Canon of Scripture Open or Closed

[DD2007]

Is the Canon of Scripture open or closed?

I read somewhere, I think, that it is closed. I can’t remember the reason why.

I did a google search on the topic and didn’t find anything definitive, only arguments.

My main question is:

Why can’t writings about Fatima, Guadalupe, Lourds, St. Catherine Laboure, St. Louis de Montfort’s True Devotion to Mary…etc (many others) be added to the Canon as Scripture if they are considered to be inspired by the Holy Spirit?

 

[COPLAND_3]

The Council of Trent gave the **final definition **of the Canon of Scripture. It has to do with the fact that the Canon passes on the belief of the Apostles which the Church with Her bishops is the Interpreter who preserves orthodoxy of that belief. I imagine that the Church has the authority to add to the Canon what God may reveal to Her if that ever happened, but I also imagine that is highly unlikely.

Why can’t writings about Fatima, Guadalupe, Lourds, St. Catherine Laboure, St. Louis de Montfort’s True Devotion to Mary…etc (many others) be added to the Canon as Scripture if they are considered to be inspired by the Holy Spirit?

These are private revelations which add to the deposit of Faith, as the CCC paragraph 67 says it is “to help live more fully by it in a certain period of time of history.”

Here it is in context

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

 

[mdgspencer]

Other writings aren’t Catholic Scripture because they are not the word of God. This is not just a pious saying, but according to the Catholic view the human author acually expresses God’s thoughts. They are expressed by the human author, but he expresses God’s ideas through what he writes. And so for example, if an author of a book on Fatima for example expresses a pious thought we are not required to accept it. If the Bible, on the other hand, provides a moral injunction, it would be an offense against God to refuse to accept it, God being the primary author of Scripture.
This said, I have wondered what may happen if we acually find, for example, another epistle of Saint Paul. Could such a letter be added by the Church to the canonical Bible? I don’t know of Scripture is closed in this sense or not.

 

[teachccd]

This said, I have wondered what may happen if we acually find, for example, another epistle of Saint Paul. Could such a letter be added by the Church to the canonical Bible? I don’t know of Scripture is closed in this sense or not.

That is an interesting thought. However, I would have to assume that God would not guide His Church to close a canon of public revelation if there were more writings to be found. That’s just my :twocents: …teachccd

 

[COPLAND_3]

This said, I have wondered what may happen if we acually find, for example, another epistle of Saint Paul. Could such a letter be added by the Church to the canonical Bible? I don't know of Scripture is closed in this sense or not.

That is a very good question. There are a couple of ways that I look at it. One is that if it was inspired by the Holy Spirit and was found as a recent discovery, then God withheld it for us for a purpose and meant for us to have it for now and the coming generations, which would not mean that the Church had lacked anything for the last 2000 years, as if the Church was incomplete or in error. And another way that I look at is that I believe that the apocryphal book of the Acts of Barnabas was truly written by St. Mark, but it is not canonical even though he wrote the canonical Gospel. I think that it could be very possible to have a letter from St. Paul to be noncanonical even though he has 14 canonical letters. It would be a deciscion that the Church would have to make.

 

[drforjc]

It seems that one (but obviously not the only one) of the criteria used to determine canonicity is the use of the book by the infant Church. Since we would have no evidence for the use of such a “lost” book by the early Church it would seem to fail that particular criterion…

For that matter, how would one even possibly verify Pauline authorship at this late date without historical attestation from other sources?

I think COPLAND 3 is probably correct when he writes of noncanonical works by authors who also wrote canonical works.