Many beliefs and traditions presently found in Catholicism cannot be traced to the doctrinal base of the original church, as recorded in the book of Acts and the Epistles. In some cases, they cannot be found in the earliest form of Catholicism itself. Instead, there has been a progressive development of rituals, practices, and doctrines over hundreds of years. Some beliefs were embraced even for centuries before being formally affirmed as church doctrine. As new information is discovered, from time to time these dates may be altered and this list may receive additions.
Consider the following proposed timeline:
Timeline / Evolution of Catholic Doctrines
325 – Only bishops and priests can conduct communion (First Council of Nicaea)
364 – Sunday Sabbath (Council of Laodicea / after Constantine’s decree in 321)
382 – The 73-book biblical canon approved at the Council of Rome, later reaffirmed by the regional Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397)
398 – Prayers for the dead (Augustine alluded to it)
418 – Infant baptism regenerates (Council of Carthage)
553 – Mary’s ever-virgin state (Fifth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople)
600 – Confession to a priest (public confession transitioned to private in 600s)
993 – Canonization of first saint (St. Ulrich by Pope John XV)
1095 – Indulgences (Pope Urban II offered indulgences to certain persons who fought in or funded the Crusades)
1139 – Celibacy of priests (Second Lateran Council)
1208 – The Rosary (Dominic claimed to receive a revelation from Mary)
1215 – Clerical clothing required for church leaders (Fourth Lateran Council)
1215 – Transubstantiation (Fourth Lateran Council / approved the word “transubstantiation” for describing communion)
1274 – Purgatory (proposed by Pope Gregory in 596, confirmed at the Council of Lyon [1274 A.D.], then the Councils of Florence and Trent [1438-1439 A.D. then 1545-1563 A.D.])
1545 – Tradition equal with the Bible (Council of Trent / 1545-63)
1570 – Tridentine Mass (Traditional Latin Mass)
1854 – Immaculate Conception proclaimed to be church dogma (Infallible decree by Pope Pius IX)
1870 – Papal infallibility (First Vatican Council / 1869-70)
1950 – Assumption of Mary declared to be church dogma (Infallible decree by Pope Pius XII)
1954 – Mary, Queen of heaven (a long-held belief, defined at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD, affirmed in an encyclical by Pope Pius XII)
1962 – The Mass can be presented in modern languages (Vatican II Council / 1962-1965)
1992 – Catechism published codifying many of the above beliefs
Some of these dates are debatable because a particular concept may have been partially or generally embraced for a season (even hundreds of years) before being officially recognized by the church as a rule of faith. Also, some writers, historians, or resources may offer slightly different date estimates. Furthermore, some of these doctrines were matters of disagreement for centuries. However, the primary purpose in sharing these dates is to reveal the stunning truth that all the above beliefs and practices, though absorbed into the Catholic belief system over hundreds of years, are non-biblical (something I believe I prove sufficiently in my book, The Beliefs of the Catholic Church). How did this doctrinal degeneration happen and why do devoted Catholics who sincerely love God feel such a shift away from biblical authority is acceptable?
The Three-legged Stool of Catholicism
There is a simple answer to the dual question just posed. The reason for this descent into approved, though false and non-biblical doctrines is something called “The Three-legged Stool of Catholicism” (Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium). Just as the legs of a stool are of equal length and equal importance for upholding the seat, so these three aspects of Catholicism are of equal authority and equal importance in the upholding this belief system that boasts 1.3 billion adherents worldwide.
Some Catholics who reference this concept refer to it as “The Three Pillars of Catholicism.” The symbolism is the same regardless. In the Spanish language, for instance, it is only referred to as “The Three Pillars.”
