What happens if you find yourself understanding the Scriptures in important ways differently than most other Christians, not only today but throughout history? This was the situation in which the Protestant Reformers found themselves in the 16th century (and the situation in which Protestants today continue to find themselves). How did the Protestant Reformers respond?
Martin Luther, Disputatio inter Ioannem Eccium et Martinum Lutherum (1519) [as quoted in Unintended Reformation, p 96]
Even if Augustine and all the Fathers were to see in Peter the Rock of the church, I will nevertheless oppose them - even as an isolated individual - supported by the authority of Paul and therefore by divine law.John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 2.5.17 (1559)
But if they would attend in sober earnest to the subject there handled by Paul, they would not so rashly pervert his meaning. I am aware they can quote Origen and Jerome in support of this exposition. To these I might, in my turn, oppose Augustine. But it is of no consequence what they thought, if it is clear what Paul meant.Huldrych Zwingli, Von dem Touff, vom Widertouff und vom Kindertouff (1525) [as quoted in Unintended Reformation, p 90]
I can conclude nothing else but that all the doctors have greatly erred from the time of the apostles... Therefore we want to see what baptism actually is, at many points indeed taking a different path against that which ancient, more recent, and contemporary authors have taken, not according to our own whim but rather according to God's word.Unfortunately, rather than acknowledge their own finitude and show humility to the Church's hard-won tradition of 1500 years, they did what all heretics in history have done: they doubled down on their own ability to interpret Scripture better than all others before them. They equated their own interpretation of Scripture with 'what Scripture clearly says', seemingly unaware that they too were interpreting Scripture, and were willing to throw out the entire tradition of the Church if and when it conflicted with their own interpretations. Of course, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin not only disagreed with much of the historic, Catholic interpretation of Scripture, they also disagreed with each others' interpretations of Scripture. Thus the thousands upon thousands of contradicting Protestant denominations.
Compare their attitude with that of St Vincent of Lérins in his 5th century writing Commonitory (2.4-6), which well represents the Catholic attitude from the 1st century to the present:
I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.
Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.