This absurd arrogant statement is consistent with other ones which express thinking "of men above that which is written," (1Cor. 4:6) and ignores the fact that most of what we hold as Scripture was already established as such before there even was a church of Rome, even if not universally in fulness.
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. (Luke 24:44)
And yet it was only after Luther's death that Rome provided an indisputable, infallibly defined complete canon, while doubts and disagreements continued down thru the centuries and right into Trent .
What did Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformer, state about the Bible? In his “Commentary On St. John,” he stated the following: “We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we have received It from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of It at all.”
If you are going to paste papist polemics the quote mine Luther, at least try to see if it is substantiated and if so, look at the context (as i usually practice with Cath. quotes) to see if it is saying what it is employed for.
And if you did then you should see by God's grace that this actually part of a polemic that renders Rome no more worthy of assent than the Jews.
For indeed, if being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium then the NT is invalidates, as the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Thus the whole "the Catholic Church gave you the Bible=it knows what it means" polemic that RCs constantly employ is what is invalid. As is Rome, as its basis for assurance of Truth, that being the premise of her assured veracity, is fundamentally contrary to how the NT church began.
Once more an attempted defense of Rome is an argument against being an RC.
What we have here on this thread are numerous individuals playing street theologians. One of them has no use for theological research. Apparently there was no need for the early Church fathers who acting with Petrine authority laboriously sorted out what sayings attributed to Christ were authentic and what were not by scholarly use of multiple sources, not the least of which was the oral tradition and acred ritual. The books in the Bible apparently dropped from the skies.
The vast reservoirs of theological inquiry conducted by a constellation of scholars are of no use to these folks. Even the admission of Martin Luther, the originator of the curse of Protestantism, that the Catholic Church was responsible for authenticating the written Word of Christ is disputed. The works of Augustine, Aquinas, Newman and Benedict studies in both Catholic and Protestant universities are either of no use to those folks or truth be told beyond their intellectual ken. No different than the TD Jakes and the corner street Foursquare Church self-appointed pastors with their First Church this and First Church that.
These same folks cannot account for the scriptural anarchy wrought by contradictory interpretations that range the whole spectrum of street preachers from the likes of Graham to Osteen to Schuller to all the way to Jim Jones and David Koresh. What they do is pick a quote from Scripture, here and there and purport to provide “their” interpretations of it even though reputable Protestant theologians who converted to Catholicism had debunked these “Protestant” interpretations.
This explains the multiple brands of Protestant nonsense. It is anti-intellectual in origin precisely because when held up to the light of rigorous scholarly scrutiny they disassemble into smithereens. Hence the whole notion of Petrine authority that makes for One Church, One Truth, One Credo is anathema to them. It would mean the Grahams, the Osteens, Schullers and their personal family fortunes would take a hit. So they attract thousands of low-information “internet-educated” believers to their Scriptural accounts. They eschew rigorous theological scholarship that dismantles the foundational beliefs of their literal only mode of analysis that has given us this rot and what eminent scholars of the evangelical spectrum have now conceded is plainly untenable.
For these individuals its “Christian-lite. Stay at home, listen to a Billy Graham recording; attend a local Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran; or any First AME, hear and applaud a thumping oration, sing-a-song good feeling, coffee and doughnuts, and heck why not? Try Osteen’s mega-millionare “prosperity gospel” stuff and all is well.