Cajetan's Quote on the Apocrypha is Fraudulent?

Every few weeks over on a online discussion forum, the never-ending discussion about the Apocrypha (or inter-testamental books) rages on. Each time the battle is engaged, the same arguments are dragged out from both Rome's defenders and Protestant participants. In a recent discussion, someone brought up this famous quote from Cardinal Cajetan on these books:

"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 Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus 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." (Cardinal Cajetan, "Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament," cited by William Whitaker in "A Disputation on Holy Scripture," Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424) http://www.justforcatholics.org/a108.htm

[Point of tedium: in the documentation of this quote above, there is a seeming error. The quote is not on page 424 of William Whitaker A Disputation on Holy Scripture,"Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), but on page 48].

Cardinal Cajetan is mostly remembered as the papal legate that officially questioned Martin Luther in Augsburg in 1518. Cajetan though is far more interesting for his representation what a leading, educated, sixteenth century Roman Catholic believed about the Apocrypha (the inter-testamental  / Deuterocanonical books). Cajetan's views on the canon and textual criticism have some similarities to Luther's, and this often confounds those who attack Luther to no end. How is it Luther was so evil about the canon of sacred scripture, yet a leading Roman Catholic contemporary isn't? Over the years, I've been given various answers from Rome's defenders about Cajetan. Recently though, I came across an explanation for the Cajetan quote above I've never heard before:

I've researched this to find that the original commentary by Cajetan does not contain this language. The source is erroneous... The burden is on the person claiming its existence. Precious cited a document which claimed to reference an original source. You can look for that source as readily as I can. The words which are claimed to exist, do not exist. I encourage you to research it and prove me wrong if you wish, but I've already done my own research and concluded that the secondary source is in error... The source you need is the original source = Cajetan's actual statement, not the reproduction and possible distortion of that statement by others..Because I looked for the original language that is purported to come from the Catholic Cardinal and could not find it. The lack of existence is enough for me. The source cited by Precious appears to be flawed. I cannot produce the absence of a document... I forgot that I actually did write down my research on this. Here it is: Look at Catholic Reform: From Cardinal Ximenes to the Council of Trent by John C. Olin (Fordham University Press, 1990). On page 61, you will find the Preface in which the supposed admonition is to be found. It is short and easy to read since it has been translated into English. As you read it, you will discover that the words Precious quoted are not there. William Webster also used the very same quote as the other non-Catholic sources that Precious has referenced. It seems that mere repetition has caused some to assume it is true. But since the original source is different than the proposed quote we can see Precious has been misled. 

So, the refutation of the Cajetan quote in question is that... it does not exist! Here's how to respond: first, if someone quotes something, it's up to the person quoting it to produce documentation and authenticity. That is, if someone were to claim a citation I was using did not exist, it would be my burden to demonstrate it does. Second, the quote from Cardinal Cajetan is authentic. It is from In omnes authenticos veteris Testamenti historiales libros Comentarii.  It can be towards the bottom of the page 397:

Et hoc in loco terminamus commentaria librorum historialium veteris Testamenti: nam reliqui (videlicet Judith, Tobiae, et Maccabaeorum libri) à divo Hieronymo extra canonicos libros supputantur, et inter apocrypha locantur, cum libro Sapientiae et Ecclesiastico: ut patet in prologo galeato.— Nec turberis novitie si alicubi repereris libros istos inter canonicos supputari, vel in sacris conciliis vel in sacris doctoribus. Nam ad Hieronymi limam reducenda sunt tam verba conciliorum quàm doctorum: et juxta illius sententiam ad Chromatium et Heliodorum episcopos, libri isti (et si qui alii sunt in canone Bibliae similes) non sunt canonici, hoc est non sunt regulares ad firmandum ea quae sunt fidei. possunt tamen dici canonici (hoc est regulares) ad edificationem fidelium: utpote in canone Bibliae ad hoc recepti et authorati. cum hac enim distinctione discernere poteris et dicta Augustini in secundo de doctrina Christiana, et scripta in concilio Florentino sub Eugenio quarto: scriptaque in provincialibus conciliis Carthaginensi et Laodicensi, et ab Innocentio ac Gelasio pontificibus. 

