Second, that one must distinguish between protocanonical and deuterocanonical books.
Second, that one must distinguish between protocanonical and deuterocanonical books.
§ 101. (II) “We must distinguish between protocanonical and deuterocanonical books.” They call those books protocanonical about which there never has been doubt in the Church. Deuterocanonical books, on the other hand, [are those] about which there was a double opinion at times among Catholics. This was because they came to the knowledge of the entire Church not immediately at the time of the apostles but long after. In this latter class they put the controversial books of the Old Testament: Esther, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, etc. (See Sixtus Senensis, Biblioth. sanctae, bk. 1, at the beginning of sect. 1.) Stapleton embraces this distinction eagerly (Princip. doctrin., bk. 9, c. 6), which is not strange because in the last chapter of the same book he claims boldly: “The power to grant canonical authority to some books has been given to the Church, if these books are indeed such as were written at the time of the apostles and still have not been repudiated by the witness of the Church, for example, if they were to make canonical the Shepherd of Hermas or the Canones apostolorum and the Constitutions of Clement.” Bellarmine likewise seems to incline toward this opinion, for he establishes three classes of canonical books (De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 4). To the first class he assigns those “about whose authority there has never been any debate among Catholic people.” To the second he assigns those “that, though they are truly prophetic or apostolic, nevertheless did not always have certain and sure authority.” To the last he assigns “those that, though at times some great and learned men considered them in the number of the sacred volumes, nevertheless were never approved by the public judgment of the entire Church.” In the first group he places the canonical books, which our churches acknowledge as such. In the second he places the controversial books, namely, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, etc. To the third group he assigns those listed in [Jus canonicum,] dist. 15, c. sancta Romana, namely, the Prayer of Manasseh, 3 and 4 Maccabees, etc.
We respond. (1) Among the books of the Old Testament, we do not acknowledge the sort of distinction that some are protocanonical, some deuterocanonical. Rather, we say that the former are monocanonical [
] and the latter noncanonical [
] because the requirements of the canonical books listed earlier fit only the former. The latter, on the other hand, totally lack those requirements. From this arises the following kind of argument. Whatever books lack the essential requirements of canonical books can be considered neither protocanonical nor deuterocanonical. But the controversial books lack the essential requirements of canonical books, as we demonstrated earlier. Therefore.
(2) It is certain that the Israelite church never accepted those controversial books into the canon, no matter what may finally be the case for certain theologians of the Christian Church. Therefore either the Israelite church erred seriously in this respect or one must accept its judgment in this question. The former cannot be said, both because Christ and the apostles would have reproached the Church in this regard and because the Papists say that the Church cannot err. Therefore the latter alternative stands.
(3) The New Testament Church indeed accepted the so-called “deuterocanonical books,” not into the authority of the canon but for reading in the Church. Jerome, preface to the Books of Solomon: “Just as the Church indeed reads the Books of Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees but does not take them into the canonical books, so also it reads these two volumes (Wisdom and Sirach) for the edification of the people but not to establish the authority of dogmas of the Church.”
(4) The Church does not and cannot confer canonical authority on any book that truly and by its nature is noncanonical, for canonical authority depends totally on God. The Church, however, merely bears witness of canonical authority. Bellarmine, De verb. Dei, bk. 1, c. 10, § Itaque: “We admit that the Church can by no means make a canonical book out of a noncanonical one. Rather, it can only declare what one must consider canonical.” How, then, could those controversial books have been accepted into the canon by the Church when they lack canonical authority and the essential requirements of the canonical books?