The Michuta Canon Dilemma

If you’ve been following the aomin blog, you already know Catholic apologist Gary Michuta has a new book coming out this month: Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger. There has been some interaction between Michuta, James White, and William Webster over the canon declaration of Hippo, Carthage, and Trent. Did the early councils of Hippo and Carthage deem a book canonical that Trent later rejected as canonical? It’s a little tricky to work through. I posted on this some months ago. Recently, William Webster posted on it as well:

Bill Webster Responds to Gary Michuta Part I

Bill Webster Responds to Gary Michuta, Part II

Bill Webster Responds to Gary Michuta, Part III

Without restating all the argumentation, Michuta argues Trent decided to “pass over in silence” on the question of the particular book of Esdras under dispute. Michuta says:

“Both White and Webster take the position that the absence of a book called Esdras in the Council of Trent’s definition of the canon constitutes, not mere silence on the issue, but a clear and explicit rejection of the book “without the slightest ambiguity.” This is a big deal for them because, if it is true, then a case could be made that Trent contradicted the Councils of Carthage and Hippo which they understand to have explicitly included Esdras (no doubt without the slightest possible ambiguity there either). My position is that, whatever we want to make of the status of Esdras, the question of a contradiction between Trent and Carthage cannot arise because the bishops at Trent explicitly avoided answering the question. White and Webster seem to be under the impression that this idea is my own "novel" interpretation of the decree of the Fourth Session. It is nothing of the kind.”

And also:

“Let me be perfectly clear. My assertion that the Council of Trent passed over the question of the canonicity of Esdras in silence is not a matter of my own or anyone else’s interpretation of the decree. It is a historical fact.”

I think Gary Michuta may have cornered himself by his own argumentation. While he solved one problem, he created another.

Let’s grant Michuta’s assertion that Trent “passed over in silence” on the book of Esdras in question. This means in the Roman system, as interpreted by Michuta, the possibility exists that the book in question is canonical, but not in the canon. Therefore, it is possible that the Bible is missing a book, in which case, Roman Catholics cannot be certain they have an infallible list of all the infallible books. In which case, their arguments stating they have canon certainty crumbles. It would also mean, the canon is still open. Michuta notes that 42 people at Trent voted to pass over the book in silence. If Michuta is correct on his interpretation of Trent, these 42 people solved the problem of the contradiction between Hippo, Carthage, and Trent, but created the problem of an unclosed canon, and thrust Catholics into uncertainty.

Michuta notes 3 people at Trent voted to reject the book of Esdras in question. These three people uphold Catholic argumentation on Canon certainty: yes, the book of Esdras in question is not canonical. The canon is closed. Catholics have a complete infallible list of infallible books. In this answer, the earlier councils of Hippo and Carthage deemed Esdras canonical, but these three men at Trent say it’s not. In other words, if these men were followed, it would prove councils are not infallible. The councils contradicted themselves.

Go ahead, argue Trent “passed over in silence”. It proves once and for all Catholic arguments for canon certainty are empty. The argument shows clearly that sophistry is at work. The argument is like trying to scotch tape together a structure that needs to be demolished. The epistemological foundation of Roman Catholicism is top heavy from its weak foundation, one that is built on sand.