Addendum#1: Cajetan's Views on the Canon Attacked by his Roman Catholic Peers 

There was controversy over Cajetan's comments on the Bible. A previous Beggars All entry references Roman Catholic scholar Jared Wicks explaining:

Cajetan's biblical commentaries occasioned no little admiration. From Luther, there is a recorded remark, "Cajetan, in his later days, has become Lutheran." Considerable zeal was expended by Ambrosius Catharinus, O.P., against the exegetical work of his retired Master General. Catharinus submitted a denunciation before the still acerbic faculty in Paris and proceedings began that could have led to another book-burning Clement VII intervened in a letter to the Parisian professors in September, 1533, to protect the man who was by then the Pope's regular source of valued theological advice. Proceedings were halted at this time in Paris, but not before an open letter of the Parisian theologians had begun to circulate listing the censurable propositions excerpted from the commentaries. The Sorbonne masters charged Cajetan with imprudently taking these notions from Erasmus or even Luther. The letter ended with a stinging rebuke of Cajetan's rashness in abandoning the long approved Vulgate text to base his work on new versions in no way guaranteed for their exactness. In 1534 a Wittenberg printer, no doubt with considerable glee over this discomfiture of Luther's old adversary, brought out the open letter in pamphlet form. Catharinus published his criticisms of Cajetan's commentaries in 1535, revised and expanded them in 1542, and obtained a censure by the Paris faculty against Cajetan's biblical works in August, 1544.

The specific charges brought against Cajetan concerned the reservations and plain doubts he had expressed about the apostolic origin of the final eleven verses of Mark's gospel, the story of the adultress in John 8, and five whole epistles of the New Testament (Hebrews, James, Jude, and 1 and 2 John). These views were especially serious in Cajetan's case, since he had laid down the rule that apostolic authorship or direct approval by an apostle was normative for inclusion in the New Testament canon. Following Jerome, Cajetan also relegated the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament to a secondary place where they could serve piety but not the teaching of revealed doctrine (Jared Wicks tr., Cajetan Responds: A Reader in Reformation Controversy  pp.36-37).

 

Addendum #2: Sixteenth Century Roman Catholics Were Divided on the Canon  

Now before one thinks that it was Luther and Cajetan (and Desiderius Erasmus) against the world on downgrading the Apocrypha, these men were not a sixteenth century anomaly. Previous to the Council of Trent, there were Roman Catholic scholars that held a low view on the Apocrypha. At the Council of Trent, a group of scholars considered knowledgeable on this issue echoed Cajetan. One in particular was Cardinal Seripando. The Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin explained “…[H]e was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent. Jedin is worth quoting at length:

(Seripando was) Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are "libri canonici et authentici"; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271).

“For the last time [Seripando] expressed his doubts [to the Council of Trent] about accepting the deuterocanonical books into the canon of faith. Together with the apostolic traditions the so-called apostolic canons were being accepted, and the eighty-fifth canon listed the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) as non-canonical. Now, he said, it would be contradictory to accept, on the one hand, the apostolic traditions as the foundation of faith and, on the other, to directly reject one of them” (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate at the Council of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), p. 278).

Jedin also documents a group of excellent scholars that stood against tradition as being on the same level of authority as scripture:

In his opposition to accepting the Florentine canon and the equalization of traditions with Holy Scripture, Seripando did not stand alone. In the particular congregation of March 23, the learned Dominican Bishop Bertano of Fano had already expressed the view that Holy Scripture possessed greater authority than the traditions because the Scriptures were unchangeable; that only offenders against the biblical canon should come under the anathema, not those who deny the principle of tradition; that it would be unfortunate if the Council limited itself to the apostolic canons, because the Protestants would say that the abrogation of some of these traditions was arbitrary and represented an abuse… Another determined opponent of putting traditions on a par with Holy Scripture, as well as the anathema, was the Dominican Nacchianti. The Servite general defended the view that all the evangelical truths were contained in the Bible, and he subscribed to the canon of St. Jerome, as did also Madruzzo and Fonseca on April 1. While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the "canon ecclesiae." From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship" (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate at the Council of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 281-282).

 

Addendum #3 John C. Olin: Catholic Reform: From Cardinal Ximenes to the Council of Trent 

I'm not familiar with the book, Catholic Reform: From Cardinal Ximenes to the Council of Trent by John C. Olin (Fordham University Press, 1990) alluded to above by the person arguing the Cajetan quote does not exist. It is the responsibility of the person claiming this source proves the Cajetan quote is ingenuine to produce the relevant material from page 61 to see exactly what's going on.

