>> If by the "Q" school, you mean literary critcism, remember that there are many Roman Catholic apologists who have embraced it. <<
Yes, they did, and for that reason I spoke of the German-speaking culture, and not of Lutherans. Heidegger is also embraced by many Catholics. My point was only that the intellectual movements were related, not that the error of the "Q" school is a necessary conclusion of Lutherism.
>> Luther did hint at various things he saw in seminary, and his out right shock at what he saw in Rome of the time. <<
You do realize that historians, Catholic, secular, and Protestant, highly doubt Luther's claims of Rome, as they were very inconsistent with better-established histories. For instance, most of the funds that the Catholic church was raising was being spent on fighting Islam, not on the wealth and splendor he relates. On the other hand, it is possible that he was merely exaggerating; certainly, Rome at the time was spending significant amounts on very majestic material things such as St. Peter's. (Not purely materialist, since the subjects were chosen to glorify Christ and proclaim that such matters were what the church found worthy of exaltation; nonetheless, I must concede a substantial amount of materialist corruption.)
I recognize what you say about having to go to work; I am feeling quite prolific on FR this afternoon... Must be maintaining 50 WPM with gusts to hurricane forces :^D... I'll look forward to reading more...
Comment:
Again, note I refer to "Lutherism," and not "Lutheranism" to include Protestants who subscribe to Luther's teachings but are not members of sects which describe themselves as Lutheran.