I’ve been thinking…

Let’s have a Real Conversation About Catholic Teaching, Mary, Jesus’ Siblings, Tradition, Purgatory, Saints, and the Reformation.

OK, so I’ve been thinking … A lot, actually.

And since this is my little corner of the internet, I figured I’d just sit down and invite you into my brain for a minute (or many minutes 😅).

This is not polished theology.

This is not “I have it all figured out.”

This is me, Bible open, tabs open, heart open; trying to understand what’s true.

I’m not here to bash Catholics. I know and love Catholics who genuinely love Jesus. But I’ve had questions. Big ones and the more I’ve looked into Catholic teaching, the more I’ve realized on different topics:

“Wait… this is not what I thought it was.”

So I’m going to walk you through my actual thoughts, my “Hold up, WHAT?” moments, my confusion, and the Scriptures I’ve been wrestling with.

You can decide what you think. I’m just sharing my process.

The Claim: “We’re the Original Church Founded by Jesus”

Catholics often say:

“We are the one true Church founded by Christ in 33 AD. Peter was the first pope.”

It sounds ancient. Solid. Untouchable.

But then I started digging into history and asking: If Catholicism today is the same church established by Jesus through Peter…

why do so many Catholic doctrines not appear for 1,000+ years?

That alone made me pause.

What the Early Church Actually Looked Like (33–300 AD)

Here’s what I found when I looked at the earliest centuries:

✔ No pope

✔ No Marian dogmas

✔ No purgatory

✔ No confession to priests

✔ No Mass as a sacrifice

✔ No transubstantiation

✔ No indulgences

✔ No treasury of merit

The earliest Christians:

• met in homes

• prayed

• read Scripture

• baptized

• suffered persecution

• focused on Jesus

That’s it. Nothing like modern Catholicism.

That alone made me think, “Okay… so something developed later.”

When Catholic Doctrines Actually Became Official:

The more I studied the dates, the more I realized: A LOT of Catholic doctrines aren’t ancient at all.

• Veneration of saints → 300s

• Praying to saints → 300s–400s

• Relics → 300s–400s

• Purgatory → first formally articulated around AD 593–604 (Pope Gregory the Great)

• Mass as sacrifice → ~1100s

• Indulgences → 1100s

• Transubstantiation → defined in 1215 (Fourth Lateran Council)

• Confession to a priest → made obligatory in 1215

Then the REALLY late ones:

• Immaculate Conception → 1854

• Papal Infallibility → 1870

• Assumption of Mary → 1950

Nineteen! Fifty!

That’s the age of color television, not Peter.

So when Catholics say, “These teachings go back to the apostles,” I started thinking:

“The dates don’t support that.”

Catholics often say: “Protestantism was invented in 1517. It’s a ‘new religion’.”

But historically? No.

What actually happened is this:

• The early church (33–300 AD) looked a lot like what Protestants teach today.

• Over centuries, many extra doctrines were added inside the institution.

• The Reformation (1517) was NOT “inventing new doctrine.” It was “removing additions and returning to what the early church taught.”

Meanwhile Catholicism continued to define NEW dogmas in:

• 1854

• 1870

• 1950

So if we’re talking about what’s “new,” a lot of Catholic doctrines are way newer than Protestant theology.

Sacred Tradition & the Magisterium (in simple terms - because that’s what I needed to begin to understand this.)

To understand why the Catholic Church feels free to define new doctrines long after the apostles, you have to understand two terms:

1) Sacred Tradition:

Catholics believe the apostles taught many things orally that were never written down in Scripture.

These unwritten teachings were supposedly preserved by bishops and passed down—without being lost or changed (which is… a huge claim).

2) The Magisterium:

This is the teaching authority of the Church (the pope + bishops).

They can:

• interpret Scripture

• interpret Tradition

• define new doctrines

• declare dogmas that all Catholics must believe

Catholicism therefore has three sources of authority:

1. Scripture

2. Tradition

3. Magisterium

This means:

If the Bible doesn’t teach something, but the Magisterium believes it is “revealed in Tradition,” they can officially define it as dogma centuries later.

That’s how doctrines from 1854, 1870, and 1950 became mandatory beliefs.

My Question is: “Where Did These Oral Traditions Even Come From?”

This part honestly made me so confused, because, None of these so-called ‘oral traditions’ are recorded anywhere in the first centuries of Christianity.

A few writings claim early information, but when I looked them up, here’s what I found…

The Protoevangelium of James (AD 150–200)

This ancient apocryphal writing is where we get:

• the names of Mary’s parents (Joachim & Anna)

• the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity

• stories about Mary growing up in the temple

But here’s the thing:

1) It was not written by James.

Scholars agree the author pretended to be James — a common ancient literary technique, but not inspired Scripture. What?!?! We’re believing people who pretended to be other people?!?! *sigh*

2) The early church rejected it as Scripture.

It is not in any canon.

Yet later Catholic tradition drew heavily from it. This shocked me. Because if Marian dogmas rest on a book that Christians never considered inspired… that’s something I needed to chew on.

