Did I Concede the Canon Argument to the Protestants?
INTRODUCTION
Hello, I have decided to publish this as a completely free article for your edification. Please consider becoming a subscriber of this publication (here) or send a $5 one time gift my way (here) if you enjoy the article!
ARTICLE
It has come back to me that certain individuals have concluded from certain recent writings of mine that I have “conceded” to Protestants that their view of the Canon and Sola Scriptura is not problematic. This, I can only imagine, is based on a recent article I wrote on whether the Canon is implicit in Scripture in light of Fr. Francisco Marin-Sola’s theory on ecclesiastical faith.
For those who need a refresher on what the canon argument I bring forward from Pesch, Franzelin, Scheeben, etc., here is a succinct statement of it.
First, by “canon” we refer to a collection of certain inspired books.
Second, “inspiration” is a certain internal motion of the Spirit within the soul of the inspired author that is supernaturale quoad substantiam and hence a mystery of the faith.
Third, those things which are supernaturale quoad substantiam are only accepted by Divine faith rather than by scientia (”knowledge”) or human faith. Hence, the necessity for faith in accepting the Trinity or Incarnation is the same necessity to accepting the inspiration of this or that book.
Fourth, since this faith is specifically Divine faith, it must come to us by Formal Divine Revelation rather than merely human testimony.
Fifth, such Formal Divine Revelation is not present in Sacred Scripture for all the books of Sacred Scripture. Hence, there must be another fount of Revelation that is truly authentic, i.e., able to demand faith in virtue of its own authority.
Sixth, according to the Protestant theory, such a truly authentic source able to demand faith in virtue of its own authority does not exist outside of Sacred Scripture (other sources are either non-authentic or is not authentic in virtue of its own authority).
Therefore, by force of reasoning, one cannot hold to Sola Scriptura. There are a number of different corollaries to this, such as the distinction between Inspiration and Divine Revelation, the nature of the motives of credibility, the three supernatural aspects of Divine Faith, etc., but these are accidental to the argument at hand and only serve to illustrate its force.
Yet, it is quite easy to imagine how the fifth point above may seem to contradict what I wrote here,
Suppose that there was no Sacred Tradition and the entirety of Divine Revelation was contained in Sacred Scripture. Upon such a supposition, what is the status of the canon of Sacred Scripture in relation to Divine Revelation? Could we still say that the canon of Sacred Scripture is implicitly contained in Divine Revelation? (here)
I answer that it is possible to say yes and give an analysis of the problem based on the principles of Fr. Marin-Sola.
Yet, to conclude that a positive answer is to deny the principle above that “such Formal Divine Revelation is not present in Sacred Scripture for all the books of Sacred Scripture” is to show complete ignorance as to key questions in Catholic Theology concerning Faith and Revelation.
What can distinguish a proposition as formally revealed or virtually revealed (cf., here and here, where I already explained this). Something is formally revealed when that which is revealed (the revealed datum) and the proposition stated have only a nominal distinction, i.e., as more or less distinct. For example, if all of divine revelation contained the sentence “Christ is man,” it would be formally revealed that “Christ is a rational animal” since they do not even differ as to concept, but only nominally. Hence, I would be able to give the assent of faith to both propositions.
Yet, we can go beyond the formally revealed and also speak of the virtually revealed. The virtually revealed means that there is not a mere interpretation or clarification of the concepts, but that, by a process of reasoning, a new concepts are brought forward. For example, on the same supposition, I conclude that “Christ is mortal” because “all men are mortal” and Christ is a man.
The proposition, i.e., the minor of reason, that “all men are mortal” in this case is not something that is revealed. Under this supposition, if I were to deny that Christ is mortal, I would, in the words of the immortal Banez, not be a heretic, but a bad philosopher.
Due to the principle that the conclusion rests on the weaker part, I would not have faith in the conclusion, I would have a formally natural and scientific knowledge of the conclusion. Why? Because natural reason has intervened and enters into the fray so that the formal reason for accepting the conclusion is not merely “God has said this, who can neither deceive nor be deceived,” but it is “I have concluded this from what God has said.”
Hence, if someone were to hold to what Fr. Sola says and were to hold that the canon is implicitly taught in scripture, then it would not require that they “give up” the canon argument, because the various minors of reason that we can use to discover the inspiration of this or that book (on the Protestant supposition concerning Sola Scriptura) will never lead to divine faith since the formal reason for the assent will never be “God has said this.”
It would only be a contradiction to the argument if I were to concede that it is not merely virtually revealed, but also that it is formally revealed.