A Catholic Rebuke of Answering Catholics on Sacred Tradition
Patrick O’Brien’s Answering Catholics recently published an article entitled “The ‘Tradition’ Translation Debate: What Scholars Really Say.”
That is a confident title.
There is only one immediate problem:
The article does not actually tell us what the scholars really say.
It repeatedly appeals to “nearly all non-Catholic scholars” and tells readers that “most evangelical scholars agree,” yet the article itself names no scholars, cites no commentaries, provides no quotations from the alleged consensus, and offers no exegetical demonstration for the proposition on which its entire rebuttal depends.
And that proposition is this:
The authoritative oral apostolic tradition commanded by St. Paul was eventually reduced to, or exhaustively preserved in, Scripture.
That assertion is not the conclusion of 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
It is the Protestant premise that Patrick needs 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to prove.
In other words, sola Scriptura is being smuggled into the passage and then presented as though it came out of the passage.
That is precisely the question under dispute.
And once that circular reasoning is removed, Patrick’s argument collapses.
1. Let Us Begin With What Patrick Concedes
The article admits several important facts.
It admits that the Greek word used by St. Paul is παράδοσις — paradosis.
It admits that the word means something handed down—tradition.
It admits that the same word can describe either bad human traditions or good apostolic traditions depending upon their source and content.
It admits that St. Paul positively commands Christians to retain apostolic traditions.
It admits that St. Paul distinguishes between traditions delivered orally and traditions delivered in writing.
And it even admits that certain Protestant translations, particularly the NIV, render positive occurrences of paradosis as “teachings” while retaining “tradition” in negative passages.
Those concessions are substantial.
The Douay-Rheims renders St. Paul’s command plainly:
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.”
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Notice what Paul does not say.
He does not say:
“Hold only the things I wrote.”
He does not say:
“Hold my oral teaching temporarily until everything important has been committed to writing.”
He does not say:
“After the apostolic age, Scripture will replace the oral mode of transmission.”
He commands the Thessalonians to hold the apostolic traditions they received through two modes of transmission:
by word
and
by epistle.
That distinction is in the inspired text.
Catholics did not put it there.
2. “But Paradosis Just Means Apostolic Teaching!”
Yes.
Exactly.
This is one of the strangest parts of the objection.
Patrick argues that the traditions of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 merely refer to authoritative apostolic teaching—as though Catholics were embarrassed by that conclusion.
But that is precisely what Catholics mean by Sacred Tradition.
Sacred Tradition is not every old custom practiced by Catholics.
It is not folklore.
It is not whatever somebody happens to have believed during the Middle Ages.
It is not a parallel collection of new revelations invented centuries after Christ.
It is the apostolic faith handed on in the Church.
The Catechism explains:
“This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition.”
Catechism of the Catholic Church, §78
And Vatican II teaches that the Apostles transmitted what they themselves had received from Christ and learned through the Holy Spirit.
Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, §§7–8
So when Patrick responds:
“But Paul is talking about apostolic teaching!”
the Catholic answer is:
Correct. That is the point.
The real question is not whether Paul means apostolic teaching.
Everyone agrees that he does.
The question is:
Where does Scripture say that all authoritative apostolic teaching delivered orally was subsequently written down and thereby ceased to exist as a binding oral ecclesial tradition?
That is the missing verse.
3. Patrick’s Crucial Claim Is Simply Asserted
The article says:
“What Paul taught verbally was later written into Scripture.”
That sentence carries virtually the entire Protestant argument.
So where does St. Paul say it?
He does not.
Where does St. Peter say it?
He does not.
Where does St. John say it?
He does not.
Where does Christ promise that every binding apostolic teaching will eventually be reduced to writing?
He does not.
The inspired text says the opposite of what Patrick needs at the precise point under discussion:
“Hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.”
The burden therefore rests on the person who wishes to add:
“…until the oral portion is eventually absorbed exhaustively into the written portion.”
That sentence is not found in the passage.
It is not implied by the grammar.
It is not contained in the meaning of paradosis.
And it cannot simply be assumed without begging the entire question against Catholicism.
4. Scripture Shows Apostolic Teaching Being Transmitted Orally to Future Generations
The problem becomes greater when we examine St. Paul’s instructions to Timothy.
