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
One need not rely upon Jamnia. One can go to Melito and Origin. Josepus also. Yet I see Jamnia raised time and again on these pages as the imagined "reason why" one chooses to stick with what came to be known as the "Hebrew Bible", although that term is itself somewhat of a misnomer.
As long as they were considered "possibly edifying" but not to be used for basis of even part of foundation for doctrine not found elsewhere. Much as was long warned of them, and was earliest warned of them (in the West, anyway) including it being mentioned by one highly respected Cardinal (respected for his biblical/historical knowledge perhaps the foremost) at Trent, where he was basically ignored concerning his repetition of --- was it Jerome's(?) warning?
They can be indications. Strong clues. Yet images depicted or practices by individuals can as much be seen as some form of fruit, common understanding of more official doctrinal positions, while simultaneously differing significantly too, indicating sort-of where the rubber really meets the road, including folk belief not part of more narrowly examined Christian belief. One must take care. We've seen what developed into folk belief, lead the RCC upon occasion. Of course we see popular culture affect churches of all stripe, too, presently. it depend upon where one looks.
It's a big church. There is a variety of expression and primary focus. It can depend upon whom one talks to. What may have been much true in times past, or is presently in some quarters, I'll readily concede is not much held or expressed, exercised by all.
Attitudes towards many doctrines have changed since the Reformation also, becoming less superstitious, for example.
Thank you for the kindness. Now if I can only steadfastly remember to make certain to always extend to you the same, then I'd be making progress.