Cardinal Cajetan and Martin Luther Recently, I read (in this pamphlet) that Martin Luther had some disputes with prominent thomist and Cardinal Thomas Cajetan. why did these two intellignet man not come to an agreement and dispute honestly (or did they)?  

In the pamphlet is the story from the side of Luther: are there any documents that speak from Cardinal Cajetan's perspective?  

I am intrested in both versions of the story. Are there original texts of what they actually said during their dispute?

Since there are obviously some Protestants and Catholics on this site, I do not care from which "side" you write but I would appricate quotation from original texts from side of Luther and side of Cajetan.  

Thank you for any help.
I found this paper "Cajetan and Luther: Revisiting the Roots of a Schism" written by Dr. Adam Cooper, a Lutheran pastor turned Catholic, who has a repository of his academic papers here.  The paper delves into how Cajetan became very alarmed as he detected (with prophetic insight) the far reaching consequences of Luther's view during the October 1518 conversations.  The Extravagante Papal teaching mentioned by the pamphlet is covered in this academic paper along with technical discussion of the treasury of merits.  The purpose of the paper is precisely what you are looking for.

From the Introduction:


  Like most non-specialist students of the Reformation, my access to the
  exchange between Martin Luther and Cardinal Cajetan in the city of
  Augsburg, October 1518, has by and large been limited to Luther’s own
  account of the event, or else to secondary sources understandably
  writing with a Protestant bias. Recently, however, I made it my
  business to read Cajetan himself, who, like other Catholic
  polemicists, has suffered virtual demonisation in Lutheran folklore.
  This essay is an attempt to restore some balance to the popular
  picture of Luther and Cajetan’s exchange in Augsburg by way of an
  examination of the latter’s own theology as manifest in the documents
  he wrote at that occasion.
  My aim is to show that Cajetan’s negative impression of Luther’s
  theology – taken on its own terms - was not as illfounded, irrational,
  or unbiblical as is often implied. On the contrary, it will become
  clear that in Cajetan’s estimation, Luther’s theology represented a
  radical shift away from mainstream Christian doctrine, and a
  capitulation to the subjectivist, humanistic tendencies of the
  nominalist school of philosophy.
  
  In reckoning as much, Cajetan may well have been mistaken. I shall
  leave that judgement to the reader. Yet it is only by grasping the
  Cardinal’s deep-seated intuition that Luther’s protestations, embodied
  in the Ninety-five Theses, threatened the very foundations of a truly
  efficacious sacramental theology, that we can, to my mind, make sense
  of the ecclesial breach that followed and recognise, in humility, its
  fundamentally tragic character. I therefore offer this study as one
  small contribution to an ongoing conversation in the hope that, in due
  course, such a breach may one day be righted and the Christ-like
  prayer of the Roman Pontiff for ‘full and visible communion’ answered.


As for the full text of Luther's letter to George Spalatin mentioned in the pamphlet, this PDF from archive.org contains scholarly footnoted collection of Luther's letter (volume 48) covering those years (warning: large file, 26.2MB, high-DPI book scan, OCR-ed).