If interpretation is the issue, then you have agreed that we are a differing hermeneutic than what you use.
We are making progress.
We rely on scripture foremost, and then, history, reason, and experience.
You rely on scripture and tradition. My sense is that the tradition relied upon is carefully selected. I would claim that the dogma preceded the study rather than vice versa.
Such an eisegetical method is backward to those who advocate sola scriptura.
Tradition is also a part of history. Do you have an example of such dogma-first selectivity?
A claim that shows you know very little about the development of doctrine. Chose ANY subject promulgated at Nicea or beyond as dogma. In EVERY case, we find Christians writing about their various opinions on topics that were not quite clear, as the Body of Christ wrestled over the meanings of the teachings of the Apostles, whether given orally or in written form. People were writing about Mary's Immaculate Conception 1000 years before it became dogma...
Regards
Jesus established a living authority, guided by the Holy Spirit, preserved from Teaching error.
I can't even imagine the God-Man, Jesus, establishing His Church upon Peter, sending the Holy Spirit upon it to Teach it all Truth, telling others Who ever hears His Church, hears Him, and then letting that Church teach errors and lies.
There is certainly no hint of that in Holy Writ and were that to have happened, all of Jesus' promises would have beeen unreliable.
He promised He would be with His Church until the end of time.
Were we teaching error, Jesus would be with us wile allowing that to happen.
Does that make any sense? No. It makes a mockery (worse, actually) of the promises of Christ