 

Revised April 2026 

Jared Wicks: Luther and His Spiritual Legacy

I recently picked up a copy of Jared Wicks, Luther and His Spiritual Legacy (Delaware: Michael Glazier Inc., 1983). Wicks is a Roman Catholic scholar, and I've referred to him before. The book came with this little insert:



Well, of course Michael Glazier could probably care less what I think, and I'm about twenty seven years late with a review. However, when I read a helpful Roman Catholic book written with fairness and insight, I think it's worth mentioning. If you think that Roman Catholics are Reformation-clueless, and only rely on 100 - 200 year old secondary sources, you should know that Roman Catholic scholarship tends to be light years away from the books like these written by Catholic laymen.

Wicks has read Luther extensively, quoting primary sources accurately. In most cases, he refers to the English edition of Luther's Works, otherwise it's Weimar. Helpful also are the bibliographies throughout the book, and also extensively at the end. For each topic Wicks covers, he makes sure to send you off in the right direction for more information. The book is short, under 200 pages, and the seven chapters are spaced nicely. Used copies can be found here (the copies listed will probably change week to week). The magic of the Internet never ceases- I found the entire book in PDF format:

Title, Contents, Foreword
Ch. 1 - Images of Luther
Ch. 2 - The Eve of the Reformation
Ch. 3 - Luther’s Life and Career to 1512
Ch. 4 - Luther’s Theology of the Cross, 1513-1518
Ch. 5 - Luther’s Reformation Decisions, 1518-25
Ch. 6 - Luther’s Later Life and Works, 1526-46
Ch. 7 - Luther’s Mature Spiritual Teaching
General Bibliography and Index

The chapters don't need to be read in order. Each is sufficient in itself. Chapter one is a helpful overview of interpreters of Luther. He focuses primarily on Roman Catholic interpretations, tracing the trend from destructive criticism to the kinder evaluations that began in the twentieth century. Cochlaeus, Bellarmine, Janssen, Denifle, Grisar: these are Roman Catholic authors from the destructive period, and oddly enough, their works are easy enough to find on the Internet. Merkle, Lortz, Iserloh, Pesch, these are but a few of recent Roman Catholic scholars. Their works are not as easy to find on the Internet. Whatever progress they made in scholarship hasn't quite filtered down to the Internet layman level.

Wicks presents his image of Luther, and these are motivated by his ecumenical leanings:

Luther can be a forceful teacher of lived religion. He can be a resource for the enrichment of personal spirituality for members of all Christian confessions. In many of Luther's works, one does not have to read far before touching on the subject of conversion from proud self-reliance to trusting acceptance of God's grace. Luther's accounts of conversion bear numerous marks of their own time, as accounts written between 1509 and 1546…. One thinks here of Luther's The Freedom of a Christian, of his exposition of the Miserere (Psalm 51), and of his preface to the Epistle to the Romans.” (p. 26).

"Luther can lead the spiritually dedicated person to the retrieval of easily forgotten central truths. Like Ignatius, Luther is skeptical about enthusiastic claims of having the Spirit. Luther leads the believer back to the word of Scripture, to baptism, and to the words of absolution and eucharistic institution. There faith can take hold of reliable communications from God. Above all, Luther sought to help people be struck personally by the word and work of Christ. Both Ignatius and Luther teach that Christmas is a time to marvel that God became man for me and for my salvation." (p. 26)

"As one reads the Gospels and prays over them along lines suggested by Luther, a leitmotif will inevitably be the line, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners" (Matthew 9:13). Luther is a dedicated foe of any proud satisfaction over having arrived spiritually at a point of rest. Penance for him is a lifelong concern, which is as well the message of the annual observance of Lent in the church year." (p.26)

“…[C]ertain concerns of contemporary theology especially in Catholic circles, suggest that Luther can provide enrichment. For instance, he insisted on occasion on integrating experience into his interpretation of Scripture and his teaching of Christian truth. This gave many of his expositions, especially on sin and grace, a tone of profound, even anguished, feeling. For him, sin and guilt were terrifying, grace and union with Christ liberating and filled with delight. Faith, for Luther, brings an experience of strength and courage become imperturbable and of trust and joy deep in the heart. In Luther's day, academic theology in the universities had long been divorced from the Christian insights of the monastic and mystical traditions. Luther was one who brought the academic, that is, systematic and exegetical, concerns into renewed connection with Christian experience.” (p.26)

