Katholish

We in no way say that Christ's sacrifice was insufficient. What we are speaking of here is the application of those merits won by Christ. We are in perfect agreement about the sufficiency.

Christ on Calvary merited an infinite amount of Grace for mankind, and perfectly sufficient to remove all eternal and temporal punishment due for sins in this life. At Baptism, that grace is applied to the soul, and we put on the "new man" and are washed clean of our offenses. If we commit mortal after that, we can be forgiven again, and our punishment removed again, etc. what is required in each case is that we take advantage of the graces offered and do what is necessary to apply them. Faith is necessary of course, but as I mentioned before, I am referring to being Baptised here, going to confession, and receiving indulgences if possible. (Indulgences remove temporal punishment due for sins already forgiven, by the application of the merits of Christ.) The Scripture that I quote before was merely to show that forgiveness and punishment are sometimes seperable. The examples show forgiveness, but then the need to sometimes punish sins even though they have already been forgiven. A fear of sinning is a healthy response, though it is to be kept in mind that once does not fall into a state of sin accidently, but rather sin is a conscious disobedience to the Law of God. The Fear of God is a good thing and one of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Fear is not in place of love, but just as we approach a fire because it can keep us warm, yet we approach with caution knowing that the power of fire is not to be taken lightly for we can be burned. Just so we approach God out of love, but must keep in mind His awesome power, and that we may only approach Him in as worthy a manner as we are capable of. 1 Corinthians 11: 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. Baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul, so repetition of the sacrament is prohibited in the Catholic Church. That is why we do not repeat it when a child reaches the age of reason.

We do believe that the Faith of the parents can stand in for the child, whom they pledge to raise in the knowledge and belief in Christ that they may live up to their responsibilities as a Christian.

Old Timer,

Scylth, It is not my intent to debate this matter with you. I am merely explaining that and why we accept Mary's perpetual Virginity, a teaching held since the beginning of the Church in the 1st Century. I am not implying that the Scriptures in this instance mean something different than what they say, but that you are interpreting what they say to mean something other than what they mean. The word used in the Scripture, "adelphos" that you are taking to mean a male member of the immediate family does not mean that necessarily, but also has the meaning of a male member of the family, immediate or extended, as in a cousin. Do you hold that there were three Apostles named James?

I understand. I am merely trying to show what and why Catholics take our Lord's words to indicate the necessaity of Baptism and its sacramental character. The Catholic Church is founded on that belief, and I certainly do recognize it. It is Christ that brings a soul to Heaven. What is necessary for this is a somewhat different matter, but it is important to keep in mind the ultimate cause. It is only because of God's love (a love so great that He sent His only-begotten Son) that we can attain the Beatific Vision.

Not necessarily. As I said in my other response to your question "Baptism gives the soul Sanctifying Grace, and if this Grace is retained (Grace is a participation in the Divine Life) until death, the person would be saved, having persevered to the end." It is Baptism that applies the Salvific effects of the cross to the soul, but the communion with God that is established there can be lost. Baptism is necessary for Salvation, but not all Baptized people are saved. No, but rather Baptism is the way in which those graces are applied to the soul. Then they should be baptized. Faith is necessary for Salvation, but so is baptism. John 3: 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Mark 16: 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall he condemned. Matthew 28: 18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

Irene, I shall try to scrupulously answer everything that I can. Also, "Kath" is ok, but "Kat" sounds too feminine. I am a young man afterall (though I understand that most assume otherwise from the screen name). The screen name "Katholish" is a slight corruption from the German word "Katholisch" which mean Catholic.

Through the sacrament of Baptism we become children of God and heirs of Heaven.

Ronald, While the Second Coming of Christ is truly an important tenet of the Catholic Faith, we hold that He will come as Judge the second time and that thus the Final Judgment will occur at the Second Coming (Parousia). Matthew 16: 27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works. 1 Thessalonians 4: 15 For the Lord himself shall come down from heaven with commandment and with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God: and the dead who are in Christ shall rise first.

