Because my view is also the faith of the fathers for 2000 years; yours isn't.
You're right. And the Jewish faith is at least 3,800 years old, so I guess, using your reasoning, that they are right more than you and me combined. :)
There is nothing in the Reformed belief system that conforms with the consensus of the fathers at any time.
Well that's clearly impossible, or else you would not waste a minute of your time with the likes of me. You are only talking about the things we disagree on, so what kind of a statement is it to say that nothing we disagree on conforms to your beliefs? :) My point is that if Reformed core beliefs matched Catholicism, then there would have been no need to break away.
Plus, the original subject of this line was about reading plain meaning. I have come to learn that Catholics and Protestants cannot even agree what plain meaning is IN GENERAL. Catholics seem to say that plain meaning is that meaning which agrees with Tradition. Protestants seem to say that plain meaning is that meaning which agrees with the words of the text. This is a very big difference.
But, FK, the Tradition is also "text," as in context of the times and culture in which the OT and NT Scriptures were written.
Simply learning generic English of today may not give you the ability to read Shakespeare without explanatory notes and without cultural and social backgrounds of the characters involved in the story. You would have to read it in context of the times in which it was written.
Tradition is simply an ubroken written collection of what the Church believed starting with the very first days after the Pentecost onward, in the social and political realities of the time, documents describing the mindset, the rituals, etc.
When you look at your loved ones, you know a lot about them, because you have a memory of them. Sola scriptura, to us, is like looking at them for the first time, read their resumes, and claiming to know them. Impossible! The Holy Tradition is a documented "memory" of the Church. The Church knows the faith as you know your family.
The only way the current generations may get a good understanding of what happened, say, in Vietnam almost 40 years ago, is to read tons of volumes describing everything about that era, to gain mastery of political realities of the world, mindset, technology, social perceptions in general and in particular, etc.
Your approach is that all one needs to do is read a reliable weekly magazine story about that era, or a lengthy summary in an encyclopedia, and you will get the whole picture! That's what sola scriptura is; incomplete; impossible.
The Judaism of Christ's time is vastly different from post-Temple Judaism of today.
And of course, the OT Scriptures didn't guarantee that the Jewish "Church" was the pillar and foundation of the Truth.
Regards
They certainly are, about the interpretation of events that happened 3,8000 years ago. The issue is not necessarily whose faith is older, but whose faith traces to Jesus better.
You are only talking about the things we disagree on
Of course. When I say Reformed faith I only mean these parts that meke it distinctly Reformed, and I realize that there is, thank God, great overlap of common belief. Moreover, even though unlike the ever-patient Jo Kus, it is not so apparent with me, I share his view that in fact the Protestants are much closer to us than they themselves realize.
Catholics seem to say that plain meaning is that meaning which agrees with Tradition. Protestants seem to say that plain meaning is that meaning which agrees with the words of the text
The sticky point is "plain at what time?" No one wants an extravagant interpretation, but we want the reading that conforms with the intent of the writer, and he lived 2,000 years ago.