My Question About Mary (one of many)

: “If She Was Sinless… Wouldn’t Her Parents Need to Be Too?”

If Mary must be pure and sinless to bear Jesus . . . then wouldn’t her mother have to be pure? And her mother’s mother? And so on forever? At some point, the logic breaks.

ALSO, nowhere does Scripture ever say Mary was sinless.

Scripture says:

“ALL have sinned…” — Romans 3:23

Mary herself calls God her Savior — meaning she needed saving. Don’t get me wrong, I admire Mary very much - like A LOT but I can not reconcile that she was sinless.

What About Jesus’ Siblings?

This part also surprised me…

The Bible mentions Jesus’ brothers and sisters:

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”

— Mark 6:3

The Greek words used are:

• adelphos — brother

• adelphai — sisters

Greek DOES have a different word for “cousin”:

• anepsios

If the Gospel writers meant cousin, they could have easily used that word, but they didn’t…

Which means the simplest reading is:

Jesus had real siblings.

Not cousins.

Not step-siblings.

Not spiritual siblings.

Then I wondered “Did people adopt others back then as full family?

The answer:

Not in the modern Western sense.

Yes, people took in relatives or cared for orphans, but the concept of adopting someone and calling them your literal sibling — while their biological parents still existed elsewhere —

is not something we see in ancient Jewish custom. So that explanation didn’t solve the tension either.

This section is important to me because the Bible very clearly warns us:

• “Do not add to the word that I command you…” — Deuteronomy 4:2

• “Do not go beyond what is written.” — 1 Corinthians 4:6

• “You nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.” — Matthew 15:6

The more doctrines I saw coming centuries later,

the more these verses felt… relevant.

Then there is purgatory.

This doctrine was one of my biggest “Hold up… WHAT?!” moments.

Especially because it came so late:

• first clearly articulated: AD 593–604

• officially affirmed: Middle Ages

But more importantly, It’s not in Scripture.

When I looked up the verses Catholics use to support it … none of them actually say anything about a post-death purification place for believers.

When I actually sat down and looked at the passages often connected to purgatory, something surprised me: none of them describe a place or process where believers are purified after death. Each one, when read in context, is addressing something completely different.

2 Maccabees 12:38–46 — the “soldiers” passage

This story describes Jewish soldiers who died in battle while wearing pagan amulets—objects dedicated to idols. Judas Maccabeus takes up a collection to send to the temple so a sin offering can be made for them.

In context, this is simply an Old Covenant temple sacrifice for men who died in idolatry. It isn’t describing believers being purified after death, nor does it mention a place or process of purification. It reflects Jewish practices of the time, not a teaching about what happens to the righteous after they die.

To further explain the context…

Their thought process was basically:

“These men sinned. They shouldn’t have been wearing idols. But maybe — just maybe — God will show mercy to them in the resurrection.”

-It wasn’t a belief in a purification process after death.

-It wasn’t a belief in a temporary place of cleansing.

-It wasn’t a way to “fix” their sin after they died.

It was simply an appeal to God’s mercy, rooted in the only system they knew — the Old Covenant sacrificial system.

In the Old Testament, faithful Jews believed:

1. God is merciful

2. God would raise His people from the dead someday

3. Sacrifice was the only God-given way to deal with sin

So Judas did the only thing he could do within that system: Offer a sacrifice and entrust these men to God’s compassion on the last day.

It’s not “purgatory theology.”

It’s Old Covenant mercy theology.

Ok, moving on . . .

1 Corinthians 3:11–15 — “saved, yet so as through fire”

Paul isn’t talking about the soul after death. He’s talking about a believer’s work being tested by God—its quality, motives, and eternal value. The “fire” is a metaphor for God’s judgment of our works, not a literal cleansing fire for the person. The passage ends by saying the person is already saved, even if their works burn up. There’s no mention of a place, timeframe, or post-death purification.

Matthew 12:32 — “in this age or the age to come”

Jesus is emphasizing the seriousness of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. He’s not teaching about forgiveness after death or describing another realm. He’s using a figure of speech to highlight the permanence of rejecting the Spirit, not opening the door to a place of postmortem cleansing.

1 Peter 3:19 and 4:6 — “spirits in prison”

Peter is describing Christ proclaiming victory over disobedient spirits connected to the time of Noah. It’s a statement about Jesus’ authority, not a description of believers being purified after death. Nothing in the passage suggests a temporary state for the righteous.

Matthew 5:25–26 — “until you’ve paid the last penny”

This is part of a teaching on reconciliation and the urgency of making things right with others. Jesus is using legal imagery to illustrate relational responsibility. It’s not about the afterlife or purification.

Revelation 21:27 — “nothing unclean will enter”

This verse affirms the purity of the New Creation, but it doesn’t describe a process by which people become clean after death. The New Testament consistently teaches that believers are made clean by Christ’s finished work, not by a future purification place.

Once everything is read in context, what stood out to me was this: not a single passage actually describes a post-death purification for believers or a “third place” between death and being with the Lord. Each text is addressing a different topic entirely—Old Covenant practices, warnings, metaphors, or teachings about Christ’s authority.

