Martin Luther's Devotion to Mary

http://www.catholicculture.org ^ | April 24, 2003 | Dave Armstrong

[NKP_Vet]

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.

[Rashputin]

And I thought people who insist that Jesus Christ is a liar had the good sense not to pretend they're Christians after calling Christ a liar.

That's clearly not the case, though, since so many people who pretend they're Christian swear Luther was right to throw part of the Old Testament in the garbage while the Holy Spirit didn't lead the Apostles to do so which means Christ lied when He said the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles to all Truth.

Just goes to show you that once people swallow the heresy Self and Self Alone disguised as modern Protestantism they believe and preach one lie after another whether it's about unicorns, purple cows, or calling Jesus Christ a liar.

[sasportas]

Finally, an answer to Narses’ cereal...and much funnier. First time I’ve seen “ROIOS,” it occasioned a real belly laugh, I almost fell off my chair. Bitter herbs indeed!

By the way, couldn’t make out what the “free decal inside” is supposed to be. Some sort of RCC graven image?

[Elsie]

That's clearly not the case, though, since so many people who pretend they're Christian swear Luther was right to throw part of the Old Testament in the garbage while the Holy Spirit didn't lead the Apostles to do so which means Christ lied when He said the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles to all Truth.

And yet the 1611 KJV has all your precious, specious books in it!

I wonder how??

[Elsie]

First time I’ve seen “ROIOS,”...

WHERE have you BEEN?

These C vs P wars have been going on a LONG time!

Can be found hanging from many rearview mirrors

[Elsie]

Bitter herbs indeed!

Then you may wish to try the sugar coated stuff...

 

 

 

[redleghunter]

I thought ROIOS now comes with extra tares.

[boatbums]

Ever hear of a little thing called the Septuagint? So when you say NEVER, you should actually be saying always.

Yes, I have heard of it, but have you??? Do you somehow imagine an Alexandrian instigated translation of the Hebrew Old Testament Scriptures into Greek at all proves the Apocryphal books are inspired? You DO realize, don't you, that those books were ALREADY in the Greek language, were NEVER part of the Hebrew canon and there is proof that they were ADDED long after the Septuagint was completed??? We can learn that:

In addition to all the books of the Hebrew canon, the Septuagint under Christian auspices separated the minor prophets and some other books and added the extra books known to Protestants and Jews as apocryphal and to Roman Catholics as deuterocanonical. The Hebrew canon has three divisions: the Torah (Law), the Neviʾim (Prophets), and the Ketuvim (Writings). The Septuagint has four: law, history, poetry, and prophets, with the books of the Apocrypha inserted where appropriate. This division has continued in the Western church in most modern Bible translations, except that in Protestant versions the Apocrypha are either omitted or grouped separately. (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/535154/Septuagint)

Your biggest problem with trying to assert canonicity of the Apocryphal books based on their presence in the Septuagint is the fact that not all of the books supposedly in the Septuagint were nor are part of the canon today. From http://www.truthnet.org/Bible-Origins/6_The_Apocrypha_The_Septugint/index.htm:

Since Catholics consider these books canon, therefore they do not call them Apocrypha but deuterocanonical, meaning later canon. The Council of Trent in 1546, declared the Apocrypha as canon, except for 3 Esdras, 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh which they call apocryphal. In the Catholic Bible, these additional writings within the books themselves, for example, “Susana” becomes Daniel 13, and “Bel and the Dragon” becomes Daniel 14, while the Protestant Bible only has 12 chapters to the book of Daniel.

When referring to the Old Testament, there are four classes of literature.

Books accepted by all- Homologoumena
Books disputed by some- Antilegomena
Books rejected by all- Pseudepigrapha
Books accepted by some- Apocrypha

[Rashputin]

ROTFLOL . . . Yes, with the notation that they are not inspired as the rest of the books are. So the fact that they're bound in the same covers but clearly defamed as not being His Word is nothing but a proclamation that the Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect His Word from the inclusion of error and by extension, that Jesus Christ lied when He said the Holy Spirit would lead the Apostles to all Truth.

Thanks for pointing out that the early King James Version was proud of the fact that they denied the perfection and Deity of both the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ.

[metmom]

mother of God with us.

So where is the phrase *mother of God with us* show up in Scripture?

[HarleyD]

If he held such a view then I would say that Luther was wrong. I'd like to hear Catholics admit that their Pope is wrong.

However, I'd suggest a little further research on Luther's views:

2. On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God, 1527

The next tidbit offered by Marshall is the following Luther quote:

"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" - Martin Luther's Sermon "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527.

