There’s no shortage of critiques Protestants offer when it comes to the Catholic idea of Sacred Tradition. One of the more common ones goes like this: We can’t know what’s in Sacred Tradition the way we can know what’s in Scripture.
Protestant scholar Robert Godfrey makes exactly this point in his essay “What Do We Mean by Sola?” (found in the book The Protestant Position on the Bible). He claims, “Our Roman opponents, while making much of tradition, will never really define tradition or tell you what its content is” (emphasis added).
Another author in that same book, John Armstrong, basically says the same thing in his essay “The Authority of Scripture.” He argues that Tradition can’t be an ultimate authority because we can’t “heed” it the way we can Scripture. He even adds that we can “ponder” a prophet’s words only if they’ve been written down in Scripture.
Then you have Protestant YouTuber Austin Suggs, who brings up this point in his video “My Thoughts on Sola Scriptura: Responding to Common Objections.” He says,
Sola Scriptura, in my estimation, doesn’t say Scripture is the only way one could form doctrine. If you can sit down with the apostles and people who knew them directly, you’d be justified in making theological conclusions based on their testimony.
Now, as my colleague Jimmy Akin points out in his response to Suggs’s video, the implication here is pretty clear: since we no longer have the apostles around to tell us directly what their traditions were (beyond what’s in Scripture), we supposedly can’t know which traditions were truly apostolic or authoritative.
So what can we say in response?
Well, first off, this argument actually ends up undercutting a number of Protestant beliefs. Many of the things our Protestant friends hold dear simply can’t be accounted for by Scripture. That means they’re relying—whether they realize it or not—on the authority of Tradition. Consider this list of things a Protestant most likely affirms:
- There are no more apostles.
- Public revelation has ceased (because there are no more apostles to be inspired).
- There are no more inspired writings.
- The Epistle to the Hebrews is inspired Scripture.
- The words in the Gospel of Mark are inspired.
- The Didache is not inspired.
- Clement of Rome’s First Letter to the Corinthians is not inspired.
- Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon are inspired (even though these were debated by Jewish authorities into the second century).
- Christ acts by virtue of two wills—divine and human.
- Infant baptism is valid (something affirmed by Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, and Presbyterians).
- Immersion baptism is the only valid form of baptism (something affirmed by Baptists, Anabaptists, and the Church of Christ).
- Baptism is still valid even if performed by a layperson in danger-of-death scenarios.
- A man and woman become married by saying vows, not by consummation.
- The oral traditions preached by the apostles are identical to what we find in Scripture.
- There’s no final purification after death for a Christian who dies in God’s friendship.
- Jesus and the apostles intended sola scriptura to be the rule of faith for Christians after the apostles died.
- The apostles’ infallible authority didn’t pass on to the “bishops/presbyters” who succeeded them.
Now here’s the big question: if a Protestant says we can’t “know,” “heed,” or “ponder” any apostolic truths outside Scripture, then how does he explain the fact that he does know, heed, and ponder all the items above—which are clearly outside the Bible?
He has to choose:
Option A: He gives up this critique of Sacred Tradition, admitting that he can identify apostolic truths outside of Scripture.
Option B: He says these beliefs aren’t apostolic at all—which would mean they’re not binding on Christians.
Neither option is great for the Protestant position.
Now, here’s a second point that builds on the first: the claim that Catholics can’t identify what’s in Sacred Tradition is just flat-out false.
We absolutely can identify Apostolic Traditions—and many Protestants even agree with us on a lot of them. Take a look again at the earlier list. Almost everything in that list (except for the last four items) is shared by Catholics and Protestants.
But we can go farther. Catholics also recognize a number of Apostolic Traditions that Protestants usually don’t accept, including
- that the seven deuterocanonical books (Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, Sirach, 1 & 2 Maccabees) are inspired.
- that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven.
- that Mary was conceived without sin (the Immaculate Conception).
- that Christ instituted seven sacraments.
- that certain specific things are required for a sacrament to be valid (like using wheat bread for the Eucharist).
- that Christ’s one sacrifice is made present at every Mass.
- that bishops are true successors to the apostles, and that this apostolic succession comes through the laying on of hands by someone already in that line.
And don’t forget the interpretations of Jesus’ words and actions that the Church has always held through Tradition—interpretations Protestants usually disagree with, but which still count as examples of Sacred Tradition. For example,
- When Jesus says, “Eat my flesh” and “Drink my blood” (John 6), and “This is my body . . . this is my blood” at the Last Supper, he’s revealing the real presence in the Eucharist.
- When he says, “Do this in memory of me,” he’s ordaining the apostles as New Covenant ministerial priests.
- When he says, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5), he’s teaching baptismal regeneration.
- Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18, and Jesus intended Peter and his successors to lead the Church.
- When Jesus says the apostles can forgive sins, he’s instituting the sacrament of confession (John 20:23).
None of these teachings can be fully accounted for by Scripture alone. Yet we believe they’re part of divine revelation passed down through the Church. So contrary to the objection, Catholics can and do identify truths that belong to Sacred Tradition.
Now for one final point. The Bible actually gives us a model for how to identify Sacred Tradition: the council.
In Acts 15, the early Christians faced a serious theological disagreement. Some said Gentiles had to become Jews—specifically, to get circumcised—before they could be saved. Others said no, Gentiles are saved through faith in Jesus, not by following the Old Covenant law.
So what did the apostles and early Church leaders do? They gathered in Jerusalem for a council. After hearing both sides, they issued an authoritative decision: Gentiles are saved by grace through faith, not circumcision.
This was a defining moment. It showed that the Church could come together, guided by the Holy Spirit, and discern what belongs to the deposit of divine revelation. And Christians followed this pattern throughout history. Whenever major disputes arose—whether about the Trinity, the canon of Scripture, the divinity of Christ, or something else—the Church convened a council.
These councils gave us official teachings that bear witness to Sacred Tradition—including, by the way, which books belong in the Bible!
So if we can trust councils to tell us which books are inspired, then surely we can trust them to help identify other parts of Sacred Tradition as well.
Bottom line: Catholics can identify apostolic teachings that aren’t laid out in Scripture. And we even have a God-given structure—the Magisterium—to help us do that faithfully.