The real Luther

[Panis_Angelicas]

As a dear convert friend often reminds me, “The Bible in protestant hands is stolen property.”

Pax Christi. <><

 

[Shibboleth]

Panis Angelicas:

And I do really dislike it when people take Christ’s words ~ especially those He uttered while suffering on the Cross ~ in a pompous, ignorant, arrogant attack on the Church He founded.

It is you, Shibboleth, who knows not what you do.

Pax Christi. <><

I agree with you whole hartedly here. Not only should those words be used in a pompus, ignorant, and arrogant attack but none of the words of the Bible should be used in such a way on anybody.

The teaching of Jesus are not ones of condemnation but of salvation.

And I do not know what I do, and I ask for forgivness everyday.

And yes the Catholic Church did compile the Bible but history does not belong to the historian just as water does not belong to the fish and the sky does not belong to the birds.

Should we teach only to the believers?

 

[Shibboleth]

This argument is thread is starting to upset me and I fear that it will lead me to behaving in a less than Christian way. Worse yet I feel that my comments might be inadvertently doing the same to others. The last thing that I want to do is have my actions to cause others grief. So that being said I will back down and concede defeat.

If the Bible and its teaching are only for the Catholic Church I thank them for my use of it and I am sorry that I stole it. Forgive me but I intend to keep using it in the future.

My initial statement was not a goad or an attempt to attack Catholicism. I was looking at the translation and how it may have been misinterpreted. I figured that I would have disagreement but I did not expect the response that I received. I presumed that I would have disagreement followed by an explanation why. I like to learn from such responses. Don’t get me wrong, I did get some useful information from the retorts and I hope that I learned from those comments.

Once again forgive me if I upset anyone, I was wrong in my comments.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Shibboleth:

And yes the Catholic Church did compile the Bible but history does not belong to the historian just as water does not belong to the fish and the sky does not belong to the birds.

Pardon? Fish didn’t compose the ocean, and birds didn’t compose the sea. They simply reside there.
The Early Church did record the life and teachings of Christ, and passed down those teachings, unchanged, to this very day. That’s how we know that we’ve got it right. Our people were there, writing it down and handing it down.
True history does belong to the historian, in that sense, and the teachings of Christ belong to the teaching authority He established: His Church.

Should we teach only to the believers?

Nope. But only True Believers should teach! The Catholic Church teaches infallibly the inerrant Word of God, because the Catholic Church was there and recorded it.

Erring protestant interpretations came along over a thousand years later.

Pax Christi. <><

 

[Churchmouse]

Seems I overlooked this thread completely:

I said I was doing research on Luther? Uh uh. I said I’m reading my way through Project Wittenberg. I have read all these events recorded in Luther’s own words. But I didn’t bookmark the specific URLs, because I’m not doing “research” on Luther.

Well, I responded to this earlier when I told you that I was under the “impression” that you were doing research on Luther. Research usually involves books, documents, manuscripts, etc. Pardon me for being skeptical when one posts URLs as evidence of Luther’s writings. Pardon me just as much for not accepting biased, unscholarly Roman Catholic sources as compelling evidence against Luther.

Is what I have said about Luther true or not? If you don’t think an official Lutheran website can be trusted to answer questions about Luther truthfully, what can I say? When I had them readily available, I gave you the URLs to Luther’s own words. When I didn’t and would have to spend time “researching,” I used WELS. Not good enough for you? The facts speak for themselves.

I’m not judging this on what Luther did or didn’t say? I’ve acknowledged many times that he has his skeletons. Yet, I do judge the spirit of your research which simply seems to be “Luther-bashing” at its purest. I’m sorry, but all one has to do is look at your posts to see this.

Pure speculation. And Luther didn’t reform the Church. He ripped it apart and began an avalanche of denominations, each teaching conflicting and competing doctrines, which still continues to this day.

This is exactly what I mean.

The Catholic Church does not “put out movies.” So you believe telling the truth about Luther is displaying history in an improper light? Hmmmm

Never said they did. I stated it hypothetically: “It’s all relative. I surely don’t believe the Catholic church would put out movies displaying their history in an improper light, correct? The point remains valid and I suggest you read things contextually.

