No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2024
The Dominican theologian and cardinal, Tommaso de Vio (1469-1534), known as Cajetan after Gaeta, his birthplace, is best remembered for two things. Firstly, he is the expositor of Aquinas, whose monumental commentary on the Summa is included in the Leonine edition of Aquinas’ works. As a consequence of this canonisation, Cajetan’s commentary is either treasured or vilified, to the extent that it is judged to represent Aquinas accurately or not; meanwhile, more subtle developments, not to mention overt disagreements, tend to be overlooked. Secondly, and more widely. Cajetan is remembered as the Roman prelate who met with Martin Luther for three days in October 1518. At those meetings, characterised typically as a dialogue of the deaf, Cajetan sought to persuade Luther to withdraw a number of unorthodox theological opinions. Several years later, Cajetan was involved, albeit peripherally, with the Roman commission that drew up the formal condemnation of Luther’s teaching.
It is commonly and plausibly assumed that the rest of Cajetan’s work is to be understood in the light of his involvement with Luther, especially his commentaries on biblical texts, which he worked on from 1524 until his death in 1534. The conventional view of the biblical commentaries (found in various forms in Iserloh, Weisheipl, Parker, Janz and others), runs roughly as follows: the Reformers had appealed to scripture alone, and on the basis of scripture were challenging the papacy and Roman traditions; Cajetan, therefore, set out in his biblical commentaries to meet his adversaries on their chosen territory, and to demonstrate, with scholastic patience and rigour, that the Roman use of scripture was sound, that the Bible belonged to the Catholic Church.
1 See my unpublished D. Phil, thesis, ‘Exegesis, doctrine and reform in the biblical commentaries of Cardinal Cajetan, 1469–1534’, Oxford, 1997. This characteristic of Cajetan's thought, as instanced in his preaching before the papal court in the first decade of the 1500s, has been examined by Wicks, Jared, Thomism between Renaissance and Reformation:the Case of Cajetan, Archiv für Reformations geschichte 68 (1977), pp. 9–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and O'Malley, John, Praise and Blame in Renaissance Rome: Rhetoric, Doctrine and Reform in the Sacred Orators of the Papal Court, c. 1450–1521 (Durham NC: Duke, 1979), pp. 108–110Google Scholar.
2 On Gen 2.7, 1. 16b–17a. Cajetan's commentaries are cited according to the 5 volume edition, Opera omnia quotquot in sacrae scripturae expositionem reperiuntur (Lyons, 1639), giving biblical verse, volume, page number and column. On Pico, see Trinkaus, Charles, In Our Image and Likeness: Humanity and Divinity in Italian Renaissance Thought (London: Constable, 1970), pp. 513–514Google Scholar. See also O'Malley, John, ‘An Ash Wednesday Sermon on the Dignity of Man for Pope Julius II, 1513.’ In Bertelli, Sergio and Ramakus, Gloria, eds., Essays Presented to Myron P. Gilmore (Florence: La Nuova Italia, 1978) Vol.1, pp. 193–207Google Scholar.
3 On Gen 2.7, 1, 17a. For Aquinas on touch and upright posture, ST 1, 91, 3 ad I and ad 3.
4 On Gen 2.7, 1,17a. On Pico, see Trinkaus, In Our Image and Likeness, pp. 518–520.
5 On Gen 2.7, 1, 17a.
6 See works by O'Malley and Wicks cited above in n. 1.
7 Marcel Nieden's recent study of Cajetan's Christology, Organum Deitatis. Die Christologie des Thomas de Vio Cajetan (New York: Brill, 1997)Google Scholar, treats this matter inadequately.
8 On the soteriology of Aquinas, see Catabar;o, Bernard, Salut et rédemption chez S. Thomas d' Aquin (Paris: Cerf, 1965)Google Scholar; Cessario, Romanus, The Godly Image: Christ and Salvation in Catholic Thought from Anselm to Aquinas (Petersham, Mass.: St. Bede's, 1990)Google Scholar; Davies, Brian, The Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), pp. 332–334Google Scholar.
9 On Jn 4.34, IV, 3 13b.
10 On Jn 10.36, IV, 364a‐b.
11 On Col 1.19, V, 262a.
12 On Jn 17.24, IV, 411b; parallels in Aquinas, Super Evangelium Sancti Joannis Lectura (Fifth edition, ed., Cai, R., Turin/Rome: Marietti, 1952), p. 425bGoogle Scholar.
13 On Heb 1.2, V, 330b; on Heb 1.4, V, 331 b; parallels in Aquinas on Heb 1.2 and 1.4, Super Epistola Sancti Pauli Lectura (Eighth edition, ed., Cai, R., Turin/Rome: Marietti, 1953), 11Google Scholar, 340b, 345b–346a.
14 On Jn 17.21, IV, 410b.
15 ‘Cum meritum non sit nisi cuius quod nondum habetur.’ ST III, 19, 3.
16 ‘Adverte hie quod Auctor potuisset unico verbo expedire hanc quaestionem, dicendo quod supposit absentia quorundum bonorum, quae de facto fuit in Christo, ut patet, ad dignitatem ipsius spectat quod habuerit illa per meritum, quia quod est per se nobilius est quam quod per aliud; altius tamen Auctor orsus, monstrare voluit quare quaedam potuit mereri Christus et quaedam non.’ On ST III, 19, 3, [II]. Cajetan's commentary on Aquinas is cited according to the text included the Leonine edition of Aquinas' Opera omnia, vols. IV‐XII.
