Okay! Maybe three or four grains even!?!

I don’t know how to take what you said–Jesus made mistakes??

Christ’s two mistakes:

1. Entrusting His Gospel to humans, who within decades (or less) after His ascension would begin to disagree on what He meant and/or how to compose or control or run the church so that within a short period of time various sects and heterodox groups would spring up and, despite the best efforts of church councils and secular “Christian” rulers to control and dictate the faith, would continue to disagree and refuse communion with each other over the centuries. This, even after they possessed and consulted and studied the written records of what Christ and His immediate followers said about these things.

2. Delaying for nearly 2,000 years (and counting) His return whereby He could straighten out this mess and explain what He meant and what He meant the church to do and believe.

Tradition + the assumed unerring power of the Holy Spirit in the Church to guide and guard it + Scripture does not eliminate the problem(s) claimed for Sola Scriptura.

Christ never told anyone to record his acts or teachings. It appears from scripture that he gave the Paraclete as his guarrantee of authenticity and he gave the Paraclete to the Assembly, the Ecclesia. When he left this earth Christ did not leave a book but a group of Apostles and disciples on whom he promised the Paraclete as the seal of truth.

It is very important to recognize the practicality of this especially as books as we know them were unknown in his time and were only available in say a library as at Alexandria. It would make little sense to expect Christians of the first 4 centuries to have to consult various scriptures of questionable authenticity to believe in Christ.

Even after the codification of the canon in 394 there were no real copies of scripture in circulation. Even at the height of the Middle Ages, the monactic tradition supplied copies only to Bishops, cathedrals and select patrons. Books were not in wide circulation until the 1800s. Even after Gutenberg, copies were rare and I cannot see how Sola or Solo Scriptura can withstand this simple practical pronblem. Too few possessed the scriptures to make sola scriptura a practical method. It appears that Luther made it up out of whole cloth as he had to in order to have something to balance against the weight of the Church and Tradition which were diametrically opposed to his teachings.

I am not writing this to argue but I have never seen a reply to this problem of availability of the scriptures virtually up until the 19th century and hos sola scripturists deal with it.

On what base do you say that Catholic church holds sola ecclesia position?
This is what Catholic Catechism says about the relationship between Tradition (God’s spoken words, not tradition) and the Scriptures (God’s written words):
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm#II
Especially this:
“Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant”
seems to contradict so called “sola ecclesia”.

Catholics understand the relationship between teh Scriptures, Tradition and Magisterium as tripod, explained in “Dei Verbum”:
http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/747/Vatican_II_on_Tradition_and_Magisterium.html

I would think that the explanation of “church” would be helpful here also, as Protestants understand church as invisible group of people, loosely bound by mostly Bible beliefs, but Catholics understand church as visible and hierarchical institution built upon the person of Peter (Matt 16, 18-19).

Also, if the church will prevail against the powers of hell (which are supernatural), it means that sinful people leading the church will be protected from supernatural errors (teaching errors in faith or morals)