Brief Overview
- This article examines Cardinal Cajetan’s statement on the deuterocanonical books, as cited by William Webster, and evaluates its technical accuracy from a Catholic perspective.
- It explores the historical context of the biblical canon, particularly how the early Church viewed these books.
- The discussion addresses Cajetan’s distinction between books that confirm faith and those that edify the faithful.
- It considers whether his classification aligns with Catholic teaching or reflects a misunderstanding.
- The article also traces the development of the canon and its formal definition in Catholic doctrine.
- Finally, it provides a clear answer rooted in scholarly analysis and Church tradition.
Detailed Response
Understanding Cajetan’s Statement
Cardinal Tommaso de Vio, known as Cajetan, was a prominent 16th-century Catholic theologian and a key figure during the Reformation. In his commentary on the Bible, he addressed the status of the deuterocanonical books—such as Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. These books, part of the Old Testament in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, are not found in the Hebrew Bible used by Jews and most Protestants. Cajetan’s statement, as quoted by Webster, suggests a nuanced view: these books are “canonical” for edification but not for “confirming matters of faith.” This raises the question of whether he saw them as less authoritative than other scriptures. To assess this, we must first understand the historical and theological context in which he wrote. During his time, debates about the canon were intensifying due to the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther, for instance, questioned the deuterocanonical books’ authority, relegating them to an appendix in his Bible translation. Cajetan, as a Catholic scholar, was responding to these challenges while drawing on earlier traditions. His distinction may reflect a specific use of terminology rather than a rejection of the books’ inspiration.
The Early Church and the Deuterocanonical Books
In the first centuries of Christianity, the concept of a fixed biblical canon was not fully developed. The Scriptures were a collection of writings revered by the Church, but their exact boundaries were fluid. Evidence shows that the early Church widely used the Greek Septuagint, which included the deuterocanonical books, rather than the Hebrew Bible. For example, Matthew 5 and Luke 6 contain teachings of Jesus that echo themes from Sirach and Tobit. Similarly, Romans 1 draws on Wisdom 13, and Hebrews 11 alludes to 2 Maccabees 7. These references suggest that the deuterocanonical books were not only known but also held in high regard. Writings from the Apostolic Fathers, like Clement of Rome, and later figures, like Augustine, further cite these texts as authoritative. By the 2nd century, Justin Martyr noted differences between the Jewish and Christian Old Testaments, implying the deuterocanonical books were part of Christian tradition. This usage indicates that the early Church did not distinguish them as less inspired. Thus, Cajetan’s view must be weighed against this broad acceptance.
Development of the Canon
The canon’s formalization took centuries and was influenced by both practical and theological factors. In the 4th century, councils like Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) listed the deuterocanonical books alongside others as Scripture. These decisions were later affirmed by the Council of Trent in 1546, which defined the Catholic canon definitively. Before this, however, opinions varied among Church Fathers. Jerome, translator of the Vulgate, initially hesitated to include the deuterocanonical books, calling them useful for edification but not for doctrine. Yet, under papal direction, he included them in his translation, showing the Church’s broader acceptance. Others, like Augustine, treated them as fully inspired without distinction. This diversity suggests that terms like “canonical” could have different meanings depending on the context. For some, “canonical” meant part of the Hebrew Bible, while “inspired” applied to a wider set of texts. Cajetan’s statement may echo this earlier flexibility rather than the later, unified Catholic position.
Cajetan’s Terminology in Context
Cajetan’s distinction between books for “confirming faith” and those for “edification” likely stems from medieval scholasticism. Scholastic theologians often categorized Scripture based on its purpose. Books like the Pentateuch or the Gospels were seen as primary sources for doctrine, while wisdom literature or historical narratives, including the deuterocanonical books, were valued for moral teaching. This does not mean the latter were uninspired, but their role differed. Cajetan, trained in this tradition, may have applied such a framework. His reference to the epistle of Chromatius and Heliodorus—likely a nod to Jerome’s influence—suggests he drew on patristic ideas. In this sense, his classification could be technically correct within a specific historical lens. However, it does not align with the modern Catholic understanding, where all Scripture is equally inspired (see CCC 105-107). The Church today does not limit any book’s use to edification alone. Thus, Cajetan’s view reflects a particular moment rather than the full tradition.
