That would be a pretty fair analysis. With one addition, if I may. MANY (not all) Protestants have a disdain for tradition and give it very little, if any, authority. One is free to deviate from past "revelations" of the Spirit. Thus, the Spirit is no longer the Spirit of Truth, but the "Spirit of what's good for today". I realize that not all Protestants are this way... However, one merely needs to look at the difference between moral teachings from Catholicism and Protestantism to see the effects of not respecting the Spirit's movement within the Church of the past.
I would say that doesn't matter since the Church has, in the past, misinterpreted scripture.
What do you mean by "the Church"? Are you speaking of a previously-held dogma of faith or a particular man expressing his opinion - but one that was not accepted by the community at large?
For example the Orthodox Church has formulated policies and have come to different conclusions based upon the scriptures such as the authority of the Pope or the Nicene Creed. Who's right?
We agree on the Nicean Creed. The WORDS are not infallible (in that THEY can NEVER change), but the idea behind the Creed. We both believe in ONE divine principle. "And the Son" COULD be taken to imply a second one, which we CLEARLY do NOT believe - so this is a matter of misunderstanding. The authority of the Pope, I think, the Orthodox agree in principle on his position within the Church. Recall, they were not present at Vatican 1, so they didn't take part in that dogma expressed. But as the Creed, the WORDS are not infallible, but the idea. Catholics and Orthodox will eventually come to a common understanding of his position WITHOUT compromising Vatican 1's intentions.
The issue on indulgences was over ABUSE, not over the Church's ability to bind people by them. We are human, and abuse will take place in all institutions that have men in them. Are we to also get rid of human sexuality, because people abuse sex?
Regards