Irene, Ok then, but I shall strive only to do so in the spirit of charity in which you started this topic, as I always try to do anyway. Sola Scriptura (only Scripture) teaches essentially that only Scripture is an authoritative source of Divine Revelation that we may learn from. It was specifically crafted to exclude the Church's teaching on Sacred Tradition which had been norminative up to that time. Catholics believe that Tradition is prior to Scripture both chronologically and epistemologically (in the order of time and in the order of knowing). Tradition's epistemological priority is the area in which I think Sola Scriptura completely falls apart. We take it as a matter of Faith and Doctrine that the Epistle of Jude is part of the Canon of Scripture. However, our source for this doctrine is itself not Scripture, but rather Tradition. That is (simply stated) why I cannot understand the popularity of the position. I am actually used to it (the multiple questions thing). As far as other Catholics are concerned, it has been my experience that threads with multiple parties on both sides have a more difficult time staying civil and orderly than they do if one side is more or less controled by an individual.

Scylth, The wording of the first sentence there is somewhat imprecise, and could be taken to mean something that we do not. We call Mary a mediatrix of graces, but not mean mediator between God and man in the sense that Christ holds that role, being both God and man. The "sole mediator" argument is nothing new for me, though generally Protestants use it to go after the Church's teaching on the intercession of the saints, not just Mary. Regarding the Sole Mediatorship of Christ. The term Mediator can imply two different roles, that of reconciler and that of intercessor. The role of Christ far exceeds that of an intercessor, rather He is our Reconciler. That is really the sense in which it is meant in the Gospel. Only God could have taken the weight of our sins upon His shoulders and restore by obedience what was lost by sin. Christ is our redeemer, and as such has reconclied the human race to God by assuming that Nature and uniting it with the Divine. As St. Anselm said, Only God could redeem man, but only man could make expiation in the order of Justice. Thus we see how great Christ's role as redeemer truly was. It was His sacrifice that made it possible to be children of God and heirs of Heaven. This passage does not refer to Christ as our sole intercessor, for then we could not ask others to pray for us nor could we pray for others as we are commanded in the Scriptures, indeed in the very Book and Chapter that names Christ as our sole mediator. 1 Timothy 2: 1 I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men: 2 For kings and for all that are in high station: that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, 4 Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God: and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: 6 Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times. It is more than abundantly clear that intercession is not only not contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, but intercessory prayer is commanded by them. Again, there is no contradiction between the Church's teaching and the Scriptures in this instance.

Actually the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is a doctrine held by the Church, it is not a part of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. At the same time, I can prove that there is no evidence in Scripture nor in any other source that proves Mary had other children, but furthermore, can provide evidence that suggests that she did not. Not to be insulting, but I never understood why people claim that Mary had other children based on the referrence in Matthew Matthew 13 (Douay Translation): 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude: 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things? Matthew 13 (King James Version): 55: Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56: And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? "Brethren" (in the Greek, adelphos) does not necessarily refer to immediate family, but can refer to extended family, such as cousins, etc. Furthermore, the Scriptures themselves provide explicit proof that it is being used in this manner. This James referred here is also the one referred as James, "the brother of the Lord." As by St. Paul in Galatians. Galatians 1: 18 Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem to see Peter: and I tarried with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord. 20 Now the things which I write to you, behold, before God, I lie not. We also learn from this passage, that this James, "the brother of the Lord", is one of the 12 Apostles. Earlier, we learned in the Gospel of Matthew the names of all of the Aposltes, and we see that there are two James's. Matthew 10: 1 And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities. 2 And the names of the twelve Apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, 3 James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, 4 Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. One James is the brother of John, and have the same mother, who is not the mother of Jesus, so that is clearly not the James referred to (he had already been killed by this time anyway.) Thus, this James, "the brother of the Lord" must be the other James, listed as the son of Alpheus. From that alone, we have incontrovertable proof, but I can supply more beyond that. We also know who another one of the men mentioned as the brethern of the Lord is, and it is another Apostle. In Jude's Epistle, he names himseld as the brother of James. Jude 1: 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James: to them that are beloved in God the Father and preserved in Jesus Christ and called. That is quite a coincidence if this Apostle is not also the Jude referred to as one of the Lord's "brethern". Beyond this Scriptural evidence, we have the testimony of one of the Apostolic Fathers of the 1st Century. Papias was taught by the Apostle John, and since John was the guardian of Mary after her Son's death, it is not impossible that Papias met Mary, the Mother of the Lord himself. Regardless though, if he had made up something false about Christ's familial relations, there were enough people that know Him personally that could contradict it. In this fragment, Papias explains who the Marys are that are referred to in the Gospels. Note: "Thaddeus" is also a name given for the Aposlte Jude in the Scriptures. Papias, Fragment X: Hopefully this was sufficient to show that there is no contradiction between the Scriptures and the Church's belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. I am going to address the other points of your post in another post.

