The implication here is that somehow the perverted view of Mary held by the RCC is shared by those in the Reformation. Dream on, folks. And, once again, the believers in Jesus Christ, alone, dismiss, repudiate, disavow and expose this dangerous cult-like worship of Mary for what it is...heresy from Rome.
There's no "implication" whatsoever. It's all explicit.
Read the actual words of Luther at al.,
You happy to sign off on what Luther says about Mary?
Are you one of the milkmaids or one of the farmhands Luther complained about?
Fat chance.
One of the major tenets of the world-wide Reformation was a call to end the worship of Mary and the saints which has always been a hallmark of the corrupted church of Rome.
Luther had a lot of learning to undo. A few of the earliest Reformers may have still believed Mary remained an eternal virgin, but the similarity between the truth and Rome's lies ends there.
The Protestant Reformers did not believe Mary was sinless, nor that she was assumed into heaven bodily, and certainly Mary was NOT men's intercessor, mediator, nor co-redemptrix.
All those blasphemies were heaped on Mary by the papacy. They belong to Rome alone.
Here's a great link from Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary...
Tragically, each new Marian doctrine has moved Roman Catholic theology and devotion increasingly away from the Holy Scriptures and toward human innovation. In reality, the declaration of Mary as “God-bearer” brought ill effects upon the Catholic church. The original issue in that fifth-century debate was not Mary at all, but Christ. The council acknowledged Mary was the “God-bearer” in order to affirm the deity of Christ without question. Quickly, however, the doctrine came to magnify Mary. In popular Catholic devotion — and in the writings and sermons of popes — Mary is now called the Queen of Heaven, the Mother of all Graces, and an abundance of other unbiblical titles. By the time of the Reformation, the veneration of Mary was established Catholic piety and theology. John Calvin warned of “those titles full of anathema, by which, while they would honor the Virgin, they most grievously insult her.” And to those many others have been added. In the medieval church, Mary was already understood in a mediatorial role, and as intercessor to her Son. As Calvin retorted, praying to Mary “is assuredly altogether alien from the Word of God.” As the Bible clearly reveals, there is but one Mediator, Jesus Christ, and his mediatorial work cannot be supplemented by Mary. While careful Catholic theologians insist their Marian doctrines do not diminish or impugn the saving work of Christ, this is the inevitable result. And, though Catholics claim their veneration of Mary does not distract from the worship of the Trinity, Marian devotion has virtually eclipsed the worship of God in many quarters. Marian devotion is profoundly lacking in biblical support. Scripture reveals Mary to be a worthy model of humble submission to the will of God, as the virgin who was the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ. But Scripture does not reveal any suggestion that Mary is to be venerated, that she should be honored with unbiblical titles, that she was perpetually a virgin, that she was conceived without sin, that she was assumed into heaven before death, that she participated in any way in the atonement, or that she serves in any mediatorial role. To the contrary, the Bible makes clear the only true worship is the worship of the one true God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This God is a jealous God who will not allow the worship of any creature—even the earthly mother of Jesus the Christ. The debates over Mary emerged anew in the Reformation and remain a major divide between evangelicals and Roman Catholics. Unfortunately, few Protestant theologians have been willing to address the debates head-on. Despite his own theological deficiencies, Karl Barth did get to the bottom of this issue. Mariology, he said, “is an excrescence” — ”a diseased construct of theological thought.” Further, “In the doctrine and worship of Mary there is disclosed the one heresy of the Roman Catholic Church which explains all the rest.” What should be our response? Barth suggested one simple word — No. Clearly, some Catholics are concerned about the ecumenical impact of the proposed new doctrines. They should well be warned. Nothing will more clearly demonstrate the profoundly unbiblical temptations of Roman Catholic theology than the adoption of these new Marian doctrines. Mary is not in any sense a co-redeemer, co-mediator, or advocate. She is not a dispenser of grace. Like all Christians, she is a sinner saved by the grace of God through the redeeming work of our Lord Jesus Christ. In reality, new papal declarations may not mean much anyway, because the proposed Marian doctrines are already firmly ensconced in popular Catholic piety. This is an infusion of paganism all evangelicals must resist. We have no right to grant to Mary—or to any saint, or to anyone else—what the Bible does not explicitly ascribe. In this we should all take Mary’s advice given as Jesus performed his first miracle: “Whatever He says to you, do it.” Nothing more—and nothing less.Currently, the (RC) church recognizes four Marian dogmas. The most important of these, Mary’s divine maternity, was defined by the Council of Ephesus in 431, granting that Mary is rightly called “God-bearer” because she was the mother of Christ. Later dogmas declared Mary’s perpetual virginity (649), Immaculate Conception (1854), and Bodily Assumption (1950).
The fact that Mary was the motivation for this mans conversion says it all ... Instead of asking himself "why I am protestant" he should have asked himself what do I believe about Christ? What do I believe about salvation.. because one is a protestant or grows up a protestant does not mean he is saved.. he is just as lost as the people he goes to mass with if he is trusting that the church can save him ...
I have always believed that a saved man or woman would never cross the tiber ..the filthy water would repel him