Martin Luther's Devotion to Mary

Let's see what the Father of Protestantism thought about the Blessed Mother.....

Despite the radicalism of early Protestantism toward many ancient Catholic "distinctives," such as the Communion of the Saints, Penance, Purgatory, Infused Justification, the Papacy, the priesthood, sacramental marriage, etc., it may surprise many to discover that Martin Luther was rather conservative in some of his doctrinal views, such as on baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist, and particularly the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Luther indeed was quite devoted to Our Lady, and retained most of the traditional Marian doctrines which were held then and now by the Catholic Church. This is often not well-documented in Protestant biographies of Luther and histories of the 16th century, yet it is undeniably true. It seems to be a natural human tendency for latter-day followers to project back onto the founder of a movement their own prevailing viewpoints.

Since Lutheranism today does not possess a very robust Mariology, it is usually assumed that Luther himself had similar opinions. We shall see, upon consulting the primary sources (i.e., Luther's own writings), that the historical facts are very different. We shall consider, in turn, Luther's position on the various aspects of Marian doctrine.

Along with virtually all important Protestant Founders (e.g., Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer), Luther accepted the traditional belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary (Jesus had no blood brothers), and her status as the Theotokos (Mother of God):

Christ, ..was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him... "brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4.1537-39).

He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb.. .This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. (Ibid.)

God says... "Mary's Son is My only Son." Thus Mary is the Mother of God. (Ibid.).

God did not derive his divinity from Mary; but it does not follow that it is therefore wrong to say that God was born of Mary, that God is Mary's Son, and that Mary is God's mother...She is the true mother of God and bearer of God...Mary suckled God, rocked God to sleep, prepared broth and soup for God, etc. For God and man are one person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus. not two Christs. . .just as your son is not two sons...even though he has two natures, body and soul, the body from you, the soul from God alone. (On the Councils and the Church, 1539).

Probably the most astonishing Marian belief of Luther is his acceptance of Mary's Immaculate Conception, which wasn't even definitively proclaimed as dogma by the Catholic Church until 1854. Concerning this question there is some dispute, over the technical aspects of medieval theories of conception and the soul, and whether or not Luther later changed his mind. Even some eminent Lutheran scholars, however, such as Arthur Carl Piepkorn (1907-73) of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, maintain his unswerving acceptance of the doctrine. Luther's words follow:

It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527).

She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin—something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522).

Later references to the Immaculate Conception appear in his House sermon for Christmas (1533) and Against the Papacy of Rome (1545). In later life (he died in 1546), Luther did not believe that this doctrine should be imposed on all believers, since he felt that the Bible didn't explicitly and formally teach it. Such a view is consistent with his notion of sola Scriptura and is similar to his opinion on the bodily Assumption of the Virgin, which he never denied—although he was highly critical of what he felt were excesses in the celebration of this Feast. In his sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time he preached on the Feast of the Assumption, he stated:

There can he 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.

Luther held to the idea and devotional practice of the veneration of Mary and expressed this on innumerable occasions with the most effusive language:

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

[She is the] highest woman and 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. (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).

No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity. (Sermon, Feast of the Visitation. 1537).

One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace.. .Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ...Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God. (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).

Luther goes even further, and gives the Blessed Virgin the exalted position of "Spiritual Mother" for Christians, much the same as in Catholic piety:

It is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man is able to exult in such a treasure. Mary is his true Mother, Christ is his brother. God is his father. (Sermon. Christmas, 1522)

Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees...If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother. (Sermon, Christmas, 1529).

Luther did strongly condemn any devotional practices which implied that Mary was in any way equal to our Lord or that she took anything away from His sole sufficiency as our Savior. This is, and always has been, the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, Luther often "threw out the baby with the bath water," when it came to criticizing erroneous emphases and opinions which were prevalent in his time—falsely equating them with Church doctrine. His attitude towards the use of the "Hail Mary" prayer (the first portion of the Rosary) is illustrative. In certain polemical utterances he appears to condemn its recitation altogether, but he is only forbidding a use of Marian devotions apart from heartfelt faith, as the following two citations make clear:

Whoever possesses a good (firm) faith, says the Hail Mary without danger! Whoever is weak in faith can utter no Hail Mary without danger to his salvation. (Sermon, March 11, 1523).