“Christology is clearly the place of the central theological ferment of our day. Catholic theologians are producing a host of new presentations of the person, message, and meaning of Christ the Lord. Luther can serve here as a forceful reminder that soteriology, the doctrine of Christ's saving work, is the center of all Christian words and teaching. Faith, for Luther, focuses sharply on the redemptive mystery, on Jesus' life and death for us and for our salvation…. For Luther, the cross of Christ is the most illuminating revelation of God. The heart of the Father is shown us in his Son, and faith in the Father is always through the Son. Focused as he is on salvation, Luther stresses how Christ brings grace and forgiveness to the fearful and saddened hearts of sinners. Luther does offer a relational Christology closely based on Scripture.” (pp. 27-28)

“Another concern of contemporary theology is biblical hermeneutics. One senses an increasing dissatisfaction with contributions to theological work by the practice of the critical-historical method on Scripture. Biblical scholarship at times uses methods that atomize the texts into tiny particles. Other analyses so stress the special individuality of a particular biblical author as to leave us no single message from the New Testament. Another kind of interpretation seems needed, that goes beyond the initial phase of work with the text. Above all, a method is needed which does not lose sight of the perspective arising from the faith which prompts us to pick up the Bible in the first place. Now Luther did practice theological and religious interpretation of Scripture. Taking his stand on Paul's form of the Gospel of grace, Luther moved out confidently to point out what was going on in the prayers, narratives, and sermons recorded throughout the Bible. His Old Testament interpretations focus on faith and the trials besetting the lives of God's servants. Luther explains the Psalms as Christian prayer. He comes to the gospel narratives quite aware of the mission of Christ to bring salvation to sinners. Thus Luther provides a model of interpretation of the biblical text that is focused on the religious core of revelation.”(pp. 28-29).

But for Wicks, there's also negative aspects of Luther. He lists three central points of doctrine that he finds erroneous:

“Luther's doctrine of conversion did resolutely exclude the free assent of compliance by which the human person ratifies and appropriates the grace of God. This assent, the Catholic tradition rightly holds, could be dissent or refusal in a given case. A mystery of freedom, human freedom, penetrates conversion under grace. But Luther projected a mystical passivity into this area.” (p. 29)

"Second, there are Luther's polemics against the sacrifice of the mass. History shows the many reasons why a reform movement had to take up the mass in the sixteenth century. Protestant reformers did do away with abuses connected with stipends, the vast number of masses without the people, lay passivity or attention to other devotions during mass, withholding the chalice, celebration in a tongue alien to many, and neglect of preaching at mass. But Luther went on to teach a purely receptive posture of faith in the central moment of worship. Receptivity is right, but Luther's exclusion is not right. Eucharist is a prayer of praise and dedication addressed to the Father in the Holy Spirit. It is intrinsic to the action to give all honor and glory to the Father through, with, and in Christ. A sacrificial movement of self-offering by the church is essential here. Luther's passion to display the grace of God in the Supper led to an exclusion of this movement toward God by the community united with Christ.”(pp. 28-29)

"Lastly, and most fundamentally, Luther believed that Scripture had a power of self-interpretation based on the content of its central message. Luther felt that the norms for understanding all biblical texts arose from the Pauline gospel. Sacra Scriptura sui ipsius interpres is the basic Reformation tenet asserting this self-interpreting power. There is, of course, more than a grain of truth here, but alone the tenet does not suffice. Scripture does provide important motifs and assertions that should inform interpretive work. But still the Bible only comes to us because it was made canonical by the church, and this Bible is first of all an element in the life of this church. Ultimately, an adequate interpretation, the stimulus of developing Christian doctrine, arises out of the interplay of the biblical message and this church." (p 30).

Despite these criticisms, it's refreshing to read them rather than personal attack or pseudo- psychological evaluations. Wicks is Roman Catholic, and he's not giving away the store. Wicks is ecumenical, but not to the point of denying central aspects of Romanism.

The chapter entitled "On the Eve of the Reformation" (chapter 2) is probably the most dry, Yet given that this topic is prone to different interpretation (i.e., Janssen vs. Lortz), Wicks does a fair job explaining the tensions and problems that gave birth to the Reformation.

The mid chapters in the book are brief historical sketches of Luther's career. The earlier chapters show how fluent Wicks is with Luther's earlier writings. He traces Luther's unfolding understanding of grace and justification, particularly from his early lectures on the Psalms and Romans . The later chapters skip through the bulk of Luther's career, minus the typical Roman Catholic invective. For instance, his review of the Peasant's Revolt is fair and balanced. When describing Luther's translation of the New Testament, Wicks calls it a "linguistic masterpiece filled with the uncanny power of God's living word" (p.97). He doesn't waste time with silly arguments about adding words to Romans 3, or destroying the canon.