No. I’ve never seen the book. I’ve read a couple of histories. One is an old book, Luther and His Work, Joseph Clayton, Bruce, 1937. (I like old books and ordered this one a couple of years ago.) For Luther’s own writings, they’re available on the Internet at Lutheran websites. I only wish I could find one with a “search” feature.

Fair enough. I never heard of the book so I wouldn’t be one to judge.

I know enough about Luther, plenty, plenty. If any Pope had ever approved polygyny and said he could find no Scriptural justification for forbidding it, I would consider that the “powers of death” (RSV) had prevailed against the Church, and I’d become a Jew. If Luther couldn’t find Scriptural justification – after declaring Sola Scriptura – he’s giving license to commit adultery.

Like I said prior to this, these are simply my observations, but you would do well to read something a bit more unbiased like the Oberman book I mentioned earlier (Luther: Man Between God and the Devil). Of course, I don’t agree with your take on Matthew 16:18 and see it as completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

Part 1 of 2:

"Martin Luther had visions, which he believed to be actual physical occurrences, of the devil hurling [feces] at him [the devil] and his hurling it back. Indeed, in one of his many anal combats with the devil – in which Luther would challenge the devil to [deleted] his posterior – Luther thought the best tactic might be to ‘throw him into my [posterior], where he belongs.’ " Quoting historian William Manchester in Triumph–The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church–A 2,000 Year History, H.W. Crocker III.

What is your point here? That Luther had visions and battled the devil? I don’t think we are in disagreement. Prior to this, I mentioned that I saw the movie and Luther was portrayed as practically psychotic at the start which was an honest portrayal in a Lutheran movie. I questioned your use of words (“revulsion”) and stated my thoughts regarding your agenda. I still question your motives.

I expect that the truth be told, however the producers might wish to twist it or spin it, at least present it. Omission makes the film a lie. I expect “the rest of the story” – a balanced presentation – to be told. Leaving out facts such as his approval of polygyny and his rejection of eleven books of Scripture – 7 from the OT and 4 from the NT – and then declaring that “Sola Scriptura” is the only basis for faith and morals, gives an entirely different picture of the man than the one they’ve portrayed. But it’s the truth – and more.

First of all, the movie wasn’t intended to be an exhaustive biography of Luther. It wasn’t meant to detail his life “birth to the grave.” If you saw the movie, you would have seen that it basically detailed some of his life as an Augustinian monk and the period which led to the Reformation, including his struggles with the authorities within the RCC. It didn’t go beyond that and wasn’t intended to. It was an honest presentation of these periods within his life. It was also honest enough to show his “psychosis.” You’re simply rambling at this point and I would appreciate it if you would stick to the point without all the filler.

You can count them yourself: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees and portions of Esther and Daniel; Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation.

Then maybe you should judge someone like Jerome who didn’t accept these books either and this was long before Luther ever did.

Which church did St. Jerome start in opposition to the One True Church? Or Cardinals X and C? This requires a separate thread, but briefly, the Vulgate, translated by St. Jerome, contains all the original books of the Bible. It was published in 405. Please provide your references for the others. Fact: the Bible was formed and canonized, book by book, at the Catholic Councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393), Carthage 397 + 419. The canon was named, book by book, by Pope Innocent I in 405. The Vulgate was published in 405. The contents have never changed since the date of its birth in 382.

The point you made was that Luther threw out these books. I reminded you that Jerome and others didn’t accept these either. You counter with some obfuscatory remarks regarding canon. I will stick only to the point, the relevant pieces involving Luther and nothing else, so excuse me if I don’t go into canon issues which you. You are going to have to check with Catholic scholarship regarding these matters and I am totally confident that they agree with me, but to put it in essence, Jerome included these books as an addendum, but added prefaces to these books explaining his stance on them. He stated that that they were good for the edification of the church, but not to add support to the beliefs of the church. He didn’t accept these books as inspired in any way, form, or manner. Again, check with your own Catholic scholarship considering they substantiate this fact. Again, please abstain from any fillers irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Individual Catholics are not the Church. The Church alone defines what it Scripture. Luther was no different from Marcion and other dissenters who formed their own Scriptures. Both thought they knew what Scripture is better than the Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world.

