Archive for the ‘Cajetan’ Category

Cajetan on the Canon

November 17, 2009

The following is an excerpt from The canon of Holy Scriptures: from the double point of view of science and faith, by Louis Gaussen, London: 1862, Appendix on the Apocrypha, pp. 642-43 (link).

But Cajetan, on the question of the apocryphal books often expresses the same opinion as ourselves, either in his Commentaries on Thomas Aquinas, or in those he wrote at Rome itself, or very near the Council of Trent, on the Holy Scriptures. [FN: The public library at Geneva possesses the Commentaries of Cajetan, In Omnes Authenticos Veteris Testam. Historiales Libros, printed at Rome in 1533. The Pope’s Penitentiary superintended the edition. Cajetan enumerates the books on which has commented, “Omissis reliquis ab Hieronyme inter apocrypha supputatis.”]
He says, on the first chapter of the Hebrews, “The books that Jerome has handed down to us as canonical, (canonicas tradidit,) we hold to be canonical, and those which he has separated from the canon, (à canone discrevit,) we hold to be out of the canon, (extra canonem habemus.)” But we have already said with what decision Jerome has expressed himself against the Apocrypha. “After Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi,” he says on Isaiah xlix. 21, “I have seen no other prophet till John the Baptist!”

Cajetan also says, in his dedicatory epistle to Pope Clement VII. (at the head of his commentary on the historical books of the Old Testament) — an epistle approved by the Pope — “Most holy father, the whole Latin Church is under the greatest obligations to St Jerome on account of the distinction he has made between the canonical books and the uncanonical. He has delivered us from the OPPROBRIUM which would have rested upon us in the eyes of the Hebrews, (ab Hebraeorum opprobio,) of appearing to regard as part of the canon, books and portions of books which the Hebrews entirely want, (quod fingamus nobis antique canonis libros aut librorum partes quibus ipsi penitus carent.)”

He says again, on the last chapter of Esther, “These books are not canonical (non sunt regulares) to confirm the matters of faith, (ad firmandum ea quae sunt fidei.)” “But yet,” he adds, in the sense in which Augustin sometimes spoke, “they might be called canonical—that is to say, books serving as a rule (regulares) to be employed for the edification of the faithful.

It is thus that Jerome had said, (on the books of Solomon, to Chromatius and Heliodorus,) “In the same way as the Church reads the books of the Maccabees, Tobit, and Judith, without receiving them into the number of the canonical writings, so we may treat Ecclesiasticus and the book of Wisdom, reading them for edification, and not to authorise dogmas. (Sic et haec duo volumina legat ad aedificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandum.)”

Albrecht vs Cajetan – Round 2

June 10, 2009

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!


Cajetan and the Canon

May 22, 2009

Response to Mr. William Albrecht regarding Cajetan and the Canon. Cajetan was a Roman Catholic cardinal who opposed Luther as an official representative of Rome, but who also held to the same canon as “Protestants” do today. This clip discusses that issue as well as a few related issues.


%d bloggers like this: