I read the 6 things and there are discussions here on those items. However, the final paragraphs question whether someone can pick up a Bible, read it, study it, and come to their own conclusions about what it says.
How many people throughout the world still don’t have the Bible in their own language and what was available to the general public (if they could read) during the examples given?
Only someone who had ulterior motives would not translate scripture into common language and teach someone to read.
The final paragraphs are to push the reader into thinking that if each Age of Believers didn't get every fine point 100% correct every time that we should just give up and beg the Catholics to give us their interpretation. Balderdash. The Truth of Salvation is simple enough for a child to grasp and yet keeps scholars still searching as deep as they want to go. There is no argument that God granted Catholics an exclusive franchise on The Gospel. It is free to those that thirst. Free of pageantry, statues, repetitive prayers, prayers to dead people (including Mary), rituals or any other practice not outlined in Scripture or points anywhere except to Jesus and His Sacrifice.
The common language of Christians at the time of the examples given was Koine Greek. Both the Old Testament (in the Septuagint translation) and the New Testament (that was the language it was written in) were available.
Only someone who had ulterior motives would not translate scripture into common language and teach someone to read.
Prior to the invention of the printing press in the 15th century manuscript Bibles were too expensive for general distribution. The common way the faithful had access to Scripture was not by private reading but through the public proclamation in the liturgy. There is a reason that the theory of sola scriptura did not arise until inexpensive Bibles could be produced in the 16th century.
More to the point, where is the evidence that there were any Christians at the time of these disputes who advanced the later Protestant views? As the disputes themselves show, there were no lack of those who were ready to dispute the views of Catholics. Yet none in these disputes whom we would today call Protestants.