Actually, when modern Roman Catholics swear at people who do not agree with them, we should not be surprised because that has always been the way of even their Roman Catholic "Church Fathers" e.g. the "Tridentine Fathers". In fact, dem dey even swear for dem own people too when dem get different point of view.

For example, in the 16th century when the Roman Catholics finalised the canon of their own Bible, they 'swear' for everybody who disagreed with them or at least they described such people as "anathema."

Meanwhile, considering that both Jerome and their own "pope" Gregory I had views on the canon different from what the Roman Catholics decided at Trent, are Jerome and Gregory also "anathema too?

Dibiachukwu:
If you agree with the God of moses, Isaac, Abraham, The king of kings - then it is not my opinion. It is thus says the lord. I have done my part and I will continue to invade threads like this that attempt to glorify the devils themselves. You people have fun. Peace

Bros that is your opinion and it has been duly noted and placed @ its right place.shikena

I said earlier that the OP contains lies. Let us look at just one of the lies for now.

The OP accuses Luther of removing books from 'the Bible' "without any authority whatsoever".

Meanwhile let us hear what the chief Roman Catholic theological opponent of Luther, during the Reformation, himself said about the Apocrypha.

Per "Cardinal" Cajetan

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage."

Note a few things:

1. Apocrypha books are not truly canonical for confirming matters of faith; they may only be for edification
2. He suggests this is what Council of Carthage decided; which means that what the Roman Catholics did hundreds of years later at Trent does not even agree with Carthage. Yet the Roman Catholics declared "anathema" those who take the position of Cajetan! Is Cajetan now also "anathema"? What irony!
3. Cajetan completely contradicts the lie that Roman Catholics spread today by confirming what some of us have been saying: Carthage was merely a provincial council!
4. If Carthage was authoritative or had truly been "ratified" by Rome, why then did Rome need Trent to finalise its "canon"?
5. If Rome already had a settled canon in the 4th century how come it needed to establish a canon hundreds of years later in the 16th century?
6. Was any of Rome's claimed canons ever binding on the other people who set out canons e.g Athanasius etc?

Once again from the mouths of the Roman Catholics themselves.

From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

"An analysis of Jerome's expressions on the deuterocanonicals, in various letters and prefaces, yields the following results: first, he strongly doubted their inspiration; secondly, the fact that he occasionally quotes them, and translated some of them as a concession to ecclesiastical tradition, is an involuntary testimony on his part to the high standing these writings enjoyed in the Church at large, and to the strength of the practical tradition which prescribed their readings in public worship. Obviously, the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase."

1. First of all the Roman Catholics like to spread a particularly bad lie that they had set the canon at "the Council of Rome" in 382 based on a document that is now held to be a forgery! If they had set the canon in 382, why was Jerome in 391 and later still saying that the Apocrypha was not canonical?

2. Again we see Roman Catholics themselves admitting that Jerome and others did not accept the Apocrypha as canonical. {They try to say that Jerome and the others were too rigid in respect of what to regard as canonical}.

3. Again, we see the view that the Apocrypha may be good for edification but are not for the confirmation of the doctrine of the Church.

3. What we see there is what many Christians who are NOT Roman Catholics have held for a long time.

5. This can be said to be the position of even the King James Version (before the Apocrypha was completely removed in later versions editions) which treated and included the Apocrypha separately from the normal Old and New Testaments.