Then why not provide the link as you are supposed to, unless perhaps you do not want anyone to see that this is part of a polemic which actually refutes the idea that being the steward of Scripture amounts to being its assured interpreter.
And if that is not your argument, then what is the purpose behind the constant "we gave you the Bible" assertion?
Context and literary form is critical in examining quotes, else you can be like atheists who charge the Lord with sanctioning dishonestly by His commendation of the unjust steward, (Lk. 16:1-8) or calling no man at all "father." And Luther was very polemical and much a user of hyperbole, and of acerbic or sarcastic language, which was a custom among many .
And another one is when he was charged with adding the word “alone” to St. Paul’s writings, he reportedly said.. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all... [taken from Catholic Answers site, don’t have a protestant source for this one]
Which is another quote that you need to examine to see what Luther the what and why of what Luther said, unless you want to be like the rest of FR RCs who uncritically cut and paste parroted RC sites.
For Luther, do a site search at same site, (like site:beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all) as Swan, who debates RCs, has made it a practice to track down such to their original sources.
And by so doing you can see that Luther was not alone in adding "alone,
“Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me.”
Now here comes the fun part in this discussion.
The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.”
At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.
Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):
Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).
Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).
Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).
Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).
John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).
Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).
Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.
Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).
To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):
Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).
Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).
See further :
And Luther gives his reasoning behind adding "alone," which is actually sound, and practice RC Bibles have engaged in.
“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text -- if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”
Secondly, your quote "Dr. Martin Luther will have it so..." in context is part of a polemic which states,
“If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: "Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing." …For we are not going to be students and disciples of the papists. Rather, we will become their teachers and judges. For once, we also are going to be proud and brag, with these blockheads; and just as Paul brags against his mad raving saints, I will brag against these donkeys of mine! Are they doctors? So am I. Are they scholars? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they debaters? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they logicians? So am I. Do they lecture? So do I. Do they write books? So do I.”
“I will go even further with my boasting: I can expound the psalms and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they cannot...
As Swan states,
One can almost feel Luther’s anger towards his Papal critics. They discredited him as a doctor of theology, a degree he earned in a rather quick period of time, and his academic abilities were above most. Indeed, he had done the work necessary to be taken seriously. His critics criticized his German translation while at the same time stealing it for their own translation- this infuriated him, and rightly so.
Finally, we actually find the RC preoccupation with Luther perplexing, as if we held him as some sort of pope, or necessary to validate our faith, while he was far more Catholic than we are. But our unity is due to an shared conversion by faith in the risen Christ of Scripture, and Scripture based relationship and walk with Him, not by looking to an exalted man overall, or faith and security in a church.
hey, I told you the site where I found the quote, you go read the protestant polemics with their commentary. Not interested in it.
And for the record, I have seen that list of quotes you site and the same argument. Cardinal Bellarmine was Jesuit and indeed a leading Theologian against the Protestant Schismatics of the 16th century. Dr. Taylor Marshall, a former Anglican Priest, who has a blog called Cantebury Tales that I frequent, actually put together a response to this years ago.
http://taylormarshall.com/2010/10/did-church-fathers-teach-justification.html
Nothing new here and no, none of those guys taught Luthers Doctrine of Justification and they certainty did not teach Calvin’s Penal Substitution Forensic Imputation doctrine.
All of the Fathers you sited believed in the Sacraments, believed Baptismal regeneration, real presence of the Eucharist, had strong views on the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, believed in the communion of the Saints, heck Augustine was the one who came up with the term purgatory, were Catholic in their ecclesiology, etc, etc.