The sermon this quote was taken from is not included in the English edition of Luther’s Works, and to my knowledge, the complete sermon has not been translated into English. This quote made its way into a cyber space when a Romanist about 10 years ago began posting it after he took it from Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar's book, Luther Vol. IV (St Louis: B. Herder, 1913). Grisar uses this quote, but what my Romanist friends typically leave out is his analysis:

The sermon was taken down in notes and published with Luther’s approval. The same statements concerning the Immaculate Conception still remain in a printed edition published in 1529, but in later editions which appeared during Luther’s lifetime they disappear.

The reason for their disappearance is that as Luther’s Christocentric theology developed, aspects of Luther’s Mariology were abandoned. Grisar also recognizes the development in Luther's theology. In regards to the Luther quote in question, Grisar says (from a Roman Catholic perspective):

As Luther’s intellectual and ethical development progressed we cannot naturally expect the sublime picture of the pure Mother of God, the type of virginity, of the spirit of sacrifice and of sanctity to furnish any great attraction for him, and as a matter of fact such statements as the above are no longer met with in his later works.

Did Martin Luther believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary?

Luther's views on Mary developed not unlike Augustine's views on grace, election and predestination. Many today Catholics disagree with Augustine on these matters but they were embodied in the Council of Orange.

[Iscool]

That's clearly not the case, though, since so many people who pretend they're Christian swear Luther was right to throw part of the Old Testament in the garbage while the Holy Spirit didn't lead the Apostles to do so which means Christ lied when He said the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles to all Truth.

It wasn't part of the Old Testament to the Nation that was charged with keeping and preserving all the oracles of God...

And so up shows a group of Africans who say the Jews are wrong and you guys follow them into the ditch...And you're still following them centuries later...I (and Luther) will trust God on this one...

[Iscool]

Can be found hanging from many rearview mirrors

Aren't some of them bobble-heads stuck to the dashboard???

[Iscool]

I’m surprised there are no free indulgences inside...Maybe on the next batch...

[Faith Presses On]

No, I’m not still Lutheran. I came to believe in Jesus as a child, but learned little more than the Gospel. The Lutheran Church never taught us the whole Bible. We weren’t told to read it and taught to memorize Scripture. Most people in the church wouldn’t have been able to recognize any but a handful of the most famous passages of Scripture, although Scripture was read every Sunday.

Once I was an adult and with full awareness accepted who Jesus is and what He did for me, then I looked around for a church, but after the Lutheran, which was all I knew, I didn’t really want one if they were like that. That’s when I tried the Catholic Church, and it seemed promising then. People exchanged “peace” and I thought that was great. I thought it was fellowship after coming from the Lutheran. But no one ever spoke to me and I had no clue about anything, and something still was unsatisfying about. I’d only read Genesis, Exodus and the Gospels, but I began reading the Gospels over and over and the Catholic (Cont’d)

[Faith Presses On]

Church seemed to have pretty much the same problem as the Lutheran that I’d left. It didn’t seem to have the same spirit as what I found in the Gospels. At that point I may have heard some of the Christian objections to the Catholic Church but didn’t understand them or really the differences between any of the denominations.

Then a few years later, though, when I was pretty much a liberal Christian and Democrat, as well as an identified lesbian, I happened to hear of Christianity.com Forums. One thing I had recently come to accept was that the Bible was all true, although I hadn’t read it all or intended to. But a few times I saw people mention “the whole armor of God,” and needing to put it on, and one time the thought came to me that I didn’t know really good and useful things like that which were apparently in the Bible and other people used and turned to for help when needed. So by the grace of God I decided right then to read the Bible and His Word took over my life and turned it into (Cont’d)

[82nd Bragger]

That would be true only if one believed Jesus is God. Although the majority of Christians believe that, not all do.

[Faith Presses On]

His Garden, is how I see it. My whole life and His Word are joined. And to go back to something you said, I was not interested in fellowship *instead* of Christ but because of Christ. I believed in Jesus since I was young but without more mature Christians to help me along, even just to point me to the Bible, I didn’t know where to turn or what to do, and tried out so much that just came along.

[Salvation]

Glad you found your way through part of the Garden of the bible, But the stones and Briars might cause stumbling if you don’t get the entire truth that John mentions — Holy Tradition. The things that there was no room to write down.

[Salvation]

You belive in Scripture, correct?

 

Then why don't you believe this?

 

John 21: (We'll be using the KJV today to keep things on even footing): "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

 

The Bible Itself declares that it doesn't contain everything.

[af_vet_1981]

So where is the phrase *mother of God with us* show up in Scripture?

Matthew 1 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.