Excuse me? This thread is concerning the doctrine of Purgatory. What secret info came to light, given by Christ or the Apostles concerning it?
When? Where? Who?
Another put forth 1 Corinthians 3. We can see the stubble of man's doings being burned --- but do we really SEE fully formed Purgatory in that? One has to stretch the imagination to see Purgatory from that.
I have no interest in what Webster thinks. I'm interested in why you'd cite Cyril as a sola scriptura adherent when he taught doctrines you claim are not biblical. Either he's a bad Bible scholar or you're not familiar with what he actually taught!
Yes, one thing he (and many others) taught was to rely upon Scripture. Warning too that he should not be believed if support for what he was saying could not be found therein.
If we find on the whole he may have been somewhat inconsistent in following his own advice, what would that make him but so typically human?
Otherwise, as you seem to have side-stepped or overlooked, those fighting against Gnosticism (in it's various forms) used Scripture. No where that I know of did they use yet more "gnosticism" --- the claim that somehow they had received from Christ or the Apostles secret knowledge that others didn't. Or if they did, they were not successful nor much supported...
By what other secret methodology, this unrecorded passing of information from Christ and the Apostles, did precepts & doctrines arrive in the Roman church, much of the time surfacing only centuries later?
let's have a chain of custody hearing on those sort of "things"... that "oral tradition" Catholics are taught "was passed down from the Apostles" or the like, concerning first --- Purgatory.
We can approach other controversial subjects later. But I'll need to ping a few here for assistance.
No sir, it is not incumbent upon me to prove oral testimony and teachings was prohibited (for it was not).
But what IS called for in light of this, is the RCC to provide documentary record of precisely WHAT "tradition" was passed down in this manner (to only surface hundreds of years later?) and from who it was passed, to whom.
I realize that the RCC has an extensive PR apparatus, and something of a "marketing" wing selling the idea of the "fuzzy infallibles" as part of it's own public, and internal face to the world...
But you tell ME. Where do they get this "secret" info, that is not written in the Scriptures? They won't answer, they just keep changing the subject when it's brought up.
Time, place, persons. Let's track how doctrines developed. After we do that for awhile, it's my guess those whom wish to rely upon "oral tradition" will see that in many cases it most certainly is not traced BACK to "all of those things Christ said and did, not written", or even as direct teachings attributable to the Apostles. Ah, and even then, at those few occasions (Apostle to successor or another, as related by the successor or another) we can see some personality come into play, some of the usual limitations of speech & rhetoric. Leaving their words enough to be at times instructive, but not enough to make it equal to Scripture --- OR THE CHURCH WOULD HAVE DONE THAT more near the time. But What did they (the church) really do when faced with such questions early on?
They said; Rely upon Scripture Foremost.
It wasn't until much later, some centuries later people started elevating "tradition" to be equal, and that's when errors, both subtle and more aggressive, began creeping in.
Like Yogi Berra once said -- "you can see a lot just by observing".
Jewish belief in purification after death predates Christianity. I'm too tired to remember their term for it off the top of my head, but the concept isn't a Catholic invention. It's part of Catholicism's Jewish heritage.
Although you don't consider 2 Maccabees 12:44-45 inspired scripture, perhaps you acknowledge it as evidence of Jewish beliefs prior to Christ. If not, other Jewish literature prior to Christ speaks of atonement after death, which you can verify for yourself if you like. To this day some Jews pray Kaddish for their dead: Why Does A Mourner Say Kaddish?...and how it can help a parent
The concept of expiation for forgiven sins is also not a Catholic invention. You can see in 2 Sam 12:13-14 that God required punishment even though he'd forgiven David's sin. While I understand your disagreement with the doctrine of purgatory (expiation for sin, purification after death), it's incorrect to describe it as a Catholic invention. Catholics don't believe, as many nonCatholics do, that forgiveness of sin means no punishment whatsoever for sin. We see it like the kid who throws a ball through the neighbor's window. The neighbor forgives him but the kid's parents still make him help pay for repairs.
By what other secret methodology, this unrecorded passing of information from Christ and the Apostles, did precepts & doctrines arrive in the Roman church, much of the time surfacing only centuries later?
Often what nonCatholics describe as "surfacing only centuries later" refers to dogma that was formally defined to combat heresy but the basic belief of which has been held since earliest times.
No sir, it is not incumbent upon me to prove oral testimony and teachings was prohibited (for it was not).
It's ma'am, but that's ok. No offense, but now you sound all over the map. You say oral teaching wasn't prohibited but you consider it unacceptable, am I understanding you?
But what IS called for in light of this, is the RCC to provide documentary record of precisely WHAT "tradition" was passed down in this manner (to only surface hundreds of years later?) and from who it was passed, to whom.
OK, do I have this right? You are asking for documentary record (I don't know what 'documentary record' means if not written evidence) for verbal teaching? And you want 2,000 years worth of names and dates, right? As you are unable to provide me with a verse prohibiting oral transmission of the faith, are you able to show me a verse that requires its transmission in writing? If not, how is your requirement for written proof a Bible-based belief?
I realize that the RCC has an extensive PR apparatus, and something of a "marketing" wing selling the idea of the "fuzzy infallibles" as part of it's own public, and internal face to the world...
Snark destroys your credibility :) Anyone who claims to have the truth but fails to demonstrate the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5) loses his argument. You can do better :) That said, I studied Catholicism for decades before joining the Church. I don't know anything about 'fuzzy infallibles,' but I do know that many things nonCatholics find objectionable tend to become more understandable when seen in the light of our Jewish heritage.
Time, place, persons. Let's track how doctrines developed. After we do that for awhile, it's my guess...
Guess all you want. I already did my research, but if you choose to set out on that journey I will walk beside you. I will not do your homework for you, as I did above with purgatory. But if you wish to explore things further I am agreeable as long as you are respectful to me and others who may join the discussion. I will do my best to do likewise. And I'd ask the same of my fellow Catholics. But be careful. A lot of converts will tell you that to go back in history is become Catholic. You've been forewarned :)
Peace be with you.