Defending Cajetan Against the Protestants

On the Canon of Scripture

Introduction

It has become quite popular to attempt to vindicate the Protestant canon of Scripture by appealing to the Dominican Cardinal Thomas de Vio Cajetan. As a Thomist, I quite frequently reference Cajetan. In fact, I have used the username “Cajetanus” on and off due to my admiration for the Prince of the Commentators. I keep a copy of his Summa commentaries on my desk in my office. It is quite rare that I find myself departing from Cardinal Cajetan’s opinions on anything.

Hence, what do I make of this narrative? I find it to be quite sloppy and missing important points of context. Further, even if it were as straightforward as the opponents attempt to make it out to be, it would be simple rhetorical fluff. It does very little to actually move the conversation forward. Sure, it defeats the obviously incorrect popular narrative that “Luther removed books from the Bible.” Yet it does not do much of anything to actually aid a person in discerning the answer to the question at hand: is the Catholic or Protestant canon correct?

Hence, discussions on canonicity that begin and end with whatever this or that historical figure thought about the matter are foolish and do not provide sufficient information to the impartial hearer to think through the matter at hand. Rather, more foundational questions are needed. What are the marks of canonicity? How do we determine these marks? Who is the judge of whether these marks apply or not? Is the Protestant position possible? Is it true? Is the Catholic position possible? Is it true?

Without these foundational questions being disputed and answered definitively, what am I to do with the information given? We live in an age of “data” where mere historical and scholarly markers are isolated from any lens through which to view them within the perspective of a synthetic whole. If I know that St. Jerome believed a certain thing about the Canon, what does this mean for the truth of the matter? What conclusions can I draw from this? Where do I obtain those minor premises that allow for demonstration, and how are these being substantiated? These are the questions and principles that go into a scientific treatment of the matter. Yet it is precisely these questions that are so absent from apologetic discussions.

The Historical Reception of Cajetan’s Commentaries

Beside these fundamental considerations, we can discuss why this narrative concerning Cardinal Cajetan’s canonical opinions is problematic as a matter of fact, by reason of its omitting key points of context.

Often, Protestants state that Cardinal Cajetan was one of the greatest and most respected scholars of the era to bolster their argument. Yet this is deceptive. Cardinal Cajetan was fundamentally a scholastic theologian. Hence, his early commentaries on Aristotle, his magisterial commentary on the Summa, and his polemical works against the Lutherans are regarded as the gold standard in their respective fields.

Yet the same cannot be said of his Biblical Commentaries. In fact, there was a common saying among theologians that Cajetan “Judaizes the Old Testament and Erasmianizes the New Testament” in his Biblical Commentaries. Almost immediately after their publication, there was opposition from many Catholic theologians, which was repeated for centuries afterwards. It is completely dishonest to pretend as if the Cajetan of the Summa Commentaries is the same as the Cajetan of the Biblical Commentaries. The former is reverenced by all Catholic theologians, even those outside of the Dominican Order, as the “Prince of the Commentators.” The latter became a byword for a man who ruins his reputation by the writings of his old age.

Ambrosius Catharinus, a fellow Dominican, wrote his Annotationes in Commentaria Caietani to systematically critique multiple errors within Cajetan’s Commentary. He also wrote his immortal Claves Duae as an indirect methodological critique of Cajetan (though never mentioning him by name). Indeed, he wrote directly to Pope Clement VII to request the condemnation of Cajetan’s Biblical Commentaries.

Multiple university faculties began investigations into Cajetan’s Biblical Commentaries. The most famous of these were the theologians of the Sorbonne, who were instructed by Pope Clement VII to send their censures to Rome rather than publish them. Yet these “leaked” and were published as the Epistola theologorum Parisiensium ad Cardinalem Coetanum reprehensoria.

Later, both Catharinus and the theologians of Paris would expand their list of censures from the Biblical Commentaries. These condemnations are repeated by the pen of the Dominican Melchor Cano in his De Locis Theologicis, though with greater moderation. The process begun by Rome of expunging the exegetical works of Cajetan commenced in 1571, but was never finished.

The accusations against Cajetan were in the thousands. Nearly all except a handful of these were plainly unfair, if not deceptive, as a perusal of the relevant passages in the commentary reveals. On nearly every page, Cajetan is careful to express his complete submission to the Church on any interpretation he sets forth in matters not yet plainly decided by the Church.

He wrote of the difficulty of interpreting Matthew 19 in light of the Church’s commitment to the indissolubility of marriage, leaving the matter to the Church as judge. His opponents stated that Cajetan firmly denied the indissolubility of marriage. He wrote that Christ established confession, yet left it to the Church to determine when it was to be private or public. His opponents stated that Cajetan denied that auricular confession was established by Christ. Cajetan stated that an exegete should not fear giving a new interpretation not offered by the Fathers, provided it was not contrary to the Catholic Faith and was in keeping with the context of the passage. His opponents stated that Cajetan taught that an exegete may give an interpretation against the common interpretation of the Fathers. The list goes on, and the same story repeated itself for hundreds of different passages.

