New revelation ended at the death of the last Apostle?


Why did new revelation end with the death of the last Apostle when the rest of their Authority has been passed on from age to age?

This question was posed to me by my best friend who is Pentecostal (formerly Baptist/Evangelical). The context was in the discussion of the authority of the Pope, and he doesn’t understand why we should believe new revelation ended when the rest of their powers are believed to be passed on.

Any insights into this or ways to prove it would be much appreciated.




Bueller? Bueller?

It is true that we believe new revelation ended with the death of the Apostle John, right?


Because all that is necessary for salvation was revealed up until the death of John. No other Scripture is considered Sacred beyond what John wrote in Apocalypse.

Additionally, not all of the authors of the New Testament were Apostles. Mark wasn’t. Neither was Luke, who also wrote Acts of the Apostles. So the analogy doesn’t work.

Furthermore, the New Testament wasn’t written by the power of the Apostles. It was written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Power is not the same as inspiration. The Holy Spirit empowered and continues to empower the Apostles and their succesors (by laying of hands) to consecrate and administer the sacraments. There was no expiration date for this power, by definition of being authorized to pass down the anointing from one successor to the next. The end of revelation is ascertained by the fact that no text beyond Apocalypse was deemed “inspired” by the Catholic Church when it codified the New Testament. Since this inspiration came to an ascertainable end with Apocalypse, the Church properly discerned that no further revelation is forthcoming, and all that is necessary for salvation is contained in the Catholic canon.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit