"The neighbor forgives him but the kid's parents still make him help pay for repairs."
Those sort of things confuse the issue. Of course sins have real world consequences. But that's not Purgatory.
Bringing out the Apocrypha doesn't help much, either. For the Jewish religious authorities in Jerusalem rejected those works as being among the teachings of God, not unlike how the Early Church rejected quite a bit of spurious material (although later adopting at least one doctrinal aspect, based much upon one rejected "prequel" to the Gospel sort of work, though I lose the thread of the exact precepts and doctrine concerned, at this moment...)
When the Septuagint was first translated into Greek, so the Jews in Egypt could read the books of the law & Prophets (they had been there so long few spoke or could read Hebrew any longer), there is some question as to what it at first contained. There is some slight evidence it did not contain all of those books now long referred to as Apocrypha, but had added the full complement over time. There is further slight evidence some Jews in the know complained (a century or so before Christ) that there was not enough distinction being given between the books of the Law, those of the Prophets --- and the later Maccabean works, as those latter had been judged distinctly lessor, not truly belonging to inspired Word by the foremost Jewish religious authorities.
Which leaves us, being that Catholics point towards 2 Maccabees as source material, building upon an unsure foundation, one previously discarded by the Jews of Jerusalem, of that time.
Where to fit in the information in your helpfully (but then grudgingly?) provided link, I am not sure, although looking towards Jewish traditions can at times be quite informative. I'll confess to preferring those whom come from those dreaded and despised "Messianic" Jews however, though it's perhaps best to not make too much noise about it, being as some contemporary Jews are known to not stop at casting dispersions (if not engaging in emotional histrionics) but to quite literally cast stones. It happens in Israel.
That's a bit of a stretch of a partially true, partially good thing, but ends up in regards to some doctrines as being hearsay without proof. Assumption. A "just trust us" sort of thing.
No, you are not understanding me at all. My own rejection of blanket claims that what began to be taught after some centuries, differing from what we see taught in the Word, and what we can learn of concerning the primitive church in it's first decades, was somehow passed down through oral tradition. I thought I had spelled out, how much is today assumed if not claimed to originate from Christ or the Apostles, but there is no clear chain of custody [so to speak] for most of the now persistently controversial doctrines. That is hardly "all over the map". It is more like I am pointing towards how in many RCC environments, such information is handled casually, "Oh, it was handed down from the very beginning by "oral tradition" ".
In fact, some of those precepts we can clearly see only arising multiple centuries later, with disputes from the Eastern churches, opposing certain Roman church doctrinal propositions. Is that clear enough? I am aware I'm not the greatest writer.
Ma'am, with all due respect, I've already done much of my "homework" concerning this. I'm left not buying into Sola Eclessia. Although the Roman Church can be seen to get a great deal quite right, it's possible although difficult to track the invention, the "unpacking" I spoke of previously, of doctrines (and much more subtly, attitudes).
Thank you for the effort to reply, and the general decency displayed.
Please understand. I have been here for years. There is little or no ground which has not been debated and fought over concerning the controversial elements of doctrinal difference, which has not been seen before on these pages. Many hundreds if not thousands of threads, at times having comments numbering in the thousands.
I'm no "master of the issues", although well enough informed, having learned a great deal over the years. I've done much of my "homework", right here, following along, chasing down this & that. Very rarely it seems is there much honest discussion. I do thank you for your efforts towards that.
Those sort of things confuse the issue.
I gave you examples from our Jewish history to show you that the beliefs that undergird the RCC concept of purgatory aren't inventions of the RCC. Something isn't necessarily fabricated just because it doesn't make sense or one chooses to reject the foundations on which the doctrine is based. I'm not concerned about changing your viewpoint. I'm concerned about your assertion that Purgatory is something arrived at by "secret knowledge."
For the Jewish religious authorities in Jerusalem rejected those works
And yet they were part of the KJV until 1885. If you're talking about Jamnia, the same council rejected all the documents that were eventually included in the New Testament. And, I believe, the Septuagint. If you consider Jamnia authoritative, why do you reject only some of the books that council rejected?
some doctrines as being hearsay without proof
What's "hearsay" for some is Biblically based for others. Some nonCatholics reject any and all scriptural evidence for certain doctrines as wrong interpretations of scripture. Or they reject early texts not included in scripture as lack of evidence for certain early beliefs. I'm not saying you do this, I'm just saying that "proof" is a subjective thing. For me, Christianity is a matter of faith not proof. I imagine it's the same with you. I have sufficient Biblical and other proofs for all my beliefs. I suspect you do too :)
My own rejection of blanket claims that what began to be taught after some centuries,
Just curious, do you feel the same way about the protestant reformers and protestant theology? Do you reject the notion that protestant theology and doctrine can evolve or do you insist that it stay absolutely as it was in the days of Luther, Zwingli, etc? If so, shouldn't the apocryphal books still be part of the KJV?
much is today assumed if not claimed to originate from Christ or the Apostles, but there is no clear chain of custody [so to speak] for most of the now persistently controversial doctrines.
What kind of proof of something passed on orally do you consider valid proof? Do you consider artwork, engravings on early Christian tombs proof of early beliefs?
"Oh, it was handed down from the very beginning by "oral tradition" ".
I understand that you don't accept oral tradition. I'm not out to change you. I take issue with calling it "secret knowledge." Information shared orally is hardly secret. It's just not written. Big difference! The way I see it, Jesus asked for my faith. And he accepted oral tradition, so I don't have a problem putting my faith in something that was good enough for him.
BlueDragon, I apologize if I gave the impression you weren't smart enough or something like that :( Should have chosen my words better. What I should have said was that the information you state about the RCC is often not accurate. I likewise thank you for the civil discussion. I apologize if I came across as suggesting you weren't too bright.
Peace be with you