How would this, what Cajetan said, in light of Trent, be considered a mistake? Or ignorance from a high profile Cardinal?
The difference is before Trent (Cajetan), and after Trent.
Jon
- Status
The difference is before Trent (Cajetan), and after Trent.
Jon
A
aspirant
Guest
I’m not even sure what you mean to ask. How can a Cardinal such as Cajetan be ignorant? Easily-- none of them are omniscient.
I’m not going to pursue this, other than to say that neither Cajetan nor Dolan were/are ignorant of Catholic teaching. Cajetan was not pre-Trent, and Dolan is not post-Trent, and clearly the requirements on a Catholic regarding the deuterocanon is different now than pre-Trent.
Jon
A
aspirant
Guest
You appear to be very confused. 
Sorry you feel that way.You appear to be very confused.
If believing that Cardinals Cajetan and Dolan were/are intelligent men, who knew/know the teachings of their Church is confusion on my part, ok.Jon
A
aspirant
Guest
Believing that people should be “disciplined” if they happen to be mistaken or ignorant would definitely be confusion. But I was referring to the part where you said “Cajetan was not pre-Trent, and Dolan is not post-Trent.”
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Not so sure what’s the argument so forgive me if I do not address the issue. Citing Catholic figures as a source of disagreement or differences of thought, is well, just that. They, however, do not speak for the Catholic Church. Perhaps for Protestants to note this, in my opinion, it is a plus for Catholicism that there are clergies offering different voices rather than becoming robotic-like and that everything is thought out by the Popes. There are some Protestants who think this may be so. No, not you, Jon. But I am just pointing out an often held misunderstanding by Protestants that we used to hear.Sorry you feel that way.
Jon
I don’t see any problem for a Cardinal who has different comment. What’s important to know is that it is just his personal thought. So does a Pope and priests have their personal thought on nearly every subject in Catholicism but when it comes to official Catholic belief, everybody has to toe the line.
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
This isn’t substantially different from Luther, though, Reuben. Within Lutheranism at the time, Luther made it clear that his opinion on the deuterocanonical books was opinion. It was never the “official” teaching of the church that they were uninspired. In fact, the Lutheran Book of Concord still refers to them as Scripture at various points - most notably the Augsburg Confession and the Apology of the Augsburg Confession.
Correct, and further, no place in the Lutheran Confessions is there listed a canon, be it 66, 73, or 74 books as was in Luther’s translation.
The main point I was making with aspirant is that, prior to Trent, Catholics had the liberty to dispute the D-C’s, as was evidenced by both St. Jerome early on, and Cardinal Cajetan in Luther’s time, and all those in between. This liberty applied to Luther, also.
Jon
A
aspirant
Guest
Nonsense. One cannot reasonably conclude such a thing on the basis of a single quote in which Cardinal Cajetan expresses (1) the apparently mistaken idea that St. Jerome’s views on the deuterocanon were opposed rather than yielding to other Fathers & councils of the Church, (2) the laughable belief that St. Jerome’s authority is superior to Church councils, and (3) no knowledge whatsoever of the prior Ecumenical Council which addressed the question (this is not at all surprising, and allows us to interpret his words as simply ignorant). The most charitable interpretation we can give his words is that he was ignorant or mistaken on this matter, and we may hope he received fraternal correction, but it is frankly ridiculous to elevate a single quote from a cardinal to the doctrinal point you are attempting. More absurd than what Cajetan himself said about Jerome.
I’m not concluding anything based on the Cardinal’s single quote, but the historical fact of the matter. Catholics, prior to Trent had the liberty to question the D-C’s, and the Antilegomena of the NT as well. Cardinal Cajetan was neither ignorant, nor mistaken, nor outside his privilege as a Catholic.Nonsense. One cannot reasonably conclude such a thing on the basis of a single quote in which Cardinal Cajetan expresses (1) the apparently mistaken idea that St. Jerome’s views on the deuterocanon were opposed rather than yielding to other Fathers & councils of the Church, (2) the laughable belief that St. Jerome’s authority is superior to Church councils, and (3) no knowledge whatsoever of the prior Ecumenical Council which addressed the question (this is not at all surprising, and allows us to interpret his words as simply ignorant). The most charitable interpretation we can give his words is that he was ignorant or mistaken on this matter, and we may hope he received fraternal correction, but it is frankly ridiculous to elevate a single quote from a cardinal to the doctrinal point you are attempting. More absurd than what Cajetan himself said about Jerome.
Jon
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/canon.html
Sure they had the liberty, this is true way back and recorded by Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, Jerome etc. But not at the risk of tradition or against the Church. The Pope then Florence, then Trent affirmed. Jerome the Popes secretary, wanted to shorten the original OT, the Pope disagreed.