Leg #1: Sacred Scripture
The Catholic Canon of Scripture (73 books total / 46 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books) was not completely compiled and ratified until the Council of Rome in the year 382 A.D. (The word “canon” means a measuring line, rule, or principle.) The Protestant Bible emerged much later, during the time of the Reformation. It contains all the 27 New Testament books of the Catholic Bible and 39 of the Old Testament books. Excluded from the Old Testament are seven books commonly referred to as “The Apocrypha” (meaning to hide away). Martin Luther did this because he and other reformers did not consider them to be inspired on the same level. However, this negative assessment did not begin with them; it goes back much further in time. “Early church fathers like Athanasias, Melito, Origen, and Cyril of Jerusalem spoke against the canonicity of much or all of the apocrypha, but the most weighty opposition was the fourth century Catholic scholar Jerome.” 1 However, none of the excluded books are essential to salvation. The few references in the Apocrypha that supposedly lend support to Catholic doctrines like praying to the saints and Purgatory, when subjected to proper exegesis, quickly unravel. 2
Leg #2: Sacred Tradition
Quite often, Bible-believing Christians who critique Catholic beliefs offer the argument, “If it’s not in the Bible, it cannot be true.” The usual rebuttal from Catholics may sound like the following statement: “The early church did not have the Bible as we have it today. It was not available until the end of the fourth century. Prior to that, Christians depended heavily on oral transmission of the traditions and doctrines of the apostles. Therefore, oral tradition is still a valid way of transmitting correct doctrine to the Church.” Part of that proposed explanation is true. Consider the following verses from Paul:
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. (1 Corinthians 11:2)
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
At the time these verses were written, the Old Testament (the First Testament) was available to some believers, but the New Testament did not exist. Therefore, Catholic theologians insist that true Christian beliefs and practices do not depend on inclusion in the Bible, because no one had a Bible when the Christian faith was first introduced into this world. Besides, the printing press was not invented until 1436 A.D., so very few people could even afford the written Word of God. Is this a valid and relevant proposition? Well, yes and no.
“Yes,” the observation about “oral tradition” being vital in the beginning is relevant and true. But the dominant response should be “No,” for the following reason. All the original, authoritative, and authentic “oral traditions” handed down from the apostles, containing important facets of the true Gospel, that are worthy of preservation and dissemination, were included in that Canon of Scripture compiled in 382 A.D. So, from that point onward especially, no new beliefs should ever be added to the Christian worldview. Actually, no new “revelations” were needed after the apostles passed from the scene. But that has certainly not been the case, as this Timeline article and chart indicate. Unfortunately, Catholicism respects ancient Sacred Traditions in the church (developed over hundreds of years) as being just as authoritative and trustworthy as Sacred Scripture, if established and upheld by the Magisterium.
Leg #3: The Magisterium
The word “Magisterium” is from the Latin word magister meaning teaching. Within Catholicism, it means three related things:
(1) the authority of the Catholic Church to teach the doctrine of Christ,
(2) the authorities in the Catholic Church who together validate and declare those
doctrines (the pope—who is the Bishop of Rome—as well as all the other bishops
in the church, united together),
(3) the authorized teachings themselves. 3
If the Magisterium proclaims and establishes a doctrine for Catholics to believe or a tradition to practice, there is no need for a witness to exist in Sacred Scripture, for the three “legs” are all equal in authority. This logic should especially be rejected when the new authorized teachings actually contradict the Word of God. However, just as it was in Jesus’ day, so it is now. At one point, He rebuked the Jewish religious leaders with the convicting declaration:
“All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition” (Mark 7:9).
Then He claimed that they made, “the Word of God of no effect” because of the “tradition . . . handed down” (Mark 7:13).
Then the Savior dared to claim that they even made, “the Word of God of no effect” because of the “tradition . . . handed down” (Mark 7:13). As it was in the apostles’ day, so it is now—both ways—with traditionalists and independently-minded seekers. Yes, history has once again repeated itself. Blind submission to established tradition often leads to spiritual malnutrition. Even so, many individuals, even leaders in the church, unquestionally go with the flow, too often because of humility and sincerity—humble submission to the authority of the church and sincere devotion to God. But in many Christian denominations as well as Catholicism, there is groundswell movement in our world, a longing for the real, a willingness to question established ideas. Thank God, many individuals who love the Lord deeply are waking up and seeking God’s wisdom. Passionately desiring to be “true worshippers” and faithful “followers of Jesus,” they have decided that—
_________________________________________________________________________________
1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha#:~:text=Early%20church%20fathers%20such%20as,the%20wider%20(Greek)%20canon%2C, accessed 11/3/2023.
2 See page 133 on “Praying to the saints” (2 Maccabees 15:14-17) and page 237 on “Purgatory” (2 Maccabees 12:39-46) in The Beliefs of the Catholic Church for the refutation of these two references being supportive of Catholic doctrine.
