That’s true the point of the question is to analyze this angle…
Protestants will often argue that it is better to trust in the authority of Scripture alone as opposed to the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition. However, I found that Protestants trusted the authority of historians, biblical scholars, and theologians to provide them with the most reliable texts, the most accurate translations, and the most historically and culturally faithful interpretations of those texts. And yet they have never met any of these individuals, had only indirect access to how they had gone about their research, and was largely ignorant of the biases they may or may not have brought with them in their work.Protestants are trusting in a “magisterium” of Protestant historians, scholars, and theologians as the Catholic who trusts in the Church.
So that is bringing tradition into the picture…
I have begun to notice that, and it’s brought me to a tentative conclusion about Protestant authority. In matters of differing interpretations and deciding who should be listened to- almost like arriving at a “final say”- it seems that Protestant authority boils down to the authority that comes from having the most expertise. While there is the idea that every Christian should read the Bible and seek God’s guidance understanding it, you also see a near-universal tendency to reach out to historians, grammarians, and so forth when something is unclear. And among people with multiple advanced degrees- among the scholars themselves- you see an even clearer picture of a competitive (although generally friendly) environment in which those types of people seek to demonstrate superior expertise, hoping to use that to reach common ground with other Protestants while enriching the whole group with the fruits of their labors.
In a way, I suppose these types of people are trying to do some of the same things as the Magisterium. But absent a highly centralized authority, and armed only with an expertise that almost requires quotes to call you an “authority” on something, it looks quite a bit more similar to the process of seeking truth in academia. Whether it’s historians or scientists or linguists. There’s a process where smart, highly educated people are the ones who, with few exceptions, set themselves apart as “deciders” on the basis of their expertise while forming a starting point for other experts going forward. In that sense, I would say the work of Protestant scholars, experts, and theologians does lead to a kind of teaching tradition, but it’s more similar to an academic paradigm than it is to the Catholic idea of Sacred Tradition. And the people doing the work are more like your usual academics than they are like cardinals.
Also, I will note that I have met quite a few of these individuals, I have or have had some direct access to how they go about their research, and in getting to know them personally (biases and all), I’ve had to watch my own biases pretty closely as I compare the work of a personal friend to that of some guy I don’t know. To that point, I know I’m not like most Protestants- but in general, I do believe there’s more accessibility and public availability to the general public with these Protestant experts than there is with the Catholic Magisterium. First, in raw numbers, the Magisterium is comparatively tiny. Second, they don’t operate as a whole group in America. Third, they’re comparatively withdrawn from normal, public life. I’ve had opportunities to meet and know some Protestant expertise by way of their kids; how many children of Catholic cardinals have you met in your life? Beyond that, however, I have a different quibble with how you say Protestants trust these experts the same way Catholics trust the Magisterium. As far as biases and so forth, there are some very similar flies that can and do go in the ointment. But as far as the normative means of gaining trust and bringing people into line, I do think there’s some huge differences. Ideally, the Protestant “”“Magisterium”"" operates as a strict meritocracy where expertise must be demonstrated, recognized as such, then gradually be accepted by other experts who write books people read them give lectures people listen and then people are convinced by the evidence and by the argument. Which, presumably, could have been given by anyone, but it takes an expert to come up with the information and put it together.
I won’t attempt to summarize how the Magisterium operates, but I do believe there’s some key differences that set it quite apart from the everyday of the average academic.