The most significant chapter is Ch. 7 - Luther’s Mature Spiritual Teaching. Here, Wicks describes the insight Luther made as a theologian. It's really a chapter explaining what Luther meant by sola fide. Any Roman Catholic wishing to go beyond the simple basics or slogan shouting will find a helpful overview here. Sola fide isn't the license to sin it's regularly made out to be.

Other writings from Jared Wicks can be found here.

Cajetan on the Canon: Roman Catholic Says: He's Ok Because He's One of Us!

A contemporary of Martin Luther, Cardinal Cajetan was a leading Roman Catholic scholar and deeply affiliated with the Papacy. Cajetan's opinions on the canon of Sacred Scripture are interesting to juxtapose against Martin Luther's, especially since Roman Catholics often malign Luther mercilessly on the canon. For instance, in an online discussion I was involved with, it was stated, 

Luther was a Catholic who denigrated Scripture, removed 7 Books from the Old Testament as he saw fit, and attempted to do the same with Revelation, James, Jude and Hebrews. He tampered with Scripture to boost his new doctrines...

A person stating something like this typically has no idea how to navigate their way through Cardinal Cajetan's view on the canon. Recall some of the charges against Luther: he questioned (or denied) the canonicity of James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation. He saw these books as not the works of apostles, but of second century Christians. He also classified the Old Testament Apocrypha as: not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.  

Cardinal Cajetan also questioned the authenticity of certain Biblical books and if they were canonical. The Catholic Encyclopedia points out he questioned “the authorship of several epistles… Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude.” The New Catholic Encyclopedia takes a stronger position on his questioning and says, “He expressed strong doubts about the literal meaning of Canticles and the Apocalypse; the authenticity of Mk 16:9-20 and Jn 8:1-11; and the authorship of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and 3 John, and Jude.” In 1532, Cajetan wrote his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement VII). In this work, Cajetan leaves out the entirety of the Apocrypha since he did not consider it to be Canonical. The English rendering of Cajetan's text on this is most often cited as found in William Whitaker's A Disputation on Holy Scripture:

Thirdly, the papists themselves understand and interpret Augustine and the rest in the same manner as we do. For so many persons after Augustine and after those councils would never have denied these books to be canonical, if they had not perceived the reasonableness of this interpretation, If then they blame our judgment, let them at least lend some credit to their own companions and masters. I will bring forward no man of light esteem, no mean or obscure doctor, but a distinguished cardinal,—that special pillar of the popish church, Cajetan, who assuredly excelled all our Jesuits in judgment, erudition, and authority. I will recite his words, because they are express and should always be in remembrance.

Thus, therefore, writes Cajetan at the end of his commentary upon the History of the old Testament: ‘Here,” says he, “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.”

Thus far Cajetan; in whose words we should remark two things. - First, that all the statements of councils and doctors are to be subjected to the correction of Jerome. But Jerome always placed these books in the apocrypha. Secondly, that they are called canonical by some councils and Fathers, and customarily received in the canon of the bible, because they propose a certain rule of morals. There are, therefore, two kinds of canonical books: for some contain the rule both of morals and of faith; and these are, and are called, truly and properly canonical: from others no rule, but only of morals, should be sought, And these, although they are improperly called canonical, are in truth apocryphal, because weak and unfit for the confirmation of faith (William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, pp. 47- 49).

Original text (Cajetan): Et hoc in loco terminamus commentaria librorum historialium veteris Testamenti: nam reliqui (videlicet Judith, Tobiae, et Maccabaeorum libri) à divo Hieronymo extra canonicos libros supputantur, et inter apocrypha locantur, cum libro Sapientiae et Ecclesiastico: ut patet in prologo galeato.— Nec turberis novitie si alicubi repereris libros istos inter canonicos supputari, vel in sacris conciliis vel in sacris doctoribus. Nam ad Hieronymi limam reducenda sunt tam verba conciliorum quàm doctorum: et juxta illius sententiam ad Chromatium et Heliodorum episcopos, libri isti (et si qui alii sunt in canone Bibliae similes) non sunt canonici, hoc est non sunt regulares ad firmandum ea quae sunt fidei. possunt tamen dici canonici (hoc est regulares) ad edificationem fidelium: utpote in canone Bibliae ad hoc recepti et authorati. cum hac enim distinctione discernere poteris et dicta Augustini in secundo de doctrina Christiana, et scripta in concilio Florentino sub Eugenio quarto: scriptaque in provincialibus conciliis Carthaginensi et Laodicensi, et ab Innocentio ac Gelasio pontificibus (Cajetan, In omnes authenticos veteris Testamenti historiales libros Comentarii, p. 397).  