I think you misunderstood what I said. I was specifically not including Christ in Romans 3:23, but rather pointing out that the use of "all" is a generalization and is not meant to exclude all possibility of exceptions, of which Christ, while being God was also truly human. Again, I am pointing out that the passage should not be taken in an absolutist interpretation, because it was meant as a generalization. I am not saying that all babies have commited actual sin, quite the opposite. I am not trying to use Romans 3:23 to prove anything, only to show that it, by its nature, does not disprove anything in regard to Mary, or Christ for that matter.

Ok, I will try to address why Purgatory does not conflict with the Sacrifice of Christ or what we are told in Sacred Scripture. The issue revolves around a distinction in the kind of punishment due for sins which most Protestants do not make or refuse to acknowledge. The difference is between eternal punishment due for sins and temporal punishment due for sins. If we have a serious sin forgiven through Christ, the eternal punishment is completely removed. We no longer merit Hell, Christ having forgiven the sin. However, there are instances when a person can be forgiven, yet for their own good must be punished in some manner. Allow me to provide examples from the Scriptures. King David had repented of killing Urias, and the Lord forgave David, however, in justice, David's firstborn was taken from him in the way of temporal punishment due for David's sin. 2 Kings 12 (2 Samuel 12): 13 And David said to Nathan: I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said to David: The Lord also hath taken away thy sin: thou shalt not die. 14 Nevertheless, because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing, the child that is born to thee, shall surely die. 15 And Nathan returned to his house. The Lord also struck the child which the wife of Urias had borne to David, and his life was despaired of. 16 And David besought the Lord for the child: and David kept a fast, and going in by himself lay upon the ground. 17 And the ancients of his house came, to make him rise from the ground: but he would not, neither did he eat meat with them. 18 And it came to pass on the seventh day that the child died: and the servants of David feared to tell him, that the child was dead. For they said: Behold when the child was yet alive, we spoke to him, and he would not hearken to our voice: how much more will he afflict himself if we tell him that the child is dead? 19 But when David saw his servants whispering, he understood that the child was dead: and he said to his servants: Is the child dead? They answered him He is dead. 20 Then David arose from the ground, and washed and anointed himself: and when he had changed his apparel, he went into the house of the Lord: and worshipped, and then he came into his own house, and he called for bread, and ate. 21 And his servants said to him: What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive, but when the child was dead, thou didst rise up, and eat bread. 22 And he said: While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept for him: for I said: Who knoweth whether the Lord may not give him to me, and the child may live? 23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Shall I be able to bring him back any more? I shall go to him rather: but he shall not return to me. When Moses disobeyed the Lord by striking the Rock twice as opposed to speaking to it, the Lord forgave him (for is there any doubt that Moses is saved?) yet he still had to under go temporal punishment by being prohibited from entering the Promised Land. Numbers 20: 9 Moses therefore took the rod, which was before the Lord, as he had commanded him, 10 And having gathered together the multitude before the rock, he said to them: Hear, ye rebellious and incredulous: Can we bring you forth water out of this rock? 11 And when Moses bad lifted up his hand, and struck the rock twice with the rod, there came forth water in great abundance, so that the people and their cattle drank, 12 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron: Because you have not believed me, to sanctify me before the children of Israel, you shall not bring these people into the land, which I will give them. 13 This is the Water of contradiction, where the children of Israel strove with words against the Lord, and he was sanctified in them. St. Paul (or "the author of Hebrews") even makes this point clear in the New Testament. Temporal punishment is the discipline of the Lord who chastises us for our own good. If there was not temporal punishment, we might think that we are not loved, for a father disciplines his children out of love. Hebrews 12: 5 And you have forgotten the consolation which speaketh to you, as unto children, saying: My son, neglect not the discipline of the Lord: neither be thou wearied whilst thou art rebuked by him. 6 For whom the Lord loveth he chastiseth: and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7 Persevere under discipline. God dealeth with you as with his sons. For what son is there whom the father doth not correct? 8 But if you be without chastisement, whereof all are made partakers, then are you bastards and not sons. 9 Moreover, we have had fathers of our flesh for instructors, and we reverenced them. Shall we not much more obey the Father of spirits and live? 10 And they indeed for a few days, according to their own pleasure, instructed us: but he, for our profit, that we might receive his sanctification. 11 Now all chastisement for the present indeed seemeth not to bring with it joy, but sorrow: but afterwards it will yield to them that are exercised by it the most peaceable fruit of justice. 12 Wherefore, lift up the hands which hang down and the feeble knees: 13 And make straight steps with your feet: that no one, halting, may go out of the way; but rather be healed. However, I do believe that Christ founded one visible Church which is His unblemished spouse, so I would insist that one Church is fully scriptural. Now, you may not think that Church to be the Catholic Church, but I do think that there must be one, that share the bonds of Doctrine, Liturgy, and Governance. This is certainly the opinion of the very Early Church, even as early as the 1st Century. I believe the Early Church to be the same as the Catholic Church, and hence I am Catholic. I am just saying that I will not accept the premise that no church is entirely operating in accord with Sacred Scripture. God bless, Katholish

