Some Protestants object to the Catholic view on Sacred Tradition on the grounds that we can’t know its content the way we can know the content of Scripture.
For example, in his essay “The Authority of Scripture,” published in Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible, John Armstrong argues that Tradition can’t be an ultimate authority because it can’t be “heeded” the way Scripture can (108). He goes on to argue that only if what true prophet says is inscripturated can it be “pondered” throughout the ages (109).
Protestant YouTuber Austin Suggs makes a similar argument in his video “My Thoughts on Sola Scriptura: Responding to Common Objections”:
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.
As my colleague Jimmy Akin points out in his response to Suggs’s video, Suggs here implies that since we don’t have the apostles anymore to ask what their traditions are outside Scripture, we have no way of knowing which traditions were theirs and therefore authoritative.
What can we say in response?
First, the Protestant who makes this argument tacitly undermines several of his own beliefs. Many beliefs that he holds dear as a Christian cannot be accounted for by Scripture alone. Therefore, they must be held on the basis of the testimony of Tradition. For example, he likely believes at least some if not many of the following propositions:
- There are no more apostles.
- There is no more public revelation, since there are no more apostles to be inspired.
- There are no more inspired writings, since there are no more apostles to be inspired to write or confirm others in writing inspired text.
- The Epistle to the Hebrews is inspired.
- The words of the Gospel of Mark are inspired.
- The Didache is not inspired.
- Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon are inspired. (These were debated by the Pharisaical school well into the second century.)
- Christ acts in virtue of two different wills in Scripture: human and divine.
- Infant baptism is valid (applicable to Lutherans, Methodists, and Anglicans).
- Baptisms administered by non-clergy in an emergency are valid (applicable to Lutherans, Methodists, and Anglicans).
- A man and woman become married by the profession of vows and not the consummation.
- The oral traditions are identical to the sacred writings.
- There is no postmortem final purification for any Christian who dies in friendship with Christ.
Now, how can a Protestant argue that we can’t “know,” “heed,” or “ponder” apostolic truths beyond the boundaries of Scripture when he, in fact, “knows,” “heeds,” and “ponders” the above things that he considers apostolic truths?
So our Protestant friend must either a) give up this critique of Sacred Tradition, since he believes that he can identify what he believes to be apostolic traditions, or b) acknowledge that the above beliefs are not apostolic traditions and therefore not binding beliefs for Christians. Neither option is preferable.
Our second response follows from the first: the claim is factually false. There are several apostolic traditions that we identify, and our Protestant friends affirm many of them.
Catholics and Protestants both believe all the items in the above list except the last two. But here are a few more we can add:
- That Mary was bodily assumed.
- That Mary was immaculately conceived.
We can also add to the above truths the interpretations of Jesus’ sayings and actions. Most Protestants won’t agree with us on these. But that’s irrelevant, since the challenge is that we can’t identify the traditions that were apostolic.
- That Jesus’ words in John 6—“eat my flesh . . . drink my blood”—and the Last Supper—“this is my body . . . this is my blood”—reveal the mystery of the real presence of his body and blood in the Eucharist.
- That John 3:5 refers to baptismal regeneration.
- That Matthew 16:18-19 meant Peter and his successors were to be head of the Church.
- That when Jesus said the apostles are to forgive and retain sins (John 20:23), he instituted the sacrament of confession.
These are all truths that we can’t account for by Scripture alone. Yet we believe they are part and parcel of divine revelation. Therefore, these are some of the truths that make up Sacred Tradition.
Finally, our last response is that the New Testament reveals a way to identify those truths that belong to Sacred Tradition: the convening of a sacred council.
In Acts 15, we see the “elders” (also known as bishops) and the apostles convene at a council in Jerusalem to settle a dispute between two different traditions among the first-century Christians. Some Christians, based on the Old Testament covenant of circumcision, were demanding that Gentiles become Jews first to be Christians and thereby be saved. Others, however, rejected this and asserted that Gentiles didn’t have to be circumcised to be saved, but rather were saved by grace through faith in Christ. The apostles and elders convened in Acts 15 to settle this issue, and they concluded that salvation is brought about through faith in Christ, not circumcision.
Christians followed this model throughout subsequent centuries. When theological disputes arose, they convened councils to settle these disputes. And their official teachings were witnesses to the Sacred Tradition preserved in the succession of bishops, including the canon of Scripture.
If we can look to councils to identify the non-written apostolic teaching of which Jewish and Christians writings are inspired, then surely we can look to the councils to identify other non-written apostolic teachings.
So not only do we in fact identify some of those truths that make up Sacred Tradition, but we also have a principle in virtue of which we can do so: the Magisterium.