Paul does not tell Timothy:
“Make sure everything you heard from me gets written into the New Testament.”
Instead:
“And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.”
2 Timothy 2:2
Look carefully at the chain:
Paul → Timothy → faithful men → others
That is four stages of transmission.
And what is being transmitted?
Things Timothy had heard from Paul.
The passage is remarkably natural if Catholicism is true.
An Apostle entrusts revealed teaching to an appointed minister, who is commanded to entrust it to other reliable ministers capable of teaching the next generation.
Paul gives a similar command one chapter earlier:
“Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me in faith, and in the love which is in Christ Jesus. Keep the good thing committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost, who dwelleth in us.”
2 Timothy 1:13–14
Again:
heard teaching,
a deposit entrusted,
preserved through the Holy Ghost.
This is hardly the language one would expect if Paul’s ecclesiology were simply:
“Wait until the New Testament is completed and then discard every authoritative mode of transmission except the written one.”
5. Sacred Tradition Is Not “Ongoing Revelation”
Patrick’s article characterizes the Catholic position as though Catholics believed paradosis establishes a continuing stream of new revelation.
That is not merely an argument against Catholic theology.
It is an argument against something Catholic theology explicitly rejects.
The Church teaches:
“No new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, §4
Likewise:
Catechism of the Catholic Church, §§65–67
Sacred Tradition does not mean that revelation keeps expanding.
Catholic theology distinguishes between:
the deposit of revelation, which was completed with the apostolic age,
and
the Church’s growth in understanding that deposit.
Vatican II states:
“The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit.”
But what develops?
Not new revelation.
The Council immediately describes growth in understanding what has been handed down.
Dei Verbum, §8
This distinction is crucial.
A doctrine can become more precisely articulated without having been newly revealed.
The Church’s fourth-century technical vocabulary concerning the Trinity is a classic example.
Christians did not begin believing in the divinity of Christ when Nicaea used the word homoousios.
The Council defined with greater precision what the apostolic faith already contained.
Development of doctrinal expression is not addition to revelation.
Patrick’s article therefore knocks down a straw man when it treats Catholic Sacred Tradition as “ongoing revelation.”
6. The Catholic Church Explicitly Distinguishes Sacred Tradition From Mere Human Traditions
Patrick correctly observes that paradosis can be good or bad.
But Catholics have never denied this.
Christ condemns human traditions that nullify God’s commandments.
See:
Matthew 15:1–9
Mark 7:1–13
St. Paul condemns “the tradition of men” when it conflicts with Christ:
Colossians 2:8
But Paul also praises apostolic tradition:
1 Corinthians 11:2
2 Thessalonians 2:15
2 Thessalonians 3:6
The obvious biblical distinction is therefore not:
Tradition bad / Scripture good
but:
Human tradition contrary to God: reject it.
Apostolic tradition from God: hold it.
The Catechism makes precisely the same distinction:
“Theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time” must be distinguished from apostolic Tradition.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, §83
Once again, Patrick is arguing against a distinction the Catholic Church already makes.
7. “Nothing in the Greek Says Capital-T Tradition”
Of course not.
Greek manuscripts did not contain a magical theological capitalization that automatically settles twenty-first-century Catholic-Protestant debates.
Nobody serious argues:
“Because paradosis appears here, every later Catholic doctrine is therefore proved.”
That would be poor exegesis.
What 2 Thessalonians 2:15 establishes is narrower—and devastating enough:
Authoritative Christian revelation was transmitted by the Apostles both orally and in writing, and Christians were commanded to hold fast to both.
That proposition is fatal to any simplistic version of sola Scriptura claiming that binding divine revelation must, by its very nature, be written.
It does not by itself prove the Assumption of Mary.
It does not by itself prove papal infallibility.
It does not by itself prove purgatory.
Nor does it have to.
The passage disproves any claim that binding apostolic teaching was, by its nature, necessarily written. The remaining question is whether Scripture teaches that this authoritative oral apostolic teaching later ceased to bind except insofar as it was incorporated into Scripture.
The individual doctrines can then be examined on their own biblical, historical, and theological evidence.