The Assumption of Mary is the teaching of the Catholic Church that Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven at the end of her earthly life. Now, whether or not Mary physically died is a slightly different matter which is as of yet undefined by the Church. It is open to speculation. Some hold that she was taken up like Elijah, others that she died first and then her body was taken up with her soul (which might have been the case with Moses as it is referred to in the Epistle of Jude that St. Michael the Archangel fought with Satan over the body of Moses, but it is not exactly known what happened there). The Eastern Catholic rites and the Orthodox churches generally hold a belief in Mary's "Dormition" but even in that, it is unclear if it actually implies death, or deep sleep. However, all Catholics hold that she was assumed body and soul into Heaven, that is the doctrine of the Assumption. It is one example of Sacred Tradition that does not have direct scriptural referrance (because no Scripture deals with the end of Mary's life on earth). To clarify further what Sacred Tradition is, it is not necessarily something not covered by the Scriptures, there is largely a cross over, but Tradition sometimes includes a deeper understanding that is not presented in the Sacred Scriptures. While there are Scriptural referrences for all of the Catholic Church's seven sacraments, it is through Tradition that we have a deeper understanding of most of them. Now, a question that I have not addressed yet is how we know what Sacred Tradition is, and the answer is that primarily evidence left from the Early Church in the uninspired writtings of the Church Fathers give us a clear idea of the beliefs and practices of the Early Church, and since we hold that the doctrine of the Church is unchangable, we hold what the Early Church holds. So we can often gather solid evidence as to Apostolic Traditions from those whom the Aposltes themselves taught, like St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of John (the Apostle), and St. Polycarp also a disciple of John, etc. Even those whom the Apostolic Fathers taught can give a clear idea of the Apostles' teachings, like St. Irenaeus of Lyons who was taught by St. Polycarp.

