Harley,
Get a clue. Nothing that you posted in any way goes against what I said:
Your first point has exactly nothing to do with Martin Luther's myth.
Your second point also has absolutely nothing to do with Martin Luther's myth.
Your third point doesn't say what you claim. Catholic printers printed many Bibles. They just need the usual nihil obstat and imprimatur marks to do it. The decrees of Trent in no way stopped orthodox Bible production. If it did then you would have a heck of a time explaining how the Douay-Rheim was published in 1582/1609 AFTER TRENT. Also, in case you didn't know (and why would you know anything about what you are talking?), anathema is a canonical term when used in a decree. It doesn't mean accursed when used in a decree. All Trent era anathemas were lifted in the 1960's by the way. You didn't know that did you? No, of course not.
Your fourth point also proves nothing about Martin Luther and his myth.
Your fifth point shows you to be either dumb or dishonest. Read the underlined passages again. Notice the phrase "for these and similar purposes"? What were those purposes? Well, they're listed a few lines above: "whereby the words and sentences of the Holy Scriptures are turned and twisted to all kinds of profane usages, namely, to things scurrilous, fabulous, vain, to flatteries, detractions, superstitions, godless and diabolical incantations, divinations, the casting of lots and defamatory libels, to put an end to such irreverence and contempt."
So the Church didn't want people to abuse scripture for their own illegitimate purposes? Oh, the humanity!
Yes, yes. I know. The Catholic Church just past the extra Bibles around during Mass in the 15th century for everyone to follow along.
And I'm the one who doesn't have a clue about history???
All Trent era anathemas were lifted in the 1960's by the way. You didn't know that did you? No, of course not.
It depends on which Catholic you talk to.
May I suggest you polish your skills relating to civil discourse?
Martin Luther entered the seminary at age 21, yet you seem apoplectic at his claim to have been 20 when he first read the Bible. Is there a reason?