Patrick repeatedly introduces Mary, purgatory, indulgences, and papal authority into the discussion as though Catholics claimed that the dictionary definition of paradosis somehow proves every one of them.
We do not.
That is changing the subject.
8. Paul Never Says “Scripture Alone Is the Rule of Faith”
Patrick’s conclusion says that apostolic teaching is “fully preserved in Scripture.”
Again:
Where is that proposition taught?
Certainly not in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
And the broader New Testament does not supply it either.
Instead, Paul calls something besides a book the “pillar and ground of the truth”:
“The house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
1 Timothy 3:15
Christ commissions living Apostles to make disciples and teach the nations:
Matthew 28:18–20
The Church settles a doctrinal controversy in council and sends its judgment to the faithful with the extraordinary formula:
“For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us…”
Acts 15:28
Paul commands adherence to apostolic traditions transmitted orally and in writing:
2 Thessalonians 2:15
He commands Timothy to guard the apostolic deposit:
2 Timothy 1:13–14
And he commands Timothy to transmit orally received teaching through succeeding teachers:
2 Timothy 2:2
None of this diminishes Scripture.
Catholicism confesses Scripture to be inspired, inerrant Word of God.
The question is whether Scripture teaches that Scripture is the Christian’s sole infallible rule of faith.
Patrick cannot establish that proposition simply by assuming it.
9. The Early Church Makes the “Everything Became Scripture” Theory Historically Implausible
This is where the Protestant reconstruction encounters another enormous difficulty.
If the Apostles intended authoritative oral tradition to disappear once the New Testament existed, we should expect the Christians immediately following the apostolic age to know something about this change.
Instead we find the opposite.
Around AD 180, St. Irenaeus argued against the Gnostics by appealing not merely to biblical texts but to the publicly preserved apostolic Tradition found in churches founded by the Apostles and transmitted through the succession of bishops.
See:
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III.3.1–3
He then asks a devastating hypothetical question:
What if the Apostles had left us no writings?
His answer is not:
“Christianity would have been impossible because only Scripture can function as an infallible rule.”
Rather, Christians would have had to follow:
“the order of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they committed the Churches.”
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III.4.1
Think about that.
Irenaeus lived remarkably close to the apostolic generation.
His teacher Polycarp had known St. John and others who had seen the Lord.
Yet Irenaeus clearly possessed no doctrine that apostolic truth, to remain authoritative, must first be exhaustively reduced to Scripture.
Instead he appeals to:
apostolic teaching,
apostolic churches,
apostolic succession,
and apostolic Tradition.
That historical picture looks remarkably Catholic.
10. St. Basil Is Even More Explicit
In the fourth century, St. Basil the Great distinguished traditions received from written teaching from apostolic traditions received within the life of the Church.
He writes that some beliefs and practices were possessed through written teaching while others had been received:
“from the tradition of the apostles”
and maintained both as authoritative within the Church.
St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 27.66
One may debate individual examples Basil gives.
But one cannot plausibly read Basil and conclude that early Christianity universally believed:
“All binding apostolic Tradition became exclusively identical with the written New Testament.”
Nothing in these passages from Basil or Irenaeus reflects such a rule; rather, both explicitly appeal to apostolic Tradition existing alongside written Scripture.
The historical burden therefore remains squarely on the Protestant reconstruction.
11. Even Modern Scholarship Does Not Permit Patrick’s Shortcut
Patrick titled his article “What Scholars Really Say.”
Very well.
Let us talk about scholarship.
Standard Greek lexicons recognize paradosis as the content of instruction that has been handed down—tradition.
See:
Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., s.v. παράδοσις, p. 763.
The lexical issue is not controversial.
More importantly, a 2026 peer-reviewed study devoted specifically to the translation of paradoseis in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 concluded that the word refers in Pauline usage to authoritative apostolic tradition and observed that rendering it “teachings” instead of “traditions” can reflect Protestant theological assumptions.
Yuangga K. Yahya and Farhah Farhah, “Translating paradoseis: 2 Thessalonians 2:15, the Smith–Van Dyck Arabic Bible and Protestant Hermeneutics in the 19th Century Greater Syria,” Verbum et Ecclesia 47, no. 1 (2026).