Then I looked at the verses that contradict purgatory, and that’s where everything snapped into focus.

2 Corinthians 5:8 — No “third place” between death and God

“We would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.”

Paul doesn’t describe a spiritual holding tank.

He doesn’t say “away from the body and undergoing purification.”

He gives only two states:

Here in the body → with the Lord.

Nothing in between.

Luke 23:43 — The thief on the cross

“Truly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in paradise.”

Jesus doesn’t say:

• “After a time of purification you’ll get there,”

• or “Once you’ve been cleansed enough.”

He says today.

This man had no chance to do penance, no sacraments, no “making up” for sin.

Yet he was welcomed into paradise immediately.

Hebrews 9:27 — Death is followed by judgment, not purification

“It is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.”

The Bible gives a simple sequence:

Life → Death → Judgment.

Not Life → Death → Purgatory → Judgment.

Romans 8:1 — No condemnation remains

“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

If purgatory exists to take care of “remaining punishment,” then Paul is wrong. Then scripture is wrong and that just can't be.

But Scripture says:

NO condemnation, not “less condemnation,”

not “temporary condemnation,”

not “purifying condemnation.”

None.

Hebrews 10:14 — Already perfected

“For by a single offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”

If Jesus has already perfected believers for all time, then purgatory — a place meant to complete what Christ supposedly didn’t finish —

is unnecessary.

Sanctification is lived out here, not suffered after death.

John 19:30 — “It is finished.”

“It is finished.”

Jesus did not say, “My part is finished, but purgatory will finish the rest.”

If the atonement needs to be “completed” in another place after death, then it wasn’t finished at the cross.

But Jesus said it was.

Next, Let’s Talk About Praying to Saints . . .

Catholics often say:

“We don’t pray to saints. We only ask them to pray for us.”

But here’s what I found:

✔ The Catechism DOES teach asking saints for intercession.

✔ But the actual Catholic prayers are direct address to saints.

Examples:

• “Saint Anthony, hear my prayer.”

• “Hail Holy Queen… to THEE do we cry.”

• “Saint Jude, come to my aid.”

• “Mary, pray for us now…”

Even the CCC includes:

“Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners…”

When you speak directly to someone supernatural, asking them to hear you, help you, or intervene… that IS prayer.

Even if Catholics rename it.

I could go on more about this topic BUT I already did in 2 other blog posts, so I’ll stop about it here. You can scroll thru my older posts to find those. :)

My Next Question/Thought … One Mediator

This hits me hard. It’s something I’ve had issues with for decades and honestly, one of the reasons I left the Catholic Church in my teens.

“There is one mediator between God and man — the man Christ Jesus.” — 1 Timothy 2:5

But Catholic practice assumes:

• saints/Mary hear millions at once

• saints/Mary can intervene in earthly events

• saints/Mary act as mediators

• saints/Mary have God-like awareness

• saints/Mary receive petitions

None of this appears in Scripture.

All of it replaces the direct access we have to Jesus.

The last thing I’ll touch on in this post is this:

Many Catholics believe (and some even explicitly teach) that it is a mortal sin to intentionally skip Mass.

Meaning a sin so severe it separates you from God until confessed to a priest.

And in some circles, Catholics warn one another not to attend Protestant services because doing so is “dangerous” or “sinful.” That honestly made me uneasy. Because I just want to love God, seek truth, and worship honestly —

not feel trapped by rules Jesus never gave. I’m not saying that I think it should be ok to skip church “just because”, I actually don’t think it is ok to do that. But for it to be a sin so severe (mortal), that it separates you from God, just like murder and adultery, makes sooooo many more questions surface about Catholic dogma (or is it doctrine?) for me.

So, I’m still sitting with this…

I’m still praying…

I’m still asking God to guide me…

Where Does All This Leave Me???

Still thinking. Still praying. Still seeking.

I’m not angry. I’m not attacking Catholics. I’m not trying to pick fights.

I’m simply going where the Bible leads — where history leads — where the Holy Spirit leads — and where logic leads.

OK let’s wrap it up into a “cliffs notes” list:

• The early church looked nothing like modern Catholicism

• Many Catholic doctrines were added centuries later

• Protestantism is actually older than many Catholic dogmas

• Mary was not a perpetual virgin

• Jesus had real siblings

• Marian doctrines come from apocryphal writings

• Purgatory is not biblical

• Catholics do pray to saints

• Tradition has been elevated over Scripture in many cases, within the Roman Catholic faith

• Jesus is the only mediator

• The Catholic claim “We go back to Peter” doesn’t match history

• And Catholic doctrine continued evolving even after the Reformation

Like I said, I’m still reading, still studying, still learning, still listening, still processing. I’m asking questions and letting the Holy Spirit guide me. I’m seeking truth with a sincere heart and honestly, it feels like worship to me.

But I didn’t want to keep this to myself, I wanted to be transparent about my questions and theological struggles (regarding traditions, NOT faith in Jesus), so I wanted to invite you into the journey with me. Because maybe, you’ve wondered about these things too? 🫶🏽