lol. Rome wishes. Luther and Calvin and anyone with eyes to see could tell true worship from the idolatry practiced in Rome.
Luther, being a first-generation reformer, made giant strides against the lies of transubstantiation and thus he rightly denied that the Mass is a sacrifice:
"It is quite certain that Christ cannot be sacrificed over and above the one single time he sacrificed himself...Such daily sacrificing is the greatest blasphemy and abomination ever known on the earth."
Calvin, in the second wave of the Reformation, more accurately understood the Lord's Supper to be a memorial where Christ is truly present spiritually.
There is no ground...for any individual to charge us with holding that he is absent from us, and thus separating the head from the members...but, dwelling in us by his Spirit he raises us to heaven to himself, transfusing into us the vivifying vigour of his flesh... The Roman Mass suppresses and buries the cross and Passion of Christ... "Satan never raised up a stronger scheme than the Mass to fight against and strike down Jesus Christ's kingdom"..."(The Lord's Supper) is an aid to our faith related to the preaching of the gospel...an outward sign by which the Lord seals on our consciences the promises of his goodwill toward us in order to sustain the weakness of our faith; and we in turn attest our piety towards him in the presence of the Lord and of his angels and before men...
Here's a nice little website I came across this morning...
Like every other dishonest huckster you choose to change the subject when a collision with the truth would damage your position. The discussion was about the perpetual virginity of Mary, not on your flawed interpretation of idolatry.
I stated that while Luther and Zwingli were adamant about the perpetual virginity of Mary Calvin was conflicted. In Calvin's own words:
"This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ."
Calvin was just as non-commital on the issue of the real presence. Although he disagreed with Luther and Zwingli on transubstantiation he never denied the spiritual presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.
You can keep your pathetic anti-Catholic websites because the Catholic Church does not practice idolatry, as had been pointed out to you literally hundreds of times on these threads. You appear incapable of learning or modifying your flawed conclusions out of your irrational anti-Catholic hatred. To paraphrase a popular saying "there are none so stupid as those who will not learn".