So much for ‘unanimous consent.’
No, it just shows that you have taken his comments out of context. In his opening statement he said that he was addressing widowhood:
Not any longer to be in debt of my promise to your request and love in Christ, I have seized the occasion as I could, amid other my very pressing engagements, to write to you somewhat concerning the profession of holy widowhood, forasmuch as, when I was present, you laded me with entreaty, and, when I had not been able to deny you this, you often by letters demanded my promise.The statement of his that you quoted was not intended to a universal principle, but only as regards to the subject of widowhood. But as usual, as they do with Scripture, Protestants take a statement out of context and absolutize it to prove their point, ignoring all the other statements to the contrary. This is how they come to the conclusion of sola fide. There are plenty of passages in the Bible that indicate that sola fide is not true, but Protestants either pretend that they are not there, or twist them to deny their plain meaning. While Protestants accuse Catholics of putting Tradition above Scripture, it is they who place their own tradition—sola fide—above Scripture.
The church fathers taught sola fide.
You still haven’t replied to the quotes I gave you to prove it last thread.
PS: You continue to give assertions without evidence.
The same as this??
Call no man father...
:Like THIS??
Call no man father.