There is an obvious dilemma for Rome's defenders: how can Martin Luther be chastised for being the sixteenth century Marcion, while Cajetan held very similar views, and was a leading Roman Catholic scholar? The Roman Catholic in the beginning of this entry solved the Luther vs. Cajetan dilemma by giving Cajetan a free pass because he wasn't deemed a heretic like Luther was. This is a spurious solution, ignorant of history (as will be demonstrated below). He could have at least helped himself by utilizing the preface to Cajetan Responds by the Roman Catholic scholar Jared Wicks. This author points out some of Cajetan's Roman Catholic contemporaries were not pleased with his view on the canon:

Cajetan's biblical commentaries occasioned no little admiratio. From Luther, there is a recorded remark, "Cajetan, in his later days, has become Lutheran." Considerable zeal was expended by Ambrosius Catharinus, O.P., against the exegetical work of his retired Master General. Catharinus submitted a denunciation before the still acerbic faculty in Paris and proceedings began that could have led to another book-burning Clement VII intervened in a letter to the Parisian professors in September, 1533, to protect the man who was by then the Pope's regular source of valued theological advice. Proceedings were halted at this time in Paris, but not before an open letter of the Parisian theologians had begun to circulate listing the censurable propositions excerpted from the commentaries. The Sorbonne masters charged Cajetan with imprudently taking these notions from Erasmus or even Luther. The letter ended with a stinging rebuke of Cajetan's rashness in abandoning the long approved Vulgate text to base his work on new versions in no way guaranteed for their exactness. In 1534 a Wittenberg printer, no doubt with considerable glee over this discomfiture of Luther's old adversary, brought out the open letter in pamphlet form. Catharinus published his criticisms of Cajetan's commentaries in 1535, revised and expanded them in 1542, and obtained a censure by the Paris faculty against Cajetan's biblical works in August, 1544.

The specific charges brought against Cajetan concerned the reservations and plain doubts he had expressed about the apostolic origin of the final eleven verses of Mark's gospel, the story of the adultress in John 8, and five whole epistles of the New Testament (Hebrews, James, Jude, and 1 and 2 John). These views were especially serious in Cajetan's case, since he had laid down the rule that apostolic authorship or direct approval by an apostle was normative for inclusion in the New Testament canon. Following Jerome, Cajetan also relegated the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament to a secondary place where they could serve piety but not the teaching of revealed doctrine (Jared Wicks tr., Cajetan Responds: A Reader in Reformation Controversy, pp. 36-37).

-snip-

Certainly Cajetan's commentaries deserved better treatment than they received at the hands of the fearful Catharinus and the censorious Parisian faculty. Cajetan's confident approach to the biblical text did not fit into the mentality of cautious defensiveness that began to predominate in the Catholic world less than a decade after his death. From our vantage point, it may well be that the most significant results of Cajetan's dedicated work on Scripture are to be found in the concise treatises he wrote in the final four years of his life (Jared Wicks tr., Cajetan Responds: A Reader in Reformation Controversy, pp. 38).

I did not realize Cardinal Cajetan's canon views did cause some controversy among his peers. So... what does this information do to the Luther / Cajetan comparison? First, it shows us that someone close to the papacy was able to express similar ideas as Luther and be protected by the papacy... and why not? Cajetan, and Luther had every right within the Roman Catholic system to engage in Biblical criticism and debate over the extent of the Canon before a dogmatic declaration by a council.

Second, the quest for ad fontes sources was a major impetus provoking the textual and historical criticism of sixteenth century scholars, both on the Roman Catholic and Protestant side. Other documents besides Scripture were being looked over as well. Forgeries of the Early Church Father's were uncovered. Jared Wicks points out that Cajetan's criticism of the Vulgate drew heated response as well. The tradition of the Vulgate appears to have clouded many minds.

Third, the problem of Roman Catholic bias still stands. How is it not a double standard for contemporary Roman Catholics to chastise Luther's canon criticism, while completely ignoring Cajetan (or Erasmus as well)? Why is it the man protected by Clement VII gets a free pass?

