Tradition - a double-edged sword for Roman Catholic polemicists

Paul calls the Thessalonians to hold fast to his oral and written teaching. Does this already prove that every tradition later described as apostolic can be reliably identified? The question of the ‘restrainer’ in 2 Thessalonians 2 illustrates the problem.

1. Oral proclamation really was God’s Word

First Thessalonians 2:13 describes how the church received the proclaimed word as God’s Word. Second Thessalonians 2:15 calls them to hold to the traditions they learned through a word or letter from the apostles. A Protestant understanding of Scripture should not weaken these statements.

The message’s authority did not depend on Paul writing it down in ink. He was an authorized apostle in oral teaching too. What matters, however, is the statement of origin: the Thessalonians are to preserve what they learned from us . The text does not place every later church tradition on the same level merely because of its age.

This is where the actual discussion begins. How can a later statement be recognized as the same apostolic teaching? What testimony documents its transmission? And how does it relate to the apostolic word available in writing?

2. A concrete test case: the ‘restrainer’

In 2 Thessalonians 2:5, Paul recalls his oral instruction. The original readers know what or who restrains the revelation of the lawless one (2:6–7). We lack an equally explicit identification in the letter. Consequently, several interpretations remain to this day.

This is an illuminating case. There really was an oral explanation to which Paul appeals. Its existence is not in doubt. What is more difficult is demonstrating that its precise content has been unambiguously preserved for us outside the letter.

3. What Chrysostom and Augustine actually say

In his fourth homily on Second Thessalonians, John Chrysostom names two interpretations: the grace of the Spirit and the Roman Empire. He favors the second and explains why Paul might have expressed himself with political caution. His account thus documents an early interpretive discussion; it does not simply present an unambiguous answer accepted by everyone. Chrysostom, Homily 4 on 2 Thessalonians.

Augustine is particularly open in Vom Gottesstaat 20.19. He admits that he does not know the exact meaning of the obscure formulation and reports various conjectures. He considers an interpretation referring to the Roman Empire defensible. Attributing to him the simple claim ‘Satan is the restrainer’ does not accurately represent this passage. Augustine, Vom Gottesstaat, Book 20, Chapter 19.

These testimonies are valuable precisely because they reveal the limits of their authors’ knowledge. Appealing to the Church Fathers does not replace source criticism. We must distinguish whether an author describes his own conviction, someone else’s interpretation, or his lack of knowledge.

4. What Catholic claim is actually being tested?

A fair critique must measure the Catholic position against its own authoritative texts. Dei Verbum 9–10 describes Scripture and sacred tradition as closely connected transmission of the same Word of God; binding interpretation is assigned to the Church’s magisterium. The magisterium is to serve the Word. This does not assert that every Church Father is infallible in every individual interpretation. Dei Verbum 9–10.

The following conclusion would therefore be too strong: ‘There were different interpretations of the restrainer; therefore the entire Catholic doctrine of tradition is refuted.’ Such a conclusion requires further premises. Individual exegetical disagreements do not already refute every form of church tradition.

The case does, however, challenge a stronger claim sometimes made: the notion that merely referring to oral apostolic teaching automatically gives us an unambiguous answer today to every associated question. Precisely this automatic procedure does not work. The specific content and its reliable transmission must be demonstrated.

5. What sola scriptura can meaningfully mean here

A position bound to Scripture need not treat tradition as worthless. We do not receive the Bible without history or read it as the first Christians of all time. Ancient interpretations, confessions, and the history of the canon can enrich our understanding and expose our own blind spots.

Rather, the decisive distinction is this: tradition is important testimony, but its mere existence does not make it an infallible norm. Every claimed doctrine must be open to testing against apostolic testimony. Age, circulation, and institutional approval can be historical evidence; they do not replace examination of its content and origin.

This requirement also applies to Protestant Christians. A familiar interpretation does not become infallible because our favorite preacher or our own tradition holds it. Those who measure Catholic claims against sources must apply the same standard to themselves.

6. A sharper critique is a more precise critique

The case of the restrainer permits a limited but important conclusion: not every oral apostolic explanation can be reconstructed today with equal certainty. Thus 2 Thessalonians 2:15 alone is insufficient evidence for the apostolic origin of a particular later teaching.

We honor apostolic tradition by carefully examining what is actually apostolic.

In this way, the discussion remains objective and demanding. It avoids inaccurate attributions and asks the stronger question: What specific justification supports the specific claim to authority?