The authors also make the real point of disagreement clear:
Catholics and Protestants can agree that Paul refers to authoritative apostolic tradition.
The dispute concerns how that tradition continues to be preserved and authoritatively interpreted.
Precisely.
And that means Patrick cannot win the debate merely by saying:
“It means apostolic teaching.”
The Catholic says:
Yes. Now prove from Scripture that the authoritative apostolic teaching delivered orally was exhaustively absorbed into the Bible and ceased to function through the Church.
That is the question.
12. The NIV Translation Issue Is Not Meaningless
Patrick acknowledges that the NIV has historically rendered positive instances of paradosis with “teachings” while retaining “tradition” in negative contexts.
He then says that nothing doctrinal changes.
But translation choices matter precisely because translation shapes what ordinary readers notice.
Consider the difference:
“Hold fast to the traditions…”
versus:
“Hold fast to the teachings…”
“Teachings” is not necessarily false as an explanation of the content.
But “traditions” preserves the lexical and conceptual connection between Paul’s positive uses of paradosis and the New Testament’s negative uses of the same word.
That matters apologetically because the reader then sees something frequently obscured in Protestant polemics:
The Bible is not anti-tradition.
The Bible is anti-false tradition.
The New Testament recognizes both corrupt human tradition and authoritative apostolic tradition.
A translator can therefore produce an intelligible paraphrase while still obscuring a theological connection present in the original vocabulary.
That is not conspiracy theory.
That is elementary translation criticism.
Indeed, the recent scholarly study of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 mentioned above explicitly recognizes that translation choices can embody theological assumptions.
13. Patrick’s Argument Commits the Very Error His Article Accuses Catholics of Making
The article accuses Catholics of reading later theology into the Greek word paradosis.
But watch what happens in Patrick’s own reasoning.
Paul says:
oral and written apostolic tradition.
Patrick interprets that as:
oral apostolic tradition that will eventually become exclusively written apostolic Scripture.
Where did that second idea come from?
Not from paradosis.
Not from “by word.”
Not from “by epistle.”
Not from the immediate context.
It comes from Patrick’s prior commitment to sola Scriptura.
So the article chastises Catholics for allegedly importing theology into the verse while importing a distinctly Protestant theory of revelation into the exact same verse.
That is the central irony.
14. The Catholic Position Requires No Trick
The Catholic reading is remarkably straightforward.
Christ entrusted revelation to the Apostles.
The Apostles preached it.
Some apostolic teaching was committed to inspired writing.
The same apostolic deposit was also transmitted within the Church.
The Apostles appointed successors and ministers charged with guarding and transmitting it.
The Holy Spirit preserves Christ’s Church in the truth.
Scripture and Sacred Tradition therefore come from the same apostolic deposit and are authentically interpreted by the teaching Church established by Christ.
This is summarized beautifully by Vatican II:
“Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church.”
Dei Verbum, §10
And again:
“Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture… flow from the same divine wellspring.”
Dei Verbum, §9
This is not two competing revelations.
It is one apostolic faith transmitted according to the means Christ and His Apostles actually used.
15. So Let Us Put the Burden of Proof Where It Belongs
Patrick’s article establishes none of the propositions necessary to defeat the Catholic doctrine of Tradition.
It does not prove that Paul’s oral apostolic teaching lacked divine authority.
Paul commands obedience to it.
It does not prove that oral apostolic teaching was temporary.
The text says no such thing.
It does not prove that everything binding in Paul’s preaching was subsequently written.
The text says no such thing.
It does not prove that Scripture became the sole infallible rule after the death of the Apostles.
The text says no such thing.
It does not prove that Catholic Sacred Tradition means ongoing public revelation.
The Catholic Church explicitly denies that.
And it does not prove that the early Christians understood apostolic Tradition as becoming extinct once the New Testament canon existed.
The historical record points in the opposite direction.
What the article does prove—ironically—is that even Patrick must concede the basic Catholic exegetical starting point:
There was such a thing as authoritative apostolic Tradition.
It could be transmitted orally.
It could be transmitted in writing.
Christians were commanded to hold fast to it.
Everything after that concession requires Patrick to establish a historical and theological extinction event:
At some point, the oral mode supposedly ceased to possess authority, the written mode supposedly became exhaustive, and Scripture supposedly became the sole infallible rule of Christian faith.