One interesting source has found its way on to the Internet: Pre-Tridentine Doctrine: A review of the Commentary on the Scriptures of Cardinal Cajetan. It's an old source but gives yet another look into the life of Cardinal Cajetan, clearly demonstrating the Roman Catholic dilemma:

Following St. Jerome, the Cardinal finds great difficulty in assigning the Epistle of St. James to the " brother of the Lord " its opening salutation which differs so greatly from the ordinary apostolic formula playing in his mind a preliminary obstacle to its apostolic origin. The violent abuse which the Roman advocates have heaped upon Luther for entertaining the same doubt stands in strange contrast with the fact that Cajetan s views on the doubtfulness of this and many other parts of the canon have never given him a place in the " Index," or even detracted from his general authority as a divine. The salutation appears to him so brief and secular as to present no point of affinity to those of the other apostles.

-snip-

The Second Epistle of Peter he held to be of very doubtful authenticity, but considers that St. Jerome's scepticism regarding it, on account of its difference of style from that of the former, would tell against either epistle with equal force. For either might represent St. Peter s style, and two of the Catholic Epistles claim to be his. But difference of style he regards as not a sufficient criterion, as many writings of the same author (as the Registrum of Gregory the Great and his other works) present equal differences.

-snip-

Yet (and this is not a little remarkable) the writings of Cajetan, notwithstanding the freedom with which he rejects the Apocrypha, and claims a "liberty of prophesying" such as the Roman Church has never admitted in its greatest saints, have never been placed in the Index, though the bitter attack of Catharinus, himself a member of the Council of Trent, and of great influence in Rome, might have well secured for them a place in that Walhalla of sacred and profane literature. The writings of Cajetan, however, needed not this posthumous advertisement. Nay, he has a yet more illustrious one in the great work of Pope Benedict XIV., " De Synodo Dicecesana " (1. xiii. c. xix. sect, xxviii.), where he is bravely defended by the Pope against Catharinus. "Catharinum excessisse in censura, tum quia non fideliter Cajetani sententiam retulerit, tum quia non admodum solide eam impugnaverit, facillime ostenditur."

Revised April 2026 

Was There a Failure of Sixteenth Century Roman Catholic Publications Against Luther? Yes!

"I had another problem with Mr. Swan's article though. His snarky little exaggeration of history about no one wanting to read Catholic apologist stuff in the 16th century is something I still intend to address."

These are the words of a Roman Catholic blogger. He's responding to this point I made:

Roman Catholic apologetics has come a long way. In the written disputes and published propaganda between sixteenth-century Protestants and Roman Catholics, the mass-marketing victory clearly lay in the hands of Rome's detractors. Protestants out-published Rome's apologists winning the popular opinion. Roman Catholic works were unlikely to sell, and therefore not sought out by printers. Rome exasperated the loss by not supporting her apologists in their written endeavors.

I admit, I had to look up the word "snarky". Based on its use with the term "exaggeration," I think I've got the gist of the sentiment being expressed. In terms of dialog, This particular Roman Catholic blogger is typically smooth in demeanor.  I was actually a bit surprised by the tone of his comment. Perhaps though he was simply speaking in the lingo franca of the some of the meaner Roman Catholic bloggers. 

I've actually made the same comment before about the sixteenth century propaganda war. I did so back in June 2009. In that earlier comment, I actually footnoted it, but this time chose not to (In retrospect, perhaps I should have). My footnote stated:

1. David V.N. Bagchi, Luther's Earliest Opponents: Catholic Controversialists 1518-1525 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 218-219. Catholic apologists were often provoked to bitterness from lack of papal support. Cochlaeus, one of Rome's most zealous defenders complained to a high Roman Catholic official, "If I am ignored by you any longer, I shall wash my hands of the Catholic cause and denounce all bishops and prelates before God and before men" (Bagchi, 219). Cochlaeus, devoted to defending the Roman Church despite no help from her, went on to publish vigorously against the reformers, maintaining his own printing press. Johann Eck, perhaps the leading sixteenth century Catholic apologist, complained throughout his career over a lack of sufficient or sustained material help from Rome (Bagchi, 218).

David Bagchi's book is one of my favorites on Reformation studies. If I had to make a top ten list, it would definitely be on it... near the top. I actually went out of my way a few years back to track him down and write him a thank you letter for this book. He informed me that he was working on expanding and revising it, so I look forward to the new edition.