Our prayer should include the Mother of God.. .What the Hail Mary says is that all glory should be given to God, using these words: "Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus Christ. Amen!" You see that these words are not concerned with prayer but purely with giving praise and honor.. .We can use the Hail Mary as a meditation in which we recite what grace God has given her. Second, we should add a wish that everyone may know and respect her...He who has no faith is advised to refrain from saying the Hail Mary. (Personal Prayer Book, 1522).

To summarize, it is apparent that Luther was extraordinarily devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary, which is notable in light of his aversion to so many other "Papist" or "Romish" doctrines, as he was wont to describe them. His major departure occurs with regard to the intercession and invocation of the saints, which he denied, in accord with the earliest systematic Lutheran creed, the Augsburg Confession of 1530 (Article 21).

His views of Mary as Mother of God and as ever-Virgin were identical to those in Catholicism, and his opinions on the Immaculate Conception, Mary's "Spiritual Motherhood" and the use of the "Hail Mary" were substantially the same. He didn't deny the Assumption (he certainly didn't hesitate to rail against doctrines he opposed!), and venerated Mary in a very touching fashion which, as far as it goes, is not at all contrary to Catholic piety.

Therefore, it can be stated without fear of contradiction that Luther's Mariology is very close to that of the Catholic Church today, far more than it is to the theology of modern-day Lutheranism. To the extent that this fact is dealt with at all by Protestants, it is usually explained as a "holdover" from the early Luther's late medieval Augustinian Catholic views ("everyone has their blind spots," etc.). But this will not do for those who are serious about consulting Luther in order to arrive at the true "Reformation heritage" and the roots of an authentic Protestantism. For if Luther's views here can be so easily rationalized away, how can the Protestant know whether he is trustworthy relative to his other innovative doctrines such as extrinsic justification by faith alone and sola Scriptura?

It appears, once again, that the truth about important historical figures is almost invariably more complex than the "legends" and overly-simplistic generalizations which men often at the remove of centuries—create and accept uncritically.

No, so many people leave it for reasons that have become more and more understandable to me the longer I’ve been a Christian. The world is simply far more exciting, interesting and even helpful than the clockwork machinery of the Catholic Church, which buries the truth in so much trivia and man-made ritual, and puts itself in between the Lord and man to keep them separate as much as possible. And why did that happen? I’m just reading today about how the ancient world tolerated homosexuality, and then the Church came along and eventually with its power clamped down on it, getting laws passed to make it illegal. Homosexuality (and sexual immorality in general) just didn’t disappear from the former Roman Empire for over a thousand years. It went somewhere. And one place it might have gone back then is into the Catholic priesthood. If something can’t be destroyed from outside, the alternative is to destroy it from within, which the spirit of antichrist has been doing in recent times, too. In politics there’s been Log Cabin Republicans, and GOProud, for example.

And the power of the priesthood, almost godlike, is especially attractive to the flesh. I work in a fast-food restaurant and how people can get pride over being just one step higher than other employees in some small way, as if we aren’t adults “flipping burgers.” But that’s human nature, and I can’t imagine in that case what the priesthood and Vatican must be like, but we get a lot of glimpses. I know the Catholic Church went after a woman who sued it after she was raped by a priest as a child. The man was convicted in another case, but the statue of limitations was up in hers so they sued her for legal fees. Then another case profiled on TV lately. A priest murdered a young woman and all the signs pointed to it, but the Catholic Church protected him and even apparently managed to pressure law enforcement. And call these anecdotes if you will, but I would have plenty more to say on the hubris of the priesthood if you’re interested. I don’t lightly question and find fault with a church organization who professes to follow Jesus Christ, but over time from observing the Catholic Church I’ve grown more and more disturbed by it. It also seems involved with so much of the racial segregation in our country, too. The Northeast is most segregated of all (per a study of schools). All in all, I know something very important. I can say, “Lord, I surrender all to you. If in anything I’m not surrendered to you, help me to surrender it to you. Let not my will be done if it conflicts with yours.” Have you and can you say that?

This was well after Martin Luther’s time who I’m sure would have disagreed with both views.

Did you not read the article?

“And plainly people leave for two reasons, poor catechesis, or unconfesed sin. anything else they tell you is a lie to make themselves feel better. “

Hi verga. Hope you are well these days.

I will gently disagree with your conclusion. I suspect there are a great many reasons people make decisions. Based on the discussions I’ve personally had with people who left catholicism and were now worshipping at another Christian denomination, I’d add:

A desire to know God in a personal way.
Assurance of eternal life.
Relevant worship and teaching.
A desire for the joy and comfort they witnessed in their Christian friends lives.

