Have Catholics Got Protestants Beat on Authority?

Why sola Scriptura is, in fact, sola

“You discovered a late, manmade, non-Biblical doctrine, didn’t you?”

I hope to be back to preaching soon. In the meantime, here’s something I’ve been chewing on.

Recently on X, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, a former Church of England priest, and now a Roman Catholic priest, challenged us Protestants with this post:

Do Protestants follow a “late, manmade, non-Biblical doctrine”?

The answer is no, but let’s unpack Longenecker’s challenge.

His argument is that: (1) by claiming sola Scriptura we Protestants have (2) presupposed an oral tradition that predates the written Scriptures. Hence, the very thing we assert (the Bible alone) stands on the thing we deny (oral tradition).

(This argument seems especially impressive to Catholics when it comes to settling the canon of the New Testament.)

Longenecker, along with his co-religionists in the Church of Rome, believes that it is the tradition of the Church that is both complete and authoritative, and that the Bible is just one part of that tradition (although admittedly a very important one).

For instance, Roman Catholics will appeal to a text like 2 Thess. 2:15, which reads, “Hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle.” That seems to be a slam dunk, right? I mean here’s St. Paul right there in black and white writing about authoritative oral traditions.

So, where can Christians find an authoritative compendium of these oral traditions of which St. Paul writes? Is there one?

(Hint: Where did we just read about these oral traditions? Answer: in the Scriptures.)

Catholics would say these oral traditions form part of the Deposit of Faith, which is guarded by the Church of Rome, with the Pope as its sole guarantor. Want to know what’s in the oral tradition? Ask the Pope for a definitive answer. (I suppose that when the Pope answers, he then makes it a written tradition.)

In theory, this should work well, and a lot of Protestant converts to the Roman Church are convinced by this reasoning. In fact, if Protestants are guilty of not holding to — in fact denying — something important that St. Paul writes about, well then, we should repent, shouldn’t we? (Looking at you, mainline Protestant churches this Pride month.)

In my reply to a reply on Fr. Longenecker’s thread I adopted the useful framework of the Angelic Doctor himself, St. Thomas Aquinas, which I share below.

Q. Whether sola Scriptura denies oral tradition?

Objection 1. It would seem sola Scriptura denies oral tradition. For what is meant by “sola” is that the Scriptures stand alone as the rule of faith. But the Apostle writes, “Hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). Therefore the Scriptures cannot stand alone, but are founded on a tradition both oral and written.

Objection 2. Further, not every primitive church received written apostolic instruction. The Apostle says “faith cometh by hearing” (Rom. 10:17). Therefore an oral tradition sufficed where a written one was lacking.

Objection 3. Further, it was not until the end of the first century that the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles were collected. Therefore an oral tradition predates the written canon of Scriptures.

On the contrary, It is said (John 17:14), “I have given them thy word.”

I answer that, There must be a common tradition of truth. For what unites Christians is the truth of a faith that spans from protoevangelium to the new heavens and new earth. Nothing contrary to this faith can be true, neither is any man free to depart from this tradition and still call himself a Christian. Now since tradition is defined as both the thing transmitted and the means by which it is passed from one age to the next, it follows that tradition is limited to what is received. What is not received is lost. Likewise, once the transmission is complete the means cease. The oral gives way to the written but the Scriptures as the revelation of God in his Word remain. After all, it is said (John 1:1), “In the beginning was the Word.” Consequently, sola Scriptura rests not on tradition but on revelation.

Answer to Objection 1. In apostolic and sub-apostolic times there was not as sharp a distinction between the oral and written tradition. Later church controversies required clarity, and an appeal to the written Apostolic and Evangelical standards prevailed.

Answer to Objection 2. By the end of the first century the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists were widely circulated and were recognized as authoritative witnesses.

Answer to Objection 3. It is no longer necessary to affirm what has been discarded, its purpose having been fulfilled. The oral preaching of apostles, disciples, fathers, and even a lost letter of St. Paul to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16) had done their work. It did not please God in his Providence to preserve them.