Well,
here's one I bought a few years ago for $$ only to learn recently
it's now available for around $25. The book contains excerpts in English from Cardinal Cajetan. Cardinal Cajetan was one of the leading 16th century Roman Catholic theologians, and a direct opponent of Martin Luther. To my knowledge, this is the only major translation of his writings in English.
From reading through this book since I bought it 2010, I've learned to have respect for the intellect (and demeanor) of Cajetan. I might not agree with what he was saying, but he certainly was articulate.
I've also learned to no longer pay a lot of money for rare books. I keep getting burned a few years later.
Posts
7 comments:
James,
Wow, thanks for pointing out this "rare" gem.
Certainly Cajetan and Arians are not mindless idiots that we like to caricature them to be. Just that they interpret Scripture wrongly, from our Protestant perspective.
Lutherans consider the DC helpful,although non canonical, so do the Reformed consider them in the same manner? Luther and Erasmus quoted Ecclesiaticus in their debate on the human free will. Athanasius quoted from Wisdom of Solomon to show that God did not create death. The don't seem to have an aversion for the DC.
Martin
Great find, James.
Lutherans consider the DC helpful,although non canonical, so do the Reformed consider them in the same manner?
That's what I would mostly say, though teaching salvation by almsgiving (Tobit) and that the temple was destroyed before it was built and Nebuchadnezzar was king of Assyria (Judith) aren't particularly helpful.
That said, 2 Maccabees does not teach prayer to the dead. It does, however, disaffirm that it's inspired by God, so that's helpful in one sense and unhelpful in another.
Lutherans consider the DC helpful,although non canonical, so do the Reformed consider them in the same manner?
I belong to a confessional Reformed Church. One of our confessions states (The Belgic Confession):
Article VI
The Difference Between the Canonical and Apocryphal Books
We distinguish those sacred books from the apocryphal, viz: the third and fourth books of Esdras, the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Jesus Sirach, Baruch, the Appendix to the book of Esther, the Song of the Three Children in the Furnace, the History of Susannah, of Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Manasseh, and the two books of the Maccabees. All of which the Church may read and take instruction from, so far as they agree with the canonical books; but they are far from having such power and efficacy that we may from their testimony confirm any point of faith or of the Christian religion; much less may they be used to detract from the authority of the other, that is, the sacred books.
While this may say this print, I don't recall ever hearing any statement from any apocryphal book in any of our church services.
Probably the only person to ever mention these books in my church was me when teaching the adult Sunday School.
d Arians are not mindless idiots
I recently finished some studies in this area, and would agree with you.
Just check with you guys if the German princes support of Luther was more out of political expedience or religious convictions? Probably it is a mixture. But the weightage is on which side? Are there any reliable "neutral/unbiased" historic sources/church historian can throw some light on this?
Thanks.
A few other things in English like the following
http://books.google.com/books/about/Commentary_on_being_and_essence.html?id=HFsdAAAAIAAJ
but almost nothing theological, strictly speaking.
Post a Comment