I think that you misunderstood the post. I did not mention Billy Graham, Dietrich Bonhoffer, JC Ryle or Barth, just as I did not mention Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI. The point that I raised is not whether protestants are bad, but whether the reformation solved anything or simply divided the faithful.
Also, you insinuate that faithful Catholics had "no clue". Certainly there are and were clueless Catholics just as their are clueless Baptists, Methodists, Evangelicals and Presbyterians. However you may want to do a little homework on medieval theology prior to buying into the "dark ages" formulation. For a good overview, I would suggest that you read Dawson's "The Making of Europe".
Most Protestants don’t define themselves in terms of the Catholic church. Most don’t even think about it, which is a shame. You might know less about Protestant theology than many Southern Baptists know about the Catholic church. It’s hard to tell.
I am no expert on every variant of protestantism, but I do live in the South, and have attended a good variety of protestant services and open dish dinners, and am reasonably well read. I am simply referring to the term "protestant" which literally means protesting. If one protests, there is usually an object of the protest. If the term refers to a protest over something other than Catholicism, let me know.
I don’t think I misunderstood your post at all, unless there is some yet to be disclosed tradition that will further illuminate it for me. I did not insinuate that “faithful” Catholics had “no clue.” I question the meaning of “faithful,” in the Dark Ages, and beyond. I don’t think getting dunked or answering an alter call is any different.
I suppose I could answer in kind, and claim that you insinuate that Prostetant theology consists of only open dish dinners (not that you would insinuate such a thing). In fact, I won’t even condescend to assign you a bit of homework.
We northerners calls em ‘covered dish dinners.’