I suspect you could add to that, since it is off the top of my head and it wasn’t a large survey. Just Christians I’ve talked to over the decades.

Most of those I know/knew were confirmed and well catechized and frequent attenders. They had never personally entrusted themselves to Christ for salvation.

Some were infrequent in their attendance. They had quit going because they didn’t feel the mass was relevant culturally.

You may disagree or disbelieve this list, but it’s what I’ve heard in conversations.

I rejoice that they found Christ and are pursuing Him, as I rejoice when anyone follows Christ.

AMPU good to hear from you as well. I hope you are doing well.A desire to know God in a personal way.

If the Catholic Church is correct, and I know it is. Catholics know Him in the most personal way through the Eucharist.

Assurance of eternal life.

As Paul says: "If we persevere to the end"

Relevant worship and teaching.

Honestly the word "relevant" scares the snot out of me. To many relevant means contemporized and innovative. Innovation leads to all sorts of bizarre novelties. Women's ordination, unity ceremonies,.....

A desire for the joy and comfort they witnessed in their Christian friends lives.

Just because something brings you joy or comfort does not mean that it is good or true. Some of the best antibiotics are very bitter and difficult to swallow.

That's just it, I'm not the one insisting those seven books belong as part of the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures. You don't seem to get it that those books were NEVER part of the Old Testament, they didn't come from God, they were NOT Divine revelation, as ALL the documentation I have given to you demonstrates. Do you not bother to read even the rebuttals in this thread?

It wasn't until Trent in the sixteenth century that the Catholic church even dogmatically declared them canonical, so who was in error about those books before then? They were NOT recognized as inspired because they DID contain errors. So, it's not me who is pretending the Holy Spirit makes mistakes. Look to your OWN church for that. I am convinced it is because of the need to discredit the Bible and assert superiority over it that the Roman Catholic church did that. It's too bad you guys are stuck with having to defend the indefensible.

verga,
to comment on your comments... briefly, since they are beside my original point.

“If the Catholic Church is correct, and I know it is. Catholics know Him in the most personal way through the Eucharist.”

I realize catholics believe this. I’m sure you realize I do not. Many people want more than religious ritual. They find it elsewhere in a deep devotional relationship with the Father through salvation. In any case, these former catholics did not share your belief in this matter.

“As Paul says: “If we persevere to the end””

Outside the scope of this discussion, since the passage is more complex in what it states than just the part you quoted.

“Honestly the word “relevant” scares the snot out of me.”

Worship that is Biblically accurate and culturally relevant leads to worshippers and growth. Lose one and you are crippled. Lose both and your church shrinks away to nothing until it’s “lampstand” is removed.

“Just because something brings you joy or comfort does not mean that it is good or true. Some of the best antibiotics are very bitter and difficult to swallow.”

I don’t disagree with your statement. It is the extreme end, though. God created the joy of knowing and walking with Him. That it brings people joy and comfort is good. He also created peace, comfort, and deep satisfaction.

Now, apart from those brief comments and beyond whether you agree or disagree with them, those are the reasons that have been spoken to me by former Catholics who left and followed Christ.

I point them out as additions to your original list of two items.

Your “poor catechesis” is an example right there of why so many people leave the Church. Cold, clinical, intellectual, academic. “Catechesis.” What did Jesus do? He discipled. He taught. He fellowshipped. He led. He revealed. He showed mercy. Etc. Again, the Catholic Church isn’t as spiritually satisfying. It has Jesus, but crowds Him out for the most part.

On “the first Christians” I know some about the history of the Christian faith, and there are plenty of questions just to begin with that I’d look into before I’d accept your statement. I know St. Epiphanius of about the third century said Mary wasn’t to be honored and also removed a curtain and paid for a replacement because there was an image of Jesus or a saint on it.

No, I grew up Lutheran. And once I accepted Jesus as my Savior in a mature way, without it being a parental expectation for me to get confirmed, I went to the Catholic Church. My hometown is over 77% Catholic (and then I think about 10% mainline Protestant) so most everyone I knew was Catholic. And until I was 30, I never knew one person whose faith was their life, except for Jehovah’s Witness I was friends with who mentioned to me that Easter bunnies had nothing to do with Christ’s Crucifixion. If I didn’t know that JW was a cult, I’d have talked more with her, because I had believed the Gospel but found no fellowship anywhere.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.