3 For a deeper explanation, see Appendix #8 of the book, The Beliefs of the Catholic Church.
I left the Catholic Church many years ago. So I don’t believe Catholic priests can forgive sin. But how do you answer a Catholic who will quote Jesus when He said “whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven, whose sins you shall retained they are retained? Or was this quote taken out of context?
Michael, thank you for visiting our site and commenting. I explain that passage of Scripture in great depth in the book, “The Beliefs of the Catholic Church.” One chapter deals with absolution and responding to the Catholic claims. I can’t summarize here everything that is in the book, but I can say this much: there were more in the room than just the twelve disciples when Jesus spoke those words. Most likely there were women in the room, including Mary Magdelene (read John 20 carefully). So why aren’t women given the power to pronounce absolution now? Jesus breathed on all the disciples present and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” Then He gave this directive. So being filled with the Holy Spirit seems to be the primary prerequisite. Oh and by the way, He did not say “When you forgive the sins of anyone,” He said, “If you forgive the sins of anyone.” If people had to go through the disciples to be forgiven, it would have been worded differently.
Heard your interview on WMUZ. I posted it and my militant Catholic buddy responded with this:
When you understand that his entire argument is based on the false supposition that everything that is integral to our faith was written down, the entire argument falls apart. It’s really that easy.
Also, it was the Catholics who had the authority to determine what was actually scripture and what wasn’t scripture… how could one possibly use “scripture” – which Catholics had the authority to canonize – to undermine said authority?
It’s a preposterous example of circular reasoning.
Your thoughts?
Hello Rick, Thank you very much for taking the time to comment on our website. I apologize that it has five days since you did. I am just now catching up on my emails after a busy weekend. I understand your friend’s point of view and I both agree and disagree. He is absolutely right that the early church did not have the “Bible” (though they did have some copies of individual epistles and Gospels that were distributed to many of the churches—there are hundreds of copies still existing today). To a great degree, however, church doctrine was established and perpetuated by oral tradition. Many Catholics insist that means that oral tradition is still a means of transmission of truth. However, I contend that “everything that is integral to our faith was written down” (to use your friend’s words) when the Canon of Scripture was agreed upon during the Council of Rome in 382 AD. From that time forward, no NEW concepts should ever be introduced, yet MANY Catholic doctrines cannot be found in the very Bible they approved in the fourth century. Therefore, I do not believe those doctrines are legitimate. Some are very recent (as you can read in this article), like the doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Conception (1854), Mary’s Assumption into heaven (1950) and her status as Queen of heaven (1954). No one in the early church, or those Catholics who chose the Canon of Scripture in 382 AD, ever proposed or promoted such ideas.
One of the ironic things about it all is an outgrowth of one of the points your friend made. Because the Catholics determined what would be placed in “The Holy Bible,” it makes the “biblical” arguments against various Catholic doctrines DOUBLY effective and authoritative because the same Bible they authorized can be used to show the fallacy of many of their present-day beliefs.
I urge you to get two copies of my book, one for you and one for your friend—and if he is open, I am happy to peacefully and lovingly dialogue about these vitally important things. I am not interested in “confrontational apologetics” but a Berean kind of discussion of Holy Scripture. I travel often. So it is possible that I might be coming in your area or your friend’s area (hopefully you live in the same city or county). Please email me and let me know your contact info (instead of posting it here): info@shreveministries.org. You can check out my itinerary at http://www.shreveministries.org
Thank you Mike. Very helpful. I did buy a copy for myself. I’m not certain he would be interested. He was a teacher for many years at a Catholic school. I share excerpts from your book frequently and sometimes he comments on my Facebook.
Blessings, Thank you for an answer to my question: Does the Orthodox Catholic Church follow the true Word of God? I read that they separated from the Roman church & refuse to reunite with them. Thank you!
Hello Patricia,
Thank you for stopping by our website. The primary areas where the Eastern Orthodox Catholics differ from Roman Catholics is (1) the leadership or government of the church, including the authority of the papacy; (2) the Holy Spirit proceeding only from the Father (not the Father AND the Son as Roman Catholicism teaches); (3) and the existence of that intermediate state in the afterlife called Purgatory. However, there are many doctrines and beliefs in the Orthodox Catholic Church that are not correct biblically. I suggest that you get a copy of the book, “The Beliefs of the Catholic Church,” to apply its critiques to both beliefs systems.