Which is hardly tenable. Cardinal Cajetan himself was actually an adversary of Luther, and who was sent by the Pope in 1545 to Trent as a papal theologian, had reservations about the apocrypha as well as certain N.T. books based upon questionable apostolic authorship.
The Catholic Encyclopedia states, "It has been significantly said of Cajetan that his positive teaching was regarded as a guide for others and his silence as an implicit censure. His rectitude, candour, and moderation were praised even by his enemies. Always obedient, and submitting his works to ecclesiastical authority, he presented a striking contrast to the leaders of heresy and revolt, whom he strove to save from their folly." And that "It was the common opinion of his contemporaries that had he lived, he would have succeeded Clement VII on the papal throne.” — Catholic Encyclopedia>Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan
Some of the better informed among them keep bringing attitudes there is no excuse for. The distortions of the record infuriate me.
When the apologetics of Rome get it so wrong on this same which they claim to own, which is scripture itself, and more particularly those portions that have transpired within their own walls as it were (their own reactions and dealings towards scripture) which they incontestably DO own...it doesn't lend much confidence towards much of the rest of the oft repeated self/church reverential claims (which themselves don't much stand under closer critical examinations, as often than not).
What a mess. The bed has lumps, but such is denied while they run around sitting here and there trying to squash the lumps down... and the rug has more lumps (many things being constantly swept under it).
They keep confirming my worst suspicions...