Once again, Luther followed a tradition that existed in the Church alongside those who thought the LXX was the proper canon. To say that Luther followed the example of Marcion is to imply that Jerome did also. Luther didn’t “form” his own Scriptures. Again, I question your ability to look at things realistically when you constantly resort to innuendo.

[continued…]

 

[Churchmouse]

Part 2 of 2…

Since Luther declared that [his cut version of] Scripture is the only basis for faith and morals, what other basis could there be for prohibiting polygyny? None. He was thereby approving plural marriage and adultery. But Luther was quite right – the Bible doesn’t treat polygamy at all. That’s one of the fallacies of Sola Scriptura. The Church is the guardian of the Depositum Fidei, and the Church teaches that marriage is a Sacrament between one man and one woman. Jesus left us a

Church, not a book.

I corrected your use of words in implying that Luther was “approving” (the word you used) polygyny, when Luther simply stated that it couldn’t be refuted from Scripture. You countered with more innuendo and filler. Where did Luther “declare” his version of Scripture as the only basis for faith and morals? We are not talking about Sola Scriptura or the authority of the church. Please stick to the topic at hand.

No Pope, no matter how reprehensible his personal behavior, has ever taught heresy.

Let me remind you said that Luther “approved” polygyny and adultery. I corrected you and stated that Luther only said that he couldn’t refute it from Scripture. You equate this with heresy. Are you confusing this intentionally?

Oh, it’s okay for the film to portray the Church as a sewer, but the reviewer was only pointing that out – it wasn’t his personal view. Did I get that right?

You seem intent in confusing every issue brought up and going on an “anti-Catholic” tear even on the most innocent of things, so I really don’t know where this is going to go with you, but the reviewer was simply commenting on the essence found in the film. The film did portray the Church, in essence, as a sewer, but like I said, you seem intent on portraying the reviewer as “anti-Catholic” as possible, which again makes me, once again, question your agenda.

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

Churchmouse, this is in response to your posts #23 and #24. Sorry not to have gotten back with you sooner. I’ve been busy building an addition on to my home.

Hey, life happens

I found the quotes your friend shared with you. Does this look familiar? This is from google’s cache when I searched under “per sola fide.”

Yes, it does looks very familiar

I don’t recall either you or your friend giving credit to “evangelical author and Pastor David King” whose work this appears to be.

Pastor David T. King is a good friend of mine. Fact is, the person at your link “A. Believer” is definitely a participant over at the NTRM forums, where Pastor King is a moderator, and obviously “cut and pasted” a response Pastor King addressed to me earlier this year. That’s right! Let me reemphasize this: Pastor King addressed this to me. NTRM has two forums, a public and a private one. The private forum, called the “Heavenly Realm,” is for the adelphoi (brethren) only and this is where the info is posted. “A.Believer” obviously got the info from there. Now, you seem to be one for assumptions. In this case you assumed that “A.Believer” was the friend I referred to, but in reality, the friend I referred to was Pastor David . Again, just the fact that you would attempt to draw insincerity towards me, puts you in a skeptical light. What could possibly be the relevance in trying to discredit me?

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

To Contarini and Churchmouse (and others who may be interested )

Here again is a partial quotation concerning Fr. Fitzmeyer and sola fide (emphasis mine):

“In his commentary on Romans, Roman Catholic Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. comments that Luther was not the first to invoke sola fide in his translation of Romans. Others used the term in a broader context as well.”

What exactly does “in a broader context” mean? Does it mean that “others” were not using the term in the same way that Luther was? If so, it’s irrelevant.

No, that’s not what it means. All you have to do is read the ongoing information Fitzmeyer cites to see that others saw the context demanding the use of “alone.”

I do not know German or Greek, but there is obviously no corresponding adverb in the Greek text for “alleyn/alleine” (alone). I’ve checked the NIV Interlineal Greek-English New Testament. Two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that “sola” was used in the theological tradition before him.

We all know this. The point is that others saw the same point Luther made. The context of the verse demanded the use of “alone.”

The term “faith alone” as it was used by Luther is not implied by the context. If it were, why is it not in any modern English translation? Or in any modern German translation that I can find? Luther’s claim that it was demanded by the context indicates that he was deciding what the Scripture should mean according to his interpretation of it and not translating it as it was written under the inspirtation of the Spirit.