The Catholic Canon Today
The Council of Trent settled the canon debate for Catholics by declaring the deuterocanonical books fully part of Scripture. This decision, made in response to Protestant challenges, affirmed their inspiration and authority. The Catechism teaches that all Scripture is given by God’s inspiration and is useful for teaching and correction (CCC 105). No distinction is made between books for doctrine and those for edification. This unified view contrasts with Cajetan’s apparent hierarchy. Trent’s decree was not an innovation but a clarification of long-standing practice, as seen in early councils and liturgical use. The deuterocanonical books have been cited in Church teaching, such as 2 Maccabees’ support for prayers for the dead (CCC 958). Their inclusion in the canon reflects their role in revealing God’s truth. Cajetan’s statement, then, cannot be taken as the Church’s final word. It represents an individual perspective shaped by his era’s debates.
Evaluating Cajetan’s Technical Accuracy
To determine if Cajetan’s classification is “technically correct,” we must define “canonical.” In his time, the term could mean books in the Hebrew Bible, a narrower category than the Christian canon. If Cajetan used this definition, his claim that the deuterocanonical books are not “canonical” for confirming faith might hold within that framework. However, he also calls them “canonical” for edification, suggesting they belong to the Bible’s broader scope. This dual usage reflects a historical distinction, not a denial of inspiration. From a modern Catholic standpoint, this split is inaccurate—all canonical books are inspired and authoritative (CCC 120). Cajetan’s view may have been valid in a scholastic context, where Scripture’s purposes were parsed, but it does not match the Church’s definitive teaching. His statement is thus partially correct historically but not fully aligned with Catholic doctrine. The deuterocanonical books are not “non-canonical” in any sense today. They are integral to the faith. His nuance, while scholarly, is outdated.
The Deuterocanonical Books and Faith
Can the deuterocanonical books confirm matters of faith? The Church says yes. For instance, 2 Maccabees 12 supports the doctrine of purgatory and prayers for the dead, a key Catholic belief (CCC 1032). Wisdom 2 prefigures Christ’s suffering, enriching messianic theology. Sirach offers ethical teachings that align with Christian morality. These examples show the books’ doctrinal value, not just their edifying role. Early Christians used them this way, as seen in Paul’s and Hebrews’ allusions. Cajetan’s restriction may reflect Reformation-era caution, where Catholics defended tradition against Protestant critiques. Yet, the Church never limited their authority. The Catechism affirms that all Scripture reveals God’s plan (CCC 107). Thus, Cajetan’s view underestimates their full significance. They are not secondary but essential.
Historical Context of Cajetan’s View
Cajetan wrote during a pivotal time—1518—when Luther’s ideas were spreading. As a papal legate, he confronted Luther directly, defending Catholic doctrine. His commentary on the Bible aimed to clarify Catholic positions amid these disputes. The deuterocanonical books were a flashpoint, as Protestants rejected them based on their absence from the Hebrew Bible. Cajetan’s distinction may have been an attempt to bridge traditions, acknowledging their use while echoing Jerome’s hesitations. This was not a rejection but a theological nuance. However, Trent later clarified that no such compromise was needed. The Church’s consistent use of these books in liturgy and teaching outweighed individual opinions. Cajetan’s statement, then, is a product of its time, not a timeless truth. It reflects debate, not doctrine.
Conclusion on Cajetan’s Statement
Cajetan’s classification is technically correct only within a narrow historical and terminological framework. If “canonical” means the Hebrew Bible, his distinction holds for that context. If it means inspired Scripture, as the Church defines it, his view falls short. The deuterocanonical books are not “non-canonical” in any modern Catholic sense—they are fully part of the Bible. His idea that they cannot confirm faith contradicts their use in Church teaching. The early Church, councils, and Trent affirm their authority. Cajetan’s statement is not “wrong on all counts” but incomplete. It captures a scholarly perspective from his era, not the Church’s full position. Today, Catholics see no hierarchy among canonical books. All are God’s word, equally valuable for faith and life.