I can’t help but to notice that you are totally making things up as you go along. For example, you claim that Cajetan “was convinced by the assertions of Luther.” Well, that’s just incredibly stupid, and you don’t even back it up with anything. You’re talking about THIS Cajetan who sports THIS biography:
“Dominican cardinal, philosopher, theologian, and exegete; born 20 February, 1469 at Gaeta, Italy; died 9 August, 1534 at Rome…In 1501 he was made procurator general of his order and appointed to the chairs of philosophy and exegesis at the Sapienza. On the death of the master general, John Clérée, 1507, Cajetan was named vicar-general of the order, and the next year he was elected to the generalship. With foresight and ability, he devoted his energies to the promotion of religious discipline, emphasizing the study of sacred science as the chief means of attaining the end of the order…. About the fourth year of his generalship, Cajetan rendered important service to the Holy See by appearing before the Pseudo-Council of Pisa (1511), where he denounced the disobedience of the participating cardinals and bishops and overwhelmed them with his arguments. This was the occasion of his defence of the power and monarchical supremacy of the pope…On 1 July, 1517, Cajetan was created cardinal by Pope Leo X…He was later made Bishop of Gaeta…In theology Cajetan is justly ranked as one of the foremost defenders and exponents of the Thomistic school…To Clement VII he was the “lamp of the Church”, and everywhere in his career, as the theological light of Italy, he was heard with respect and pleasure by cardinals, universities, the clergy, nobility, and people.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 16 Volumes (New York: Encyclopedia Press, 1913). See also New Advent at www.newadvent.org.)
And you want me to believe that the foundation of his opinion was on an ASSERTION by Luther? How stupid do you think Cajetan has to be, and the Roman Catholic church has to be, to be tricked by a mere ASSERTION?
Same thing on John of Damascus. You just assert that he was talking about someone elses canon, and not his own, even though he explicitly is speaking of our canon. And you don’t even offer anything except your own assertion. Is this how Romans debate when they are osing? They just throw whatever **** at the wall, hoping something will stick for those less educated on the matter?
Athanasius you don’t seem capable of even understanding, and this is the second time you’ve done that:
“Athanasius: Very plainly insists that books outside the Hebrew canon be used to instruct new converts in moral doctrine.”
It’s the complete opposite. Athanasius plainly states that the standard Old and New Testament are both to be read and to be brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine, while the questionable books were STILL to be read, though not brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine. This is an important distinction that destroys your modern RCC views.
Your comment, basically, shows me that you either didn’t read Athanasius or are incapable of understanding him.
On your comments about Pope Gregory quoting the apocrypha as ‘scripture’. What’s your point? Well, of course they did, as these books were considered to 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.” But they were not considered canonical in another sense, as “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.” So it makes absolutely no difference if they called these books “scripture,” or made use of them, since this is part of my whole argument in the first place, since their distinction was such that these were worthwhile books, but simply were not used for the purpose of creating or defending doctrine. All your doing is just repeating what I myself have already discussed, at least in that other thread where we already had this discussion.
This is a position I am completely okay with, and I think there is MUCH to be gained by reading ancient books, including many that Rome doesn’t even acknowledge anymore. For example, the Didache has MANY useful quotations and insights, even though you have put it out of the canon. Though, of course, I understand, with all these ancient Christians, that these books are not equal to the undisputed canon of the Christian church, they have many errors, and therefore can never be brought forward for any purpose of doctrine. But so far as edification goes, Judith, for example, is a wonderful story! Tobit, if you can get by the Angel teaching witchcraft (the roasting of fish guts allegedly to ward off demons), is quite interesting.
John Damascene cites as scripture Wisdom 3:1 (St. John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter XV). And Baruch 3:37, and Tobit 3:4 (even though he COULD have merely cited John 1:14 to make the same point). Again, he cites Barcuh 3:37 in Book IV, Chapter XVII. Baruch 3:38 in Book IV, Chapter VIII. And 2 Macc 9:5 in his summation.
As for Cardinal Cajetan, you should read what your source (the Catholic Encyclopedia) relates Popes saying about King Henry VIII... before he went apostate. (ironically, Cajetan drafted the condemnation of Henry VIII.) Cajetan Resolutely smashed Luther over many issues, but on the one issue of the canon, he was convinced by Luther. I can’t understand how any reasonable person could find the sentence “was convinced by the assertions of Luther” stupid. Cajetan cited Luther’s arguments in regard to Jerome verbatim, explicitly recognizing he was taking a position midway between Luther’s and certain of Luther’s opponents. His position was then found heretical and anathematized by the Council of Trent.