Patrick, where does Scripture teach that?
Chapter and verse.
Not an inference based upon sola Scriptura.
Not “most evangelicals believe.”
Not “surely Paul eventually wrote it down.”
Not an appeal to unnamed scholars.
Show us the apostolic teaching that says:
The unwritten apostolic Tradition commanded in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 will cease, its contents will be exhaustively incorporated into Scripture, and thereafter Scripture alone shall constitute the Church’s sole infallible rule of faith.
That is what must be demonstrated.
Until then, the argument has merely assumed what it was supposed to prove.
Conclusion
The debate over 2 Thessalonians 2:15 does not turn on whether paradosis possesses some magical Catholic meaning.
It does not.
It means what Patrick himself admits it means:
tradition—something authoritatively handed down.
The devastating fact for sola Scriptura is what Paul says next.
That apostolic Tradition came:
“by word, or by our epistle.”
The Catholic is perfectly comfortable with that sentence exactly as St. Paul wrote it.
The Protestant advocating sola Scriptura must add another sentence:
“But eventually only the epistle will remain an infallible rule.”
And that sentence is precisely the one Scripture never gives him.
So despite the confident headline about “what scholars really say,” Patrick’s article never resolves the controversy.
It simply restates the Protestant conclusion.
The Catholic challenge therefore remains standing:
By what biblical authority do you erase the authoritative oral mode of apostolic transmission that Scripture itself explicitly commands Christians to preserve?
Until that question is answered, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 remains exactly where St. Paul left it:
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.”
Amen.
Sources:
Patrick O’Brien / Answering Catholics, “The ‘Tradition’ Translation Debate: What Scholars Really Say”: Original article
Sacred Scripture — Douay-Rheims
Matthew 15:1–9: Douay-Rheims — Matthew 15
Matthew 28:18–20: Douay-Rheims — Matthew 28
Acts 15:1–29: Douay-Rheims — Acts 15
1 Corinthians 11:2: Douay-Rheims — 1 Corinthians 11
2 Thessalonians 2:15: Douay-Rheims — 2 Thessalonians 2
2 Thessalonians 3:6: Douay-Rheims — 2 Thessalonians 3
1 Timothy 3:15: Douay-Rheims — 1 Timothy 3
2 Timothy 1:13–14: Douay-Rheims — 2 Timothy 1
2 Timothy 2:2: Douay-Rheims — 2 Timothy 2
Full Douay-Rheims with Latin Vulgate: Douay-Rheims Bible Online
Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, §§4, 7–10 — official Vatican text: Dei Verbum — Holy See
Catechism of the Catholic Church, §§65–67 — Christ as the fullness of Revelation and no further public Revelation: CCC §§65–67 — Holy See
CCC §74 — transmission of Divine Revelation: CCC §74 — Holy See
CCC §§75–79 — Apostolic Tradition, oral and written transmission, apostolic succession: CCC §§75–79 — Holy See
CCC §§80–83 — relationship between Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition: CCC §§80–83 — Holy See
CCC §§84–95 — the Deposit of Faith, Magisterium, and growth in understanding: CCC §§84–95 — Holy See
CCC §§96–100 — concise summary of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium: CCC §§96–100 — Holy See
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III.3.1–3 — apostolic Tradition and succession of bishops: Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.3
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III.4.1 — the Church as depository of apostolic truth and the hypothetical case of the Apostles leaving no writings: Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.4
St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 27.66 — written and unwritten ecclesial traditions: Basil, On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 27
BDAG — Bauer/Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. — publisher page: University of Chicago Press — BDAG. A Google Books record is also available: BDAG — Google Books.
Gordon D. Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, NICNT — official publisher page: Fee — Eerdmans
Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistle to the Thessalonians, NIGTC — publisher page: Wanamaker — Eerdmans; Wanamaker — Google Books
Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC — publisher page: Thiselton — Eerdmans; Thiselton — Google Books
Yuangga K. Yahya and Farhah Farhah, “Translating paradoseis: 2 Thessalonians 2:15…”, Verbum et Ecclesia 47.1 (2026): Journal article; Full HTML text