Yes, I understand Luther's doctrine of Sola Scriptura. However, out of respect for your wishes, I will not argue against it at this time. I don't believe there to be any contradiction between these two doctrines and what is mentioned in Sacred Scripture. However, while it is true that there is no mention in Sacred Scripture of the Assumption, I am not willing to say that there is no mention in Scripture of the Immaculate Conception, for I believe that it is implicitly mentioned in the first chapter of Luke, though I do not claim that the Church entirely bases her doctrine on this passage. Let me first define what the Catholic Church means by the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. We mean that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin. To answer you question, yes, though it would seem to be mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures implicitly as opposed to explicitly. Luke 1: 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. This verse was not interpreted by all early Christians to mean that Mary was conceived without sin, but it certainly was by some. Even if is not stated explicitly, this verse is viewed as Scriptural support for that understanding. The Greek word used in Luke 1:28 is kecharistomene, and although I am not an ancient Greek scholar myself, it is my understanding that this word means more literally "You who have been made agreeable to God". This rendering seems to more clearly express why the Catholic Church sees this as support for the Immaculate Conception and is in agreement with the idea that Mary was made special before the Announciation. We usually translate it as "Full of Grace", which also implies that she is not sinful, and makes a person wonder that if she is full of grace, how can this be consistant with her having Original Sin? It also helps to understand the Doctrine of Recapitulation as expressed by St. Paul. Ephesians 1: 7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins, according to the riches of his, grace, 8 Which hath superabounded in us, in all wisdom and prudence, 9 That he might make known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in him, 10 In the dispensation of the fulness of times, to re-establish all things in Christ, that are in heaven and on earth, in him. St. Paul speaks of Christ remaking all things in Himself, the human race is given a new beginning in Grace, which is also why St. Paul refers to Christ as the "last Adam". 1 Corinthians 15: 20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, the firstfruits of them that sleep: 21 For by a man came death: and by a man the resurrection of the dead. 22 And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. ... 44 It is sown a natural body: it shall rise a spiritual body. If there be a natural body, there is also a spiritual body, as it is written: 45 The first man Adam was made into a living soul; the last Adam into a quickening spirit. 46 Yet that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural: afterwards that which is spiritual. 47 The first man was of the earth, earthly: the second man, from heaven, heavenly. One of the Early Church Fathers shows how this Doctrine applies to Mary. St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus Haereses, Book V, Chapter 19: As for Romans 3:23, I would be cautious of interpreting this passage in such a way that leaves room for no exceptions. We know that Christ did not sin, yet was human. Also there is a distinction between the state of sin, and active sinning. To commit a sin takes an act of the Will, whereas all men are born into a state of sin called Original Sin. We shouldn't interpret Romans to mean that every person has committed actual sin. Take for instance a little child who dies at the age of 3 months. Have they commited a sin? No, they have not, but they were still nevertheless born in a state of sin, but I hope you can see the difference. More to the point, there are several other places in the Scriptures when "all" is not taken in the absolute sense, but is rather a generalization, as it is here. For instance, Matthew 4: 24 And his fame went throughout all Syria, and they presented to him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and such as were possessed by devils, and lunatics, and those that had the palsy, and he cured them: Does that literally mean absolutely every sick person came to Him? Is it possible that there was one lunatic that wasn't taken to Him? Certainly, all is used as a generalization there, as in many other places, but I just give this one as an example. Did Mary need a Savior? The answer is yes, if you will note, the official declaration of the Church on the Immaculate Conception, Ineffabilis Deus, specifically states that this. Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffablis Deus, 1854AD (emphasis added): Whole document: http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm

The simple answer is that Catholics believe that they can enter Heaven by becoming children of God and heirs to Heaven when they receive the sacrament of Baptism, having Faith in Christ. Baptism gives the soul Sanctifying Grace, and if this Grace is retained (Grace is a participation in the Divine Life) until death, the person would be saved, having persevered to the end. Of course I can go into much further detail, if you wanted me to go into any specific area.

Very good question. In 1950, Pope Pius XII declared the Assumption to be an official doctrine of the Church, but what was the status of this doctrine before that declaration? I will draw a comparision with the Canon of Scripture, because I will assume that examples pertaining to Scripture might be more familiar. That Canon )list of books) of Scripture wasn't generally accepted until the end of the 4th Century, and there was much debate before that. Good Christians disagreed, but the declaration of the Canon, doesn't make certain books Scripture, merely declares that they are so, even though that wasn't known by everyone before the declaration. Likewise, when a pope declares something to be part of Sacred Tradition, it doesn't make it Tradition, be declares that it has been so all along though it might not have been understood as authoritative teaching before the declaration. Thus, the Assumption didn't become Tradition then, it was just declared to already be so.