17 Super Evangelium Sancti Joannis Lectura, p. 223a.
18 On Jn 8.29, IV, 349a. See also on Ps 20.3, III, 73a.
19 On Jn 8.29, IV, 349a. Compare also Aquinas on Mt 12.18, Super Evangelium Sancti Matthaei Lectura (Fifth edition, ed. R. Cai, Turin/Rome: Marietti, 1951), p. 157a and Cajetan, on Mt 12.18, IV, 60a.
20 Super Evangelium Sancti Matthaei Lectura, p. 377a.
21 On Mt 28.18. IV, 130a.
22 On Lk, 19.15, IV, 254b; on Mt 8.12, IV, 44a.
23 On Jn 10.15, IV, 361a.
24 On ST III, 1, 3, [IX].
25 ‘[…] quod autem homo seipsum salvet, redimat, pro se pugnet, mereatur, vincat, satisfaciat, triumphet, regnet, judicet, et huiusmodi, ad nostram spectat dignitatem; ut facile patet dilatando.’ On ST 111, 46, 3, [III].
26 On in 16.28, IV, 405a.
27 ‘Christus non solum per suam passionem sibi, sed etiam omnibus suis membris meruit salutem.’ ST III, 48, 1.
28 ‘Dupliciter potest aliquis salvari, vel quod immediate transferatur in rem termini, vel quod mediante statu spei transferendus sit in rem termini. Christus non salvavit nos primo modo (quia nee ipse seipsum salvavit primo modo, sed voluit per merita pervenire ad gloriam suam) sed secundo modo.’ On Rom 8.24, V, 48a.
29 On 2 Cor 5.19, V, 171b; on 2 Cor 5.21, V, 172a‐b.
30 On Ps 16.1, 111, 54a.
31 On Ps 16.1, III, 54a.
32 ‘Cognoverat Christus homo ante resurgeret ab initio conceptionis suae quod Deus […] complacuit sibi in Christo; sed cognoveret speculative. In resurrectione autem cognovit experientia, experimentaliter; prius enim non fuerit expertus.’ On Ps 41 11, III, 150b.
33 On Lk 19.12, IV, 254b; on Lk 24.26, IV, 274a‐b.
34 Cajetan offers these three readings as three possible renderings in Latin of the original Greek: ‘consummo’, ‘consummor’, consumor'. On Lk 13.32, IV, 235b.
35 On Mt 28.18, IV, 130a.
36 On Gen 49.11,1,150a.
37 On Phil 2.8, V, 250a.
38 On Jn 17.1, IV, 406b; on Ps 88.2, III, 299b.
39 Super Evangelium Sancti Joannis Lectura, p. 411 b.
40 On Jn 17.1, IV, 406b.
41 ‘[…] constat autem quod filii hominis est orare et propterea in tota hac oratione demonstratur quod homo.’ On Jnl7. 11, IV, 409a. Aquinas discusses the unity of Father and Son at Super Evangelium Sancti Joannis Lectura, p. 417b.
42 It is hard to imagine how Craig S. Farmer's assessment could be further off‐target: ‘Cajetan's John commentary is so literal in its interpretation that it would be of little value even if we were to include it in this study. His comments rarely go beyond a terse rephrasing of the Evangelist's words. He does not raise theological questions, and he rarely offers learned speculation even concerning the literal level of meaning; spiritual meanings are non‐existent.’The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century. The Johannine Exegesis of Wolfgang Musculus (Oxford: OUP, 1997), p. 110.
43 On Ps 16.8, III, SSa; on Ps 16.4, III, 54b; on Ps 109.20, III, 373a. See also on Ps 109.24, III, 373b; on Ps 69.7, III, 240a.
44 On Ps 22.2, III, 79a.
45 On Mk 14.36, IV, 164a.
46 ‘Ego ipse sum oratio mea tibi, quia totum quod sum, sum oratio.’ On Ps 69.13, III, 240b. Saint Antoninus made a similar statement about Saint Dominic with reference to the nine ways of prayer, ‘Licet autem quasi tota vita beati Dominici posset dici oratio’, cited in Hood, William, Era Angelico at San Marco (New Haven: Yale, 1993), p. 318, n. 33Google Scholar.
47 Expositio in Job et in Primam Davidis Quinquagena (Naples: Virgiliana, 1857), pp. 152b–153aGoogle Scholar.
48 On Ps 2.8, III, lib.
49 On Phil 2.9, V, 250a‐b; on Ps 20.6, III, 73b.
50 On Mt 21.42, IV, 96b; on Heb 13.20, V, 361b.
51 On Ps 22.23–24, III, 81 b; on Ps 41.12, III, 150b.
52 ‘Convenit autem Iesu secundum humanam naturam rogare Patrem. Et dicit rogabo quia futurum erat meritum mortis eius, intercedens apud Patrem.’ On Jn 14.16, IV, 390a.
53 ‘[…] ita ignis Spiritus sancti totam Christi passionem gratissimam acceptavit.’ On Ps 20.3, III, 73a.
54 ‘Officium […] orandi autem tota vita testatur: tota siquidem Christi vita fuit meritum orans et intercedens ad Deum pro humano genere.’ On Ps 109.4, III, 372a. Postulat autem pro membris suis lesus in coelo existens turn facto, monstrando signa passionis, turn merito, offerendo pietatem qua passus est pro illis.' On Heb 7.25, V, 344b. “On Ps 16.5, HI, 54b–55a.
56 On I Cor 15.25, V, 143a.
57 On Heb 2.10, V, 334b. See also on Heb 5.8–9, V, 339a.
58 On Jn 12.31, IV, 376a‐b. ‘Nihil alius simus, in intellectu, in affectu, in operatione, et in perpessione, nisi quod ex iustitia Dei qui est meritum Christi, sumus.’ On 2 Cor 5.21, V, 172b.
59 On Eph 6.18, V, 244b.
You have
Access