>> Still you have to admit that is a significant difference that we interpret the scripture in the same way the Early Church did.
Scripture is scripture. The men that interpreted it in 500 AD did not speak for God any more than your current Pope, or my current Pastor. They were not divine — they were men. I believe they were just as likely to be wrong as you and I.
To my mind, “tradition” is a fundamentally flawed argument if the particular practice isn’t Biblically justified.
>> In fact, doesn’t it bother you that the Catholic interpretation of the Scripture is in harmony with the interpretation of the same people who decided what is and what is not Christian scripture?
I acknowledge the Catholic role in the construction of the Bible — though I would note that Protestantism had yet to split, so our religious tradition also stems directly from those that constructed the Bible. I have read some of the Apocrypha as well, just to be sure.
That particular individuals determined which books went into the Bible, and given that their inspiration for choosing particular books was divine, does not necessarily mean that they had any special divine insight into the interpretation of various passages. These were not Biblical authors, and we have the same text they had — so I see no reason that our studied interpretation is less valid than theirs.
SnakeDoc
I am not making an argument from tradition in itself: what I am saying is that the fathers of the Church (Sts Irenaeus, Ignatius were 2c, not AD 500) are likely to reflect the intention of the inspired writer who lived in the same culture and used the same language just a few generations before them. They all believed in hierarchical sacramental church lead by bishops. The Liturgy centered around the Eucharist. Faith was inseparable from works. Episcopal authority was that of Christ. The Early Church was Catholic and Orthodox; the Protestant ideas are not in evidence, even though we have a good idea what heresies were around.