Obviously, others beg to differ. By the same token, would you say that Aquinas, Bellarmine, and the others were doing the same you accused Luther of doing? That they were deciding what Scripture should mean according to their interpretation of it?

The “sola” may have appeared in writings prior to Luther, but it was never meant in the same way. Again, this goes back to “a broader context”. The previous uses of “alone” were not consistent with Luther’s use. The Catholic Church has NEVER taught justification by Faith Alone (Sola Fide), and no Catholic translator has ever meant to suggest that.

You’re simply working on conjecture and of all things to build it upon, your interpretation of what Fitzmeyer meant by “broader context.” Let me assure you, “broader context” means just that. That these sources used it in a much “broader” way then Luther did.

You imply that my problem with Luther is merely that he added the word “alone,” and argue that he only did exactly the same thing as some of his (Catholic) predecessors did. Well, no. I insist that although they may have added the word (I take Fitzmeyer’s word for it), they didn’t force a meaning on the passage that wasn’t there in the original. Luther didn’t add “alone” exactly as others did before him. He added the word and an interpretation. Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith ALONE led him to a false understanding of Romans 3:28 and he wanted to ensure that his interpretation had scriptural support. So he not only rejected James from the canon of his German translation of the Bible (previously documented) because it says in 2:24, “You see how a person is justified by works and NOT BY FAITH ALONE” (emphasis added), but he also added the word “alone” to Romans to make it read, “man is justified by FAITH ALONE.” That’s falsification, not translation.

Well, that is strictly your opinion and, obviously, one that isn’t validated. “Alone” means “alone” regardless of what you theorize and if others saw that “alone” was demanded of the context, you really cannot single Luther out. He simply agreed with those who saw the same thing. Also, get your facts straight, Luther had a low view of James, but he never declared it non-canonical and he didn’t reject the book as you continually state. James was one of the books disputed by the Church at some points within the history of the canon, amongst them Theodore of Mopsuestia, Erasmus, and Cardinal Cajetan. Eusebius lists the book under the “contested writings” (Antilegomena). The point is that there were reasons for Luther to hold a low view and it wasn’t simply “it doesn’t agree with my theology” as you would have others believe.

He tried to justify this addition later, of course, as one would expect. But I’m not buying it. The whole thing is too “coincidental” and self-serving to be dismissed as good-faith “dynamic equivalence,” particularly in view of Luther’s own words about the matter, which I previously posted.

Well, I don’t think anyone is going to change your perspective on Luther. You seem intent on substantiating what seems to be an already colored view of him.

Peace,
CM

 

[Katholikos]

Churchmouse, my “agenda” remains the same as stated in my first post: that the aggrandized portrait of the “Great Reformer” with which the world has been and is currently being deceived be exposed as false and that the truth about Luther be told. Hence, the title of my thread: THE REAL LUTHER.

I don’t want any false stories to be told about the man – just the truth, only the truth, and nothing but the truth. I have told the truth.

---

Jay, former member of the Martin Luther Admiration Society

 

[Churchmouse]

Katholikos:

Churchmouse, my “agenda” remains the same as stated in my first post: that the aggrandized portrait of the “Great Reformer” with which the world has been and is currently being deceived be exposed as false and that the truth about Luther be told. Hence, the title of my thread: THE REAL LUTHER.

Yours is basically a caricature of how Protestants view Luther. The truth is that Protestants see Luther as a man used by God for the purpose of bringing Reformation, nothing more and nothing less. I will give you the benefit of the doubt in that your experiences as a Baptist may have been with those who emphasized Luther in a more heroic overtone, but I can assure you this is not the norm for Protestants. Luther is just a man and behaved as a man.

I don’t want any false stories to be told about the man – just the truth, only the truth, and nothing but the truth. I have told the truth.

Well, so far, it’s the relative truth–truth as you perceive it to be-- and until your research is well-rounded, you’ll find only what you want to find.

---

Jay, former member of the Martin Luther Admiration Society

Funny

Peace,
CM (a card-carrying member of the “Though Man May Fail, Christ Still Sits On The Throne” Association)

 

[faustina22]

CM
Thanks for letting us know what ‘the norm for protestants’ is. That’s a huge relief!

When I was protestant “Reformation Sunday” was well nigh equivalent to Christmas and Easter. And I wasn’t even Lutheran!

