Albrecht vs Cajetan – Round 2

The video embedded below is a further response to William Albrechts (aka GNRHead) (link to Albrecht’s video) on the issue of Cardinal Cajetan and the Canon. In this video:

1. We deal with the fact that “Cajetan” is pronounced in modern English with the “j” making a “j” sound when it comes from a Latin (or other classical) root. Thus, we have Jesus and Jehovah, or – more to the points (since Jesus and Jehovah are not Latin words in the strictest sense) – June, July, Julius Caesar, and Jerome. Of course, a more authentic pronunciation would be to soften the “J” to a “Y” sound, but this is not the standard way of anglicizing Latin names these days.

2. We note that Mr. Albrecht humorously says that I have “the credentials of a super-hero” – but counter that this is why I don’t rely on my own credentials. I rely on higher authorities than myself.

3. We clarify that Cardinal Cajetan accepts Jerome’s opinion and harmonizes it with the other councils through a “two senses of canonical” explanation, which is reasonable. We note that Mr. Albrecht is confused about this, leading to his mistaken impression that Cardinal Cajetan thought that he (Cajetan) was opposing the rest of tradition besides that of Jerome.

4. Mr. Albrecht expresses the opinion that Cardinal Cajetan is “ignorant” when it comes to Jerome, but we discover that Cardinal Cajetan has credentials that ought to give Mr. Albrecht pause about that sort of comment.

5. We observe that Albrecht admits that his arguments about quotations from the Apocrypha are bad arguments. However, we also note that he doesn’t complete eschew them, but then complains when we point out that they are bad arguments (suggesting that we are beating a straw man when we smack down his bad arguments as such).

6. We observe approximately the same thing as (5) about Albrecht’s argument from the binding of a few ancient codices.

7. Next, we dispose (on the authority of Bruce Metzger) of the error of thinking that Jerome was alone in rejecting the apocrypha (or as the Romanists call them, the deuterocanonicals). Instead, Origen and Melito of Sardis did as well (it should, of course, be noted that there is an asterisk next to Melito’s name, in that he apparently accepted Wisdom in place of Esther, though he got the total number of books correct).

8. Furthermore, we disposed of Mr. Albrecht’s error of claiming that Trent had the same list of books as did the councils of Hippo and Carthage, confirming this from the words of one of Mr. Albrecht’s fellow Romanists, Gary Michuta.

9. Finally, we addressed Mr. Albrecht’s debate challenge, which we accepted – although setting up a time and date remains to be done (Mr. Albrecht had suggested January 2010).

Special thanks to Matthew Lankford’s artistic skill in adding a number animation goodies into this clip!


One Response to “Albrecht vs Cajetan – Round 2”

  1. natamllc Says:

    I am not sure it takes a Scholar to understand that in the six minute segment by Mr. Albrecht and the ten minute segment by you TF, there was little said of substance in six minutes and more than enough said of substance in ten minutes.Having noted that I have to say I admire the tenacity of Mr. Albrecht to stay in this frey for as long as he has. The upside of it is he is receiving the active, vibrant and Living Word of God which will at the end of the day turn him away from the froth and hopefully land him on the Rock?I was struck with this thought earlier today about the "lost".No where in Scripture does it say anything about Satan or demons being "lost", as in "knowing nothing about God". In fact, Scripture makes clear the clarity with which the enemy operates from in their vicious attacks on the Righteous.No where in Scripture does it say anything about the "lost" finding themself in their depravity.It is and has always been an Act of Grace and Mercy that any one of us comes to such clarity of His Righteousness.The dullness with which I sense clouds Mr. Albrecht seems to underscore the values I just elicitated.On the other hand, the clarity with which you rebutt him is striking and I suppose this is what fuels his tenacity to stay in the frey?It also seems he must have a following of dull folk that he feeds on for encouragement as the blows keep landing again and again and again!Oh well,:::>2Ti 2:3 Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. 2Ti 2:4 No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him. :)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: