Meaning they did not need authority to differ, since they had freedom to do so, down thru centuries. Right into Trent. Which can only presume ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as that is a novel and unScriptural premise. As already stated.
Luther removed books that were accepted as canonical.
Luther removed no books that were dogmatically defined as canonical, which Florence did not do, as already stated here fromm Catholic sources.
The infallablility declaration is often made to only formalize what was already deemed as such when someone like Luther goes heretic.
"Often" but not always, and here Trent settled things that were accepted subjects of debate among Catholics, which included the canon. Luther's rejection of over 7 books on was not even cited as a reason for the excommunication of him as a heretic by the heretical RCC. It only condemns "Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon." Which is true, as already shown here since 2 Mac. 12 does not teach it, which even Catholic scholars admit.
What books of your Bible did Luther not include in his translation?
He effectively did this to the deauteronical(sp) by saying they were not inspired.
Meaning they were part of the Bible as one of your comrades effectively argued, but not Scripture as per the most ancient authoritative Jewish canon. As much substantiated already.
>>What binding canon did Luther set forth?
Nothing he did was “binding” on anyone.
Except Catholic seem to think the canon etc. was.
>>By what authority did a man in a hairy garment who are insects have in reproving those who sat in the seat of Moses?
Sorry, Luther was no John the Baptist
Far less are your popes, however the principle remains, that if dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses can be justified, even though dissent from its formal judgments was a capital crime, then much so can dissent from the presumed authority of the RCC Whose distinctive Catholic teachings not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. which best shows the NT church understood the OT and gospels).
All told you are very late to this debate and short on any prevailing polemic.
>>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.