Your argumentative posts show that you lack any openness to reason other than ideas that support your own agenda. I understand how you feel, though. I used to share your obvious fears. Right before I began the process of converting to Catholicism. It was the most reasonable thing I had ever done in my entire life.

 

[Katholikos]

religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=801&C=1070

They ]Luther and company] sat down to meals sometimes a dozen and a half, or more. Luther would grow irritated as everyone came to hang on his word. Sometimes he was silent and all were silent. He was ill with ringing in the ear, violent headaches, stone. He was not often contradicted. Melancthon came in and would dissent, so quietly that no one heard. But Katie spoke up, and there was usually some young man jotting down the table talk — openly, and with the approval of the master who sometimes gave a specific direction about what to write. Graduate Johann Schlaginhaufen recorded in April 1532 that Luther came out with the remark:

‘The time will come when a man will take more than one wife.’ The doctor’s wife responded, “Let the devil believe that!” The Doctor said: ‘The reason, Katie, is that a woman can bear a child only once a year while a husband can beget many.’ Katie responded: ‘Paul said that each man should have his own wife.’ To this the doctor replied: Yes, “his own wife” and not “only one wife”, — the latter is not what Paul wrote.’ Thedoctor joked in this way for a considerable time, and finally the doctor’s wife said: ‘Before I put up with that, I’d rather go back to the convent and leave you and all our children.’

Luther enjoyed getting a spirited response out of his wife. She managed him and tolerated his wayward reactions, his sometimes coarse but not obscene conversation and his increasingly frequent illness in a way which some thought he hardly deserved. He would suddenly erupt with: ‘The world is a gigantic anus and I am a ripe stool, ready to drop from it.’ Then in a moment he was back on the religious tack. END QUOTE​

Coarse but not obscene? I judge Luther’s Table Talk to be obscene in many cases. Jay

 

[Katholikos]

Churchmouse:

Hey, life happens

Yes, it does looks very familiar

Pastor David T. King is a good friend of mine. Fact is, the person at your link “A. Believer” is definitely a participant over at the NTRM forums, where Pastor King is a moderator, and obviously “cut and pasted” a response Pastor King addressed to me earlier this year. That’s right! Let me reemphasize this: Pastor King addressed this to me. NTRM has two forums, a public and a private one. The private forum, called the “Heavenly Realm,” is for the adelphoi (brethren) only and this is where the info is posted. “A.Believer” obviously got the info from there. Now, you seem to be one for assumptions. In this case you assumed that “A.Believer” was the friend I referred to, but in reality, the friend I referred to was Pastor David . Again, just the fact that you would attempt to draw insincerity towards me, puts you in a skeptical light. What could possibly be the relevance in trying to discredit me?

Peace,
CM

I made no assumptions concerning the “friend” you were quoting. But did you credit Pastor David when you quoted him? No, (here was my assumption) and I assumed you would have, considering that he was the author of the material you posted.

JMJ Jay

 

[Churchmouse]

Katholikos:

I made no assumptions concerning the “friend” you were quoting. But did you credit Pastor David when you quoted him? No, (here was my assumption) and I assumed you would have, considering that he was the author of the material you posted.

No, you assumed that “A.Believer” was the “friend” I referred to. It’s as evident as the post you made the assumption on. It is strictly my choice to reveal who the friend is and I chose not to, but I sure didn’t take the credit and it’s as evident as the post ***I * ** credited my friend on.

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

faustina22:

CM
Thanks for letting us know what ‘the norm for protestants’ is. That’s a huge relief!

When I was protestant “Reformation Sunday” was well nigh equivalent to Christmas and Easter. And I wasn’t even Lutheran!

Well, celebrating Reformation Sunday and heroizing Luther are two very different things, I’m sure you must know that. If you thought Luther was the focal point of Reformation Sunday, you obviously had no idea of what you were celebrating. I stand by what I stated originally, the norm for Protestants is in recognizing that Luther was a man used by God for the purpose of reformation and nothing more.

Your argumentative posts show that you lack any openness to reason other than ideas that support your own agenda. I understand how you feel, though.

Oh, you see my posts as “argumentative” as if I’m the one intent on one-sided “research.” Okay, think what you will. I’m sure there are a few on this forum who can see what’s truly going on and I’m referring to Catholics.

