I have a difficult time imagining what it is you think you're saying here. Maybe you mean that I, somehow, started diverting discussion from how Scripture plus other stuff stacks up by your own standards by which you criticize Scripture alone. But that would be silly. Or perhaps you mean that anything other than a panygeric to the rightness of all things Catholic is a "tangent".
But clearly, regardless of what you were trying to say, you were substituting a diversion (not merely a tangent) for an answer to my argument.
And quoting Luther on a doctrinal issue is "the standard anti-Protestant polemic of insulting Luther"? I had no idea that was verbotten.
Now, where did I say you couldn't attack historical Protestant figures? I'm not a Mormon, you know.
All I did was point out you reverted to one of the standard polemics instead of answering my argument.
There's no need to posit. Luther admitted it.
Drstevej has questioned this. We all await documentation.
Didn't prevent Luther from making an error? Never claimed it did. Never claimed it should. Never claimed it would. That nasty ol' free will business is always letting individuals go astray.
You don't think the leadership of the Catholic Church should prevent its priests and theology professors (and Luther was both) from falling into error? Yow!
Anyway, it doesn't matter if you said it or not; you need it to be true for your argument to hold up. It's not, so your argument doesn't. Remember, again, if the Bible plus other stuff can't keep people from falling into error and/or leaving, then you can't criticize the Bible by itself for failing to prevent people from falling into error and/or leaving. Well, you can, it just wouldn't do Catholicism any favors.