The Church considers the Gospel of James Apocrypha. yet they also consider aspects of it true and documented through the Coptic Church, Maximus the Confessor, Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria.
The Church considers the Acts of Andrew in aspects of historical significance. Athanasius spoke highly of and was known to often read The Shepherd of Hermas.
Still they all gave way to the Church and its Tradition and teaching authority to determine and interpret sacred scripture, which they all indeed followed, defended and affirmed.
Sure they had the liberty, this is true way back and recorded by Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, Jerome etc. But not at the risk of tradition or against the Church. The Pope then Florence, then Trent affirmed. Jerome the Popes secretary, wanted to shorten the original OT, the Pope disagreed.
The Church considers the Gospel of James Apocrypha. yet they also consider aspects of it true and documented through the Coptic Church, Maximus the Confessor, Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria.
The Church considers the Acts of Andrew in aspects of historical significance. Athanasius spoke highly of and was known to often read The Shepherd of Hermas.
Still they all gave way to the Church and its Tradition and teaching authority to determine and interpret sacred scripture, which they all indeed followed, defended and affirmed.
C
campeador
Guest
Yes Gary, and as the Council of Trent concluded:
But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.
bible-researcher.com/trent1.html
A
aspirant
Guest
You are, in fact, trying to rest an absurdly large conclusion on this Cajetan quote, namely that “prior to Trent, Catholics had the liberty to dispute the D-C’s, as was evidenced by both St. Jerome early on, and Cardinal Cajetan in Luther’s time, and all those in between. This liberty applied to Luther, also.”
None of these claims is substantiated. We know that he was at the very least either ignorant of the prior Ecumenical Council or mistaken in believing that the Council must “be reduced to the correction of Jerome.” Since I believe it would be wrong to assume moral fault on Cajetan’s part without sufficient evidence, I would prefer to assume he was either ignorant or mistaken than that he put forward this error knowingly and willingly.
You are assuming he was either in error, or ignorant.
History shows neither to be the case.
Jon
B
benjohnson
Guest
I’m curious at this line of thinking that the Deuterocanonicals were always considered the highest form of scripture.
If so, why were they given the name Apocrypha by St. Jerome in the 5th century, and why did Trent have need to dogmatically include them… especially odd behaviour if there was no confusion.
The Orthodox have a distinct name for them in the Anagignoskomena - so the idea that some scripture is different than others is an idea that had been floating around for years and not just in the western church.
So from my viewpoint, it would seem that claiming that there was no legitimate debate within the church during this time would require discounting about 1000 years of church history.
And even now… as I understand it from a Catholic friend… Catholic churches don’t typically have readings from Tobit during the mass.
If so, why were they given the name Apocrypha by St. Jerome in the 5th century, and why did Trent have need to dogmatically include them… especially odd behaviour if there was no confusion.
The Orthodox have a distinct name for them in the Anagignoskomena - so the idea that some scripture is different than others is an idea that had been floating around for years and not just in the western church.
So from my viewpoint, it would seem that claiming that there was no legitimate debate within the church during this time would require discounting about 1000 years of church history.
And even now… as I understand it from a Catholic friend… Catholic churches don’t typically have readings from Tobit during the mass.
As good a question as, if Carthage, Hippo, etc. set as doctrine the canon of scripture for the whole Church, why are there different canons in Orthodoxy?
The reason often given is that it was in response to the Reformation, that it was, at least in part, Luther’s view of the D-C’s as scripture not on the same level as the others, that was the catalyst for the dogmatic definition. Of course, the question is why was there a need to if it was already dogmatically defined. Just point to Hippo, Carthage, etc.
True.
And some Lutheran synods use the D-C’s in the lectionary. I wish the LCMS did.
Jon
A
aspirant
Guest
We know he was wrong-- Jerome’s opinions do not trump a council of the Church-- the only question is why. Better not to assume moral fault.
Not all books are accepted by all people at all times. What Jerome proposed was, however, an innovation, and he knew it.
Trent was correcting errors common among Protestants. It not so unusual for for Ecumenical Councils to repeat doctrines already defined. The First Vatican Council, for example, repeated many previously defined doctrines, such as:
First Vatican Council:
This repeats doctrine defined much earlier at the Second Council of Nicea:
Decree of Second Nicea:
Almost a third of Tobit is used in the current lectionary, which is a higher percentage than many other books. (For comparison: About 8% of Judges is included, 5% of Lamentations, 3% of Esther.) And more than one Tobit passage is included among the possible wedding readings.
B
benjohnson
Guest
Yes… you are quit correct! catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Index-Weekdays.htm
I’m having a bit of fun going through the Catholic lectionary and seeing the difference between ours.
A
aspirant
Guest
LOL, you are my kinda people, benjohnson.
- Status