>>Meaning they did not need authority to differ, since they had freedom to do so, down thru centuries.
Yes, they could disagree among themselves but questions were eventually settled under the guidance under the Holy Spirit. Not so with Luther. He thought he was correct because he said so and wanted to ram it down the Church’s throat. I will accept the declarations of the Christ’s Church, even if they take hundreds of years to discern, over some fallible and disturbed monk and his man-made church.
So you presume, since Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
But if being the historical magisterial stewards of Scripture means that it is their judgment on the canon that should be followed, then you need to stick with the most authoritative ancient canon.
“the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament; htttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) The Protestant canon of the Old Testament is the same as the Palestinian canon. (The Catholic Almanac, 1960, p. 217)
Not so with Luther. He thought he was correct because he said so and wanted to ram it down the Church’s throat.
You must be another victim of RC propaganda, which is an argument against becoming an RC. For rather wanting to "ram it down the Church’s throat," he actually expressed that his views on the canon were simply his non-biding opinion For instance in his Preface to the Revelation of St. John Luther states ,
About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment.
And in his Preface to the Epistles of St. James,
Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, 1 I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.
Read more here on Luther and the canon, and also see the section (right side) on Popular Entries on Martin Luther before you fall victim to more lies about him. There is enough that is true that can be criticized among attributes, but as regards the canon, as said, reality, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon after the death of Luther.
Thus Luther was no maverick but had substantial RC support for his non-binding canon.
I will accept the declarations of the Christ’s Church, even if they take hundreds of years to discern, over some fallible and disturbed monk and his man-made church.
You must will to accept what really is her fallible judgment in order to be a faithful RC (well, at least based on the letter of the law, vs. how Rome manifestly considers what passes for faithfulness now). Thus if anyone is ramming the canon down the throat, it is your elitist erroneous church .