Sometimes Protestants cite Thomas Cardinal Cajetan's view on the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament is tantamount to making them non-canonical.
Latin text:
Et hoc in loco terminamus commentaria librorum historialium veteris testamenti: nam reliqui (videlicet Iudith, Tobiæ and Maccabæorum libri) a diuo Hieronymo extra canonicos libros supputatur, and inter apocrypha locatur, cum libro Sapientiae and Ecclesiastico: vt patet in prologo galeato. Nec turberis nouitie 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 quam doctorum: and iuxta illius sententiam ad Chromatium and Heliodorum episcopos, libri isti (and si qui alii sunt in canone Bibliæ similes) non sunt canonici, hoc est non sunt regulares firmandum ea quae sunt fidei. possunt tamen dici canonici (hoc est regulares) ad ædificationem fidelium: vt pote in canone Bibliæ ad hoc recepti and authorati. cum hac enim distinctione discernere poteris and dicta Augustini in secundo de doctrina Christiana, and scripta in concilio Florentino sub Eugenio quarto: scriptaque in prouincialibus conciliis Chartaginensi and Laodicensi, and ab Innocentio ac Gelacio pontificibus Ad laudem and gloriam omnipotentis Dei: Romae anno salutis millesimo quingentesimo trigesimo secundo: ætatis vero meæ sexagesimo quarto, die decimanona Iulii, amen.
Common translation:
And in this place we conclude the commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (i.e., Judith, Tobit, and the books of the Maccabees) are reckoned by divine Jerome as outside the canonical books and he places them among the apocrypha, with the book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is clear in the Prologus Galeatus. Nor ought you be disturbed if you find somewhere those books reckoned among the canonical, whether in the sacred councils or among the sacred teachers. For the words of both councils and teachers ought to be brought back to the revision of Jerome, and according to his opinion expressed to bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, those books (and if there are any other similar in the canon of the Bible), are not canonical, i.e., are not normative to confirm those things which are of the faith. But they can be called canonical (that is, normative) for the edification of the faithful, as received and authorized in the canon of the Bible. For with this distinction you can discern the things said by Augustine in book 2 of De doctrina christiana, and written in the Council of Florence under Eugene IV, and written in the provincial councils of Carthage and Laodicea, and by Popes Innocent and Gelasius.
To the praise and glory of Almighty God, at Rome in the year of salvation 1532, but in the 64th year of my life, on the 19th day of July, Amen.
fresh AI translation:
And here we conclude the commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the remaining books (namely Judith, Tobit, and the books of the Maccabees) are considered by Saint Jerome to be outside the canonical books and are placed among the apocrypha, along with the Book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is clear in his Prologus Galeatus [Preface to the Books of the Old Testament]. Nor should you, novice, be disturbed if you find these books sometimes counted among the canonical books, either in sacred councils or by sacred doctors. For both the words of the councils and the doctors must be brought into alignment with Jerome’s standard. According to his judgment, expressed to Bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any others similar to them in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, they are not authoritative for establishing matters of faith. However, they can be called canonical (that is, authoritative) for the edification of the faithful, as they have been received and authorized in the canon of the Bible for this purpose. With this distinction, you will be able to discern both the statements of Augustine in the second book of On Christian Doctrine and the writings in the Council of Florence under Eugene IV, as well as those in the provincial councils of Carthage and Laodicea, and by Popes Innocent and Gelasius.
To the praise and glory of Almighty God: Rome, in the year of salvation 1532, in the sixty-fourth year of my life, on the nineteenth day of July, Amen.This was said as mentioned in the above in 1532 a decade before Trent dogmatized the Canon, prior to that Florence authoritatively recognized it as canon, and the deuterocanonical were occasionally quoted by the early ecumenical councils. The Cardinal does state these books are canon but in a lesser sense, whereas modern Protestants do not even include them in their Bibles.
Another point individuals often citing this text omit is that the same Cajetan regarded a number of NT books and passages as essentially Deuterocanon, too!
The author Michael O'Connor published a book on Cajetan's commentaries called, "Cajetan's Biblical Commentaries: Motive and Method." In it he states:
Cajetan agrees with Jerome, on the authority of Papias, that the author of 2John and 3John is other than John the Evangelist and, therefore, of a lesser authority. [127] The author of 2John is said to have extracted its doctrine from 1John. On this letter, Cajetan’s comments are brief, while for 3John he does nothing more than correct the translation....
[127] Et propterea ambae minoris authoritatis sunt’. On 2Jn, Intro, v, 398va. See Jerome, De viris illustribus, 9 (pl 23, 623–625). --Cajetan's Biblical Commentaries: Motive and Method. Chapter 5, page 156. Michael O'Connor.
A more full text says,
"Circa authorem tam hujus quam sequentis epistolae, scito quod Hieronymus, De Viris illust. partim in Iohannem seniorem qui scripsit has duas epistolas. Et propterea ambae minoris authoritatis sunt. Et primae quidem doctrina extracta est ex epistola beati Ioannis apostoli"
AI translation:
Concerning the author of both this and the following epistle, know that Jerome, in On Illustrious Men, partly attributes them to John the Elder, who wrote these two epistles. For this reason, both are of lesser authority. And indeed, the doctrine of the first epistle is derived from the epistle of the blessed Apostle John."Concerning the book of the Hebrew Cajetan states:
‘Dubio apud Hieronymum authore huius epistolae existente, dubia quoque redditur epistola. Quoniam nisi sit Pauli, non perspicuum est canonicam esse’. On Heb 1.1, v, 329b.
"Since there is doubt in Jerome about the author of this epistle, the epistle itself is also rendered doubtful. For unless it is by Paul, it is not clear that it is canonical."(On Hebrews 1:1, v, 329b)
Essentially, he regarded it as a "deutrocanon":
‘Quo fit ut ex sola huius epistolae authoritate non possit si quod dubium in fide accideret determinari’. On Heb 1.1, v, 329b.
"Thus, it follows that from the authority of this epistle alone, no doubtful matter in faith can be determined." (On Hebrews 1:1, v, 329b)
It should be noted, Cajetan rejected Hebrews as being written by Paul saying the quotation and usage of the OT is too careless to be Paul's work.
The above is worth mentioning, since Protestants of this time also expressed doubts and questions about some of these books, notable Luther and Calvin. Luther famously called James, "straw" complaining it lacked the gospel and peddled "works," contradicting sola fide. John Calvin seemed to deny 2nd and 3rd John as being by John also, simply calling 1 John as "sua canonica epistola"--'his canonical epistle'.
Regardless, Cardinal Cajetan's ideas were his own and not mainstream in Catholic theology.
To be continued..