Although I am fairly certain that was the type of post that Irene was trying to avoid, I thought it fitting to address the underlying point. Does Catholic Doctrine change? The answer is no. Public Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, and the Magisterium can only declare doctrine that is found in the Deposit of Faith (Tradition which ended with the death of John and Scripture which essentially ended at the same time.) The Church can further clarify something that had not been understood in such detail in the Apostolic age, but the doctrine must have its foundation in those sources. For instance, the fact that the Son is "consubstantial" with the Father is a doctrine of the Church which was not understood to that degree of technical understanding, yet the teaching is perfectly founded in the Scriptures. Thus our understand of doctrine may deepen, but it cannot essentially change.

Calvin, Your post reminded me that perhaps I should further define exactly what is meant by Divine/Sacred Tradition. There are two different kinds of traditions, those that have a lower case "t" and those that Catholics capitalize. When we say Tradition (with a capital "T") we mean something very specific with a technical definition, just as when the both of us say "Scripture" we mean something technical, and not all writings whatsoever. Sacred Traditions are the unwriten oral yet inspired teachings of Christ and the Apostles just as the New Testament is the writen teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Sacred Tradition does not refer to such "traditions" as fasting for 40 days in Lent, priestly celibacy, or not eating meat on Fridays. Those are traditions with a lower case "T". An Example of Sacred Tradition is the Canon of Scripture, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption, though that is not to say that those doctrines only have Sacred Tradition as their source.

Irene, As far as I know, in no time in the entire history of the Church has it been standard practice to prohibit the reading of Sacred Scripture outside of instruction. I cannot speak to your specific situation, but it is certainly not impossible that a priest would give such a prohibition, though I doubt that there would be many cases when it would be done canonically (legally according to the Church's law). The Church has always encouraged frequent reading of the Sacred Scriptures, and in the past for those that could not read, even vast memorization. It is true that the availability of the Scriptures had been gravely limited to all before the advent of the printing press, though it is also true that many in the Middle Ages could not read at all, so it was not as great an issue, for the daily recitations of parts of the Bible at daily Mass served to give a far knowledge of the Sacred texts. The first book ever printed was of course the Catholic Bible though, and today, no Catholic in good conscience could be without one, and there are no prohibitions on reading it I can assure you. I myself own at least nine copies.

Irene, I assume that we mean the highest authority. It is implied in your question, but I wanted to clarify for any readers. Let me start off by saying that I do not hold (nor does the Catholic Church) that either Sacred Tradition or the Magisterium (The Church's teaching authority which declares doctrine) are above the Sacred Scriptures in authority. The written word of God in the form of Sacred Scripture is obviously Divinely inspired and inerrant, not only in matters of Faith and Morals, but entirely. (However, the human authors retain true authorship as well, hence we do not mean stylistic perfection necessarily.) I would normally summarize Church documents, but in this case, there is an authoritative declaration by the Catholic Church as to what she holds in this area. This document is called Dei Verbum (the Word of God) and was one of the two dogmatic constitutions produced by the Second Vatican Council. Here is chapter 10 which explains clearly what I would have said anyway. Thus I hold with the Church that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, both being the Word of God, have equal authority, and that the Church, through the Magisterium authentically interprets them. What is necessarily implied in this belief is that Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are incapable of contradicting the Sacred Scriptures.

I would be more than happy to talk with you. I will PM you with some information.

I just thought that I would bring in a Catholic perspective to this question. There is a Particular Judgment and a General Judgment. From Scriptural evidence, we know that there is a Judgment at the End of the World after the Second Coming of Christ, and the resurrection of the dead. Right? That is the General Judgment. However, we also know from Scriptural evidence that a person's fate is decided before the General Judgment. As soon as a person dies, they are judged immediately (the Particular Judgment is also called the Immediate Judgment). For instance, Christ's parable of Lazarus and the Rich man, clearly they had been judged, Lazarus going to the Bosom of Abramham, being saved, the Rich man being reprobate, yet they must have been judged before the General Judgment at the end of the world for the rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers on earth that they may not share his doomed fate. There is also the Good Theif whom Christ promised would be in Paradise that very day. St. Augustine, De Amina et Ejus Origine, Book 2, Chapter 8: Anticipating the next logical question of "Why is there a need for the General Judgment if the soul's fate is already decided?", I can answer that the General Judgment extends the Particular Judgment to the risen bodies of men, as well has make public every sin, even the secret sins of the saints. Catechism of the Council of Trent, Article VII: