Concerning Sola Scriptura

[Aloysius]

teach you [b]all [/b]truth...

ALL truth.

thus, if part of the Church's exegesis is wrong, it is not ALL truth, for some of it isn't truth...

[MorphRC]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Sep 1 2004, 08:11 AM'] No, because I don't believe that Tradition has ever been an infallibe source of doctrine, no matter what anybody says. Certainly, Tradition is useful, but it must submit itself to Holy Scripture. [/quote]
You dont know anything about the formation of Scripture do you.

Scripture in its current form wasnt completed until the 4th century. Christians in asia-minor, had all 27 books, and 46 OT books, but also had the Didache added on, in egypt, some didnt have the didache or 1 John or 2 John [i believe]. Not only that the 73 Book Canon, was used prior to the 2nd century, but many Christians didnt like it, they wanted extra books which became the acopryha [not the protestant one]. And the last book of the New Testament, Book of Apocalypse wasnt even completed until around 96-97AD, so what did they use for 60-70 years?

The first NT book/letter was St. Paul's 1 Thess, written in 51AD, so what did they use prior to that? They had those Q,M,S sources, which we believe to have existed, but we havent found the manuscripts.

Traditional teaching, is the oral teaching of the Gospels, and other teachings that were not put into Scripture, as well as written teaching, IE: The Didache.

What do you think Ha-Torah is? Do you believe that was written around Moses' time? It wasnt, that was held and brought down through Jewish descent, in an extremely strict Oral tradition.

Tradition, and Scripture are one, Tradition precedes Scripture, always has, and always will in history. If you dont apply tradition to you, you [u]MUST[/u], take out the following books of your bible:

- Genesis
- Exodus
- Leviticus
- Numbers
- Deuteronomy
- Joshua
&
- Judges

From the NT remove:

- The Gospels

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 30 2004, 11:05 PM'] Many Anglican bishops had themselves conditionally ordained at the hands of Old Catholic bishops. [/quote]
That is correct, however that only means those certain Bishops have valid Holy Orders, not the priests underneath them who remain ordained falsely (this is why Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism are reordained). And of course, the female priests still aren't valid.