We have not seen a plain meaning contradicting the Tradition, not on this thread or anywhere. We have seen the relatively modern tradition, either Protestant in origin or simply modern usage, contradicting the apostolic tradition. For example, the plain meaning of "your brothers are outside" as perceived by the modern usage is biological brothers. But the plain meaning of the same phrase 2,000 years ago was kinsfolk. You pointed out a few like that and you pulled them toward your tradition, and I and others pulled toward the historical reading. But you never pointed out a case where a Church father would say something like "OK, Matthew says they were Jesus's biological brothers, but I declare Matthew wrong and establish the Tradition that they were not". In all cases that Church father simply read the same text you are reading and the meaining was plain to him, because he had the cultural proximity to the evangelist and had the unwritten knowledge.
Well of course not. That's because all plain meanings of scripture are first filtered through the Church for interpretation as to what the plain meaning is. After that, it is natural that all these plain meanings will agree completely with Tradition.
For example, the plain meaning of "your brothers are outside" as perceived by the modern usage is biological brothers. But the plain meaning of the same phrase 2,000 years ago was kinsfolk.
That's a good example. You DECLARE that the plain meaning was kinsfolk, but there is no way you can prove that definitively. The Church says that is what it means, so you declare it as fact. I remember when we were talking about this a long time ago. I asked someone (or several) that if your interpretation was correct, then how did people refer to their actual blood siblings. I really can't remember a clear answer. I still find it not credible that a named "mother" means blood mother, but in the same sentence a named "brother" means friend.
But you never pointed out a case where a Church father would say something like "OK, Matthew says they were Jesus's biological brothers, but I declare Matthew wrong and establish the Tradition that they were not".
I really have no idea how or why the Church Fathers wrote what they wrote. All I know is that they were fallible, they made mistakes, they were subject to all of the influences of power and politics just like anyone else, and I have no Biblical reason to trust them over and above the Bible.
In all cases that Church father simply read the same text you are reading and the meaning was plain to him, because he had the cultural proximity to the evangelist and had the unwritten knowledge.
In that case God failed to author a book that would stand the test of time, and Christianity is not a revealed faith. It also means that God is the most cryptic author in the history of literature. (But thank goodness we have a bunch of men to bail us out from God's shortcomings.)