Even Melchor Cano (a heresy hunter in his own right) stated with exasperation against his fellow Dominican Ambrosius Catharinus:

Ambrosius Catharinus says that Cajetan committed as many sins as he uttered words…Yet he did not notice (that man so prompt to find fault) that in reproving Cajetan he himself erred frequently and greatly. In this very place he erred three times. (De Locis, lib. 2, cap. xi, ad 4.)

Cajetan’s Response

What many do not clarify on this point is that Cajetan himself actually briefly stepped into the ring to defend himself almost immediately before his death. Specifically, he responded to the sixteen articles of the Paris theologians mentioned above. He comes across as quite frustrated by what he had read. One of the greatest theologians in the history of the Church, now in the twilight of his life, was being bothered by anonymous pamphlets accusing him of heresy.

For most of the articles, Cajetan denies that he actually holds the position of which he is accused. For some, he is simply shocked that he is being accused on such a matter, since the position is either a clearly non-essential one (e.g., whether St. Paul had a wife) or concerns a completely obvious issue (e.g., whether the Pope can dispense clerics from celibacy).

The one issue most interesting for our purposes is the question of canonicity. When Cajetan denies that the Old and New Testament deuterocanonical books are “canonical,” what does he mean by this? The Protestants would have you believe that such books are said to be “non-canonical” because he denies that they are inspired by God. This is certainly what is meant in the Protestant confessions:

The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings. (Westminster Confession, Ch. 1, III)

Yet Cajetan clarifies his own position, and (in my opinion) while he certainly errs on certain historical matters, his position is compatible with the Council of Trent and offers a lens through which to view the pre-Tridentine tradition:

[Accusation]: The epistle of Paul to the Hebrews is not authentic. That article is not mine, for in the commentaries on that epistle I did not deny that the epistle is authentic, but I said that in Jerome there was doubt about the author of this epistle, and this doubt renders the epistle doubtful; for if it is not by Paul, it is not clear that it is canonical. Here you see that where the author of the epistle is in doubt, I deny that its authenticity is perspicuous, but I do not deny that it is authentic. That an epistle is canonical is one thing, and that it is perspicuous that it is canonical is another. Perspicuity is a matter of our knowledge, but to be canonical pertains to the epistle itself as it is. If the doubt were taken away it would be perspicuous, but not on that account would it newly become canonical; rather, what was canonical in itself would be shown to be canonical. But it is certain that while there is doubt, it is not of such authority as to suffice on its own for the things that are of the faith. (Reply to the Paris Theologians)

Here there is an interesting clarification of his own position. Cajetan, like many authors, makes the distinction between books that are able to establish matters of faith and books that are able to establish matters of morals—commonly described as serving “the edification of the faithful” or belonging to the “ecclesiastical canon.”

Now, there are two ways this could be interpreted. First, one can interpret Cajetan as holding that such books are of a lesser intrinsic authority insofar as they lack authenticity (that is, insofar as one denies that such books have divine authorship). This is how the Protestants understand the matter. Second, one can interpret Cajetan as holding that such books are of a lesser extrinsic authority insofar as they lack the full approbation of the Church, and hence we lack a certain firmness of knowledge concerning their divine origins (which complete firmness we call “canonicity”). The first position is a Protestant one; the second is contrary to Protestantism.

The second interpretation supposes that the Church can give her judgment on the matter, making it certain that the deuterocanonical books are truly authentic and inspired by God, yet it makes an exegetical and historical mistake in denying that such a judgment had already occurred. That said, if one wished to defend Cajetan further, many authors to this day question whether the solemn canonization of the deuterocanonical books occurred before Trent: “The Council of Florence therefore taught the inspiration of all the Scriptures, but did not formally pass on their canonicity.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, “The Canon of the Old Testament.”)

It is in this sense that I say that Cajetan’s position is compatible with the Council of Trent. For, Cajetan concedes both the possibility that such books are inspired and the authority of the Church to make a judgement on this matter. These conditions are sufficient to accept the decree of Trent. This is quite different from the Protestant position which necessarily excludes the possibility that such books are inspired and denies the authority of the Church to make a judgement on this matter.

In this passage, Cajetan makes clear his reason for “limiting” the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books: “it is certain that while there is doubt, it is not of such authority as to suffice on its own for the things that are of the faith.” Why were the deuterocanonical books unable to suffice for the establishment of matters of faith? Had he been a Protestant, he would have pointed to their lesser intrinsic authority. Yet he simply holds that they have a lesser extrinsic authority—that is, their authenticity has not been clearly and definitively taught by the Church.