1.
Untrue, since prior Church councils always listed official canons of scripture. As far as I know those were official. “Infallible” doesn’t mean the list didn’t exist prior to the them being declared “infallibly of the Canon.” The before they were so “infallibly declared the list from Trent was an exact copy of the list of official canon from the Council of Florence, 1442, we’ll before Martin Luther.
2:
With the notation that they were apocrypha, but I’ll let that one go, nonetheless His list comes from the Catholic Church.
3: Which wouldn’t even be considered had they not been included from ancient lists of the Bible promulgated by preceding Church councils.
you should really stop believing protestant propeganda
1: I said “infallible” which didn’t come until Trent. So in other words, you are incorrect in your assertion. Facts suck, don’t they? Heck, the Catholic canon was only approved with a vote of 44%. So much for unity among the so-called one true church, eh?
2: So what? He still translated and included them. Still told people to read them. He literally did nothing that other Catholic scholars weren’t already doing at the time
3: Considering that official “Catholic” Bibles were including things like the Gospel of Nicodemus at Luther’s time, the only thing I can reply to your assertion is a hearty LOL.
Stop swallowing the propaganda; you can be Catholic without having to spread blatant lies from catholicapologetics.com
https://web.archive.org/web/20140803220107/http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm
More, including Luther’s own words on the subject, by the grace of God.
With the notation that they were apocrypha, but I’ll let that one go, nonetheless His list comes from the Catholic Church. Which wouldn’t even be considered had they not been included from ancient lists of the Bible promulgated by preceding Church councils
So?