I used to share your obvious fears.

And this coming from someone who says I’m “argumentative”

Right before I began the process of converting to Catholicism. It was the most reasonable thing I had ever done in my entire life.

Well, let me assure you, I didn’t need Luther or the Reformation to convert away from Catholicism. If you carried those “obvious fears” that says more about you than it does about anything else.

Peace,
CM

 

[warnicki]

Sir ,

The Catholic Church has had many Popes , there has been only one Martin Luther . What exactly caused his break with the Church ? Faith alone ? The Bible alone ? Is the Church corrupt ? Is anything that man touches not corrupt ? Is the Church of God better off because of Luther , Caulvin , & Knox ?

            Your Brother in Christ,

                                    Stan

Growing up in a conservative evangelical environment, I found that the majority of people I knew tended to idealize Luther without knowing much about him, but a significant minority did exactly the opposite–they took certain things he said or did out of context and griped bitterly about how they had been fooled into thinking he was a holy man when he was anything but. Typically these people had Anabaptist sympathies of one kind or another. (BTW, Luther gave only very guarded approval to the execution of Anabaptists if they could be shown to be engaged in political sedition; and in fact the Lutherans were probably the gentlest to the Anabaptists of any confessional group, and in general were relatively less likely to use lethal force against “heretics” than the other state churches.) So I tend to groan when I hear someone talking as if they have made this horrifying discovery that Luther isn’t all he’s cracked up to be. It’s sort of like the way Catholics must feel when some ex-Catholic says “I was so shocked to discover that there have been bad popes.” I tend to say, “Well, of course, where were you hiding? Deal with it and move on to more relevant stuff.” But that is probably an unfair reaction, and I apologize if I’ve underestimated your knowledge of Luther’s actual works. Possibly you have read stuff I haven’t–Luther’s works are very large, and although I’ve been in grad school a while I haven’t spent all of that time reading Luther . . . . So when I ask what works of Luther’s you’ve read, it isn’t purely a hostile rhetorical question.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

Churchmouse:

The truth is that Protestants see Luther as a man used by God for the purpose of bringing Reformation, nothing more and nothing less

Churchmouse,

Do Protestants, in your opinion, see Luther as correcting some sort of apostacy that existed in the Church…perhaps not unlike how Mormons see it. I never realized this similarity between Protestant and Mormon thought before.

And do Protestants believe that Luther’s work led to a reform within the Church…or do they realize that it led to the creation of many, many new mini-churches?

Thanks for your time and God bless.

 

[Shibboleth]

Tom of Assisi:

Churchmouse,

Do Protestants, in your opinion, see Luther as correcting some sort of apostacy that existed in the Church…perhaps not unlike how Mormons see it. I never realized this similarity between Protestant and Mormon thought before.

And do Protestants believe that Luther’s work led to a reform within the Church…or do they realize that it led to the creation of many, many new mini-churches?

Thanks for your time and God bless.

Comparing Protestantism to Mormonism is a straw man tactic. I could make comparisons of the Catholic Church to other less than reputable institutions and then claim that you are the same – but I will not because this is wrong and a fallacious form of argumentation.

If you are not willing to place responsibility in the Catholic Church for the original break of Protestantism, then why do you place blame on Luther for the subsequent break off of others? Luther’s schism did not come out of a void.

 

[Churchmouse]

Tom of Assisi:

Churchmouse,

Do Protestants, in your opinion, see Luther as correcting some sort of apostacy that existed in the Church…perhaps not unlike how Mormons see it. I never realized this similarity between Protestant and Mormon thought before.

I don’t know what you are alluding to. I’m not familiar with how Mormons view Luther. Luther was simply attempting to dialogue with the Church regarding the abuses therein. Luther felt that the Church strayed from certain Scriptural principles such as “sola fide.” Mormons hold, in essence, a common belief with Catholics, that being that Scripture cannot be interpreted apart from their authority.

And do Protestants believe that Luther’s work led to a reform within the Church…or do they realize that it led to the creation of many, many new mini-churches?

The former of course. The latter has been refuted many times. See 30,000 Denominations?

Thanks for your time and God bless.

And you as well

Peace,
CM