The Catholic Canon Vindicated from History

Notes from Perrone

Introduction

A common objection to the Catholic inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books in the biblical canon is drawn from the Fathers. The argument runs as follows: many Fathers and medievals denied the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books; under such conditions, it is illegitimate to judge definitively in the matter; therefore, the Council of Trent judged illegitimately in this matter.

There are two ways of addressing this argument. First, one can question the minor premise. It is perfectly reasonable to argue against Protestants that their claim (that precedent among previous authors precludes judgment on the matter) is gratuitous. Not only that, but it is also contradicted by the most manifest historical examples, as well as by their own practice, even in this very case, where they include a rejection of the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books in their confessions of faith. Second, one can question the major premise. In this case, one disputes the particular claim that statements from the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers state or imply a rejection of the teaching of the Council of Trent.

The first method deals with a question of theological methodology and ecclesiology. It is important to note that Protestants will often present this argument as what logicians call an enthymeme: they will simply state the first premise and the conclusion without actually explaining how the one leads to the other. In my experience, constantly pressing a Protestant to (a) actually explain how the one leads to the other, and (b) demonstrate the truth of the medium of demonstration, are very useful approaches.

The second method deals with questions that are historico-theological in nature. While the first method deals with matters of principle, the second deals with matters of fact. For this reason, discussions surrounding the first method are interminable, constantly laden with questions of a critical or exegetical nature, yielding little fruit for the labour involved. Yet, in order for theology to be pursued in its integrity, it is quite useful to provide reasonable explanations for continuity where possible: saepe nega, concede parum, distingue frequenter.

While it was not uncommon for theologians to concede the major premise, it was more common to deny both the major and the minor premise. Personally, while the evidence for conceding that many erred on this point seems more convincing, the arguments offered by those theologians who took the opposing view ought to be weighed objectively.

Fr. Giovanni Perrone provides a quite succinct treatment of this question from the perspective of one who denied the Protestant claim of a continuous anti-Deuterocanonical tradition in the Church before Trent.

There are three important aspects of his interpretation of the Fathers and ecclesiastical authors. First, the use of the word “canon” simply to denote the Hebrew canon. Second, the use of the word “canon” to refer to books received by the Church, indicating extrinsic rather than intrinsic authority, and hence books that can be cited with complete certainty for the demonstration of dogmas. Third, the distinction between a book as divine and a book as canonical.

Here is a translation of this treatment: Praelectiones theologicae, tom. 3, n. 32-69