:)
One stark difference between remaining true to tradition and not is shown by the Orthodox and Oriental Churches in lands under Moslem rule. Their dogma never wavered from the true faith because they "interpreted" new things. Rather they checked if the interpretation was what had been handed down from the Apostles through Holy Tradition.
In contrast, we have Harold Camping, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians all using Sola Scriptura to come up with their own interpretations outside tradition and hence they fail...
That is the way Orthodoxy operates. If something is in doubt they go back to the earliest known orthopraxis. Eastern Churches do not depend on the 'deposit' of Faith, but rather believe that the Faith, in its entirety, was delivered once and for all. As for different traditions of how the Church goes about celebrating the Eucharist, which way to make the sign of the Cross, which hymns to include, is entirely immaterial.
In contrast, we have Harold Camping, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians all using Sola Scriptura to come up with their own interpretations outside tradition and hence they fail...
All monotheistic religions outside the Church practice sola scriptura, and that includes Judaism, Islam, Protestant varieties, JW, Mormons, etc.
Most of these depend on "sages" and smack of Gnosticism to arrive at the "truth". Protestants in particular reject the infallibility of the Church in favor of their own individual "infallibility", claimed through an esoteric and unsubstantiated belief the guidance of the "indwelling Spirit."
Either way, if everyone is fallible, who can say what is infallible?
And yet history records the failings of that Catholic church at times; even while it has claimed to be the only TRUE interpretation.
How can this be?