According to Roman Catholicism, her de fide dogmas are apostolic in origin.
According
to Rome, public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle. While
there is acceptance of "private revelation," such is not
infallible, and even approved apparitions (e.g., Lourdes [1858]; Fatima [1917])
are not binding nor the source of doctrine or dogma.
Rome
teaches that the deposit of faith ceased being added to with the death of the
last apostle. The only allowable development of such doctrines contained
therein would be the adoption of terms to describe the teachings (e.g., use of
the later term Transubstantiation to describe the change of the
substance of the bread and wine when the priest utters the essential form of
the sacrament; the appropriation of homoousios to describe the relationship
between the Father and the Son). Substantially, however, Rome’s de
fide dogmas//primary objects of infallibility are apostolic in origin.
Many of Rome’s de fide dogmas are not apostolic
in origin, such as icon
veneration and the ImmaculateConception of Mary.
Ergo, Rome is a false religion, even by her
standards.
Of course, Rome’s apologists will appeal to “development
of doctrine” and put it on steroids (e.g., Irenaeus and other early Christians
believing Mary to be the New Eve means the Immaculate Conception; Jesus
being said to be the εικων of the Father
means what the Second Council of Nicea and the 25th session of Trent means con veneration [I kid you not]), but such is, functionally, the
evolution of dogma, something condemned by the Catholic Church, such as Pius
X's Pascendi dominici gregis (September 8, 1907).