abandoned the festival of Mary’s Immaculate Conception (Dec. 8), her birthday (Sept. 8), and her Assumption (Aug. 15).  Consider the following noted by Reformation historian Eric Gritsch in his article “The Views of Luther and Lutheranism on the Veneration of Mary,” found in: H. George Anderson, J. Francis Stafford, Joseph A. Burgess (editors) The One Mediator, The Saints, and Mary, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992):

“He rejected the festivals of Mary's Immaculate Conception, December 8, and her Assumption, August 15” (p. 240).

“According to Luther Mary should be honored in festivals that focus on Christ, which is why he eventually rejected the celebrations of her Immaculate Conception (December 8), her birth (September 8), and her Assumption (August 15). He did honor her in the festivals of the Annunciation (March 25), the Visitation (July 2), and Purification (February 2), since these are connected with the birth of Christ. "We dare not put our faith in the mother but only in the fact that the child was born" (p. 241).

“Luther continued to preach on these festivals, but stopped preaching on the other three festivals after 1523”  (p. 382).

When one actually reads Luther’s Marian sermons, one finds that Mary is usually not the main subject, Jesus Christ is. Mary is often mentioned in passing with perhaps a few paragraphs allotted to any discussion about her. There are exceptions to this, but the older Luther got, the less his Marian sermons focused on Mary. For instance, here is a complete "Marian" sermon, “The Day of Annunciation to Mary” by Martin Luther (Luke 1:26-38, Second Sermon 1534). See for yourself how much Luther emphasized Mary in a Marian feast day sermon.

Addendum #3 Blog Entry Revision

This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2012. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former. 

Revised March 2026