In a very non-polemical tone, Bagchi analyzes the written output of the Roman Catholic controversialists from 1518-1525. These were some of the crucial years of the literary battle between Luther/Protestantism and Roman Catholic controversialists. Bagchi documents the failure of those Roman Catholic writers (Bagchi, p.9). While this particular Roman Catholic blogger is more than capable of locating this book to read pages 218-219 as cited above, he may benefit from the following information from pages 198-200:

Finally, we come to the question of the volume of Catholic controversial publishing. In recent years there have been a number of statistical studies of the use of the press at the time of the Reformation. A consistent result of such studies is the apparent quantitative disparity between pamphlets and books published in favor of the Reformation and those published against. M. U. Chrisman's study of polemical pamphlets published in Strasbourg between 1520 and 1529 shows an overall ratio of Protestant to Catholic publications of 5.5 to 1. R. G. Cole's analysis of the Freytag collection of sixteenth-century pamphlets (a collection biased in favor of the major Protestant reformers) produces a ratio of 7.8 to 1. R. A. Crofts based his research on the British Library's holdings of early printed books from German-speaking countries, which he believes to be a more random collection than the Freytag. His figures for the years 1521-30 produce a ratio close to that of Chrisman, 5.7 to 1. Edwards has analyzed Luther's total output and compared this with W. Klaiber's bibliography, supplemented where necessary by other standard biographies of individual controversialists. By excluding from the count Luther's non-polemical titles and polemical works directed against other Protestants, Edwards obtained a Luther to Catholic controversialist ratio of 1.7 to 1 for the years 1518 to 1544. This would also be consistent with a Protestant to Catholic ratio of 5 or 6 to 1 over the same period.

Of course, these statistics have to be used with care, not least because the evidence we have comes largely from titles that have been collected—and therefore selected—at some stage, and it almost certainly gives no very accurate representation of the actual output of sixteenth-century presses. The cumulative evidence can cut both ways, either canceling out the biases of collectors or compounding them. But the cumulative evidence strongly suggests that there was a significant disparity.

Does this disparity reflect a lack of demand for Catholic polemic, and therefore quantify to some extent the degree of their unpopularity and thus of their failure? Or does it reflect an inadequate supply of prolific writers, indicating a reluctance among Roman loyalists to take up the pen to the extent that their Reformation counterparts did? The immediate cause of the discrepancy was, of course, lack of demand. The statistics that show the 5:1 predominance of Protestant pamphlets are drawn from the catalogues of private and public collections. By their very nature, they record only those books that found a purchaser. Generally speaking, books that remained unsold and were otherwise disposed of by printer and retailer cannot be counted. As a matter of fact, these low-budget publishing ventures seem to have depended heavily on demand. This, in turn, would mean that publishers would tend to refuse work offered by Catholics; indeed, we find controversialists such as Emser and Murner having to bear their own publication costs. When a printer did produce Catholic tracts it was more likely to be a matter of conviction rather than of business sense, and he had to subsidize them by producing anti-Catholic tracts too. In addition, he (no women were involved in the printing of Catholic pamphlets at this stage, to my knowledge) ran risks from Protestant authorities because they enforced libel laws selectively and from Catholic authorities because they did not. But this raises the question, Why didn't Catholic works sell?

The problem was to a large extent one of presentation. Defenses of the Roman Church were more likely to be in Latin and were often written in a heavy, "scholastic" style. They were rarely as short as their Reformation counterparts. Their content was also unexciting compared with that of their rivals. The controversialists' work lacked the appeal of the new, and unlike the reformers they could not draw upon the anti-curialism that was particularly prevalent in Germany. Romanist pamphlets did not sell because they were too long and boring. But why did their authors adopt such an unattractive style? Was it perhaps because they were ignorant of the propaganda possibilities of shorter tracts? This is unlikely, because religious writers before the Reformation both exploited the vernacular tract and perceived its potential for agitation.

Perhaps this Roman Catholic blogger has some tidbits about later Roman Catholic efforts in the sixteenth century. My comment above though was specific to that period scholars identify as the propaganda battle between the two sides. Perhaps this Roman Catholic blogger isn't familiar with this and made his harsh comments out of ignorance (I'm only using this term in the sense of lack of knowledge, not stupidity). 

Update (1/07/10):

Surveys of the Catholic literary effort against the early Reformation underscore the self-sacrificing spirit of the Catholic defenders, but relate no significant successes in countering the powerful influence of Luther's polemics. The defensive theology of these apologists suffered from the negative task thrust upon them, from having to fight on terrain chosen by the opponents, and from the writers' inexperience in using Scripture in the new critical manner so different from the methods of scholastic theology [Jared Wicks tr., Cajetan Responds: A Reader in Reformation Controversy (Washington: The Catholic University Press of America, 1978), p. 255, footnote #2].

Revised March 2026