Revelation… was not completed [completa] with the Apostles. (Lamentabili Sane 21)

The positive content of that teaching is the claim that revelation was completed by the death of the last Apostle.

A previous piece showed that that teaching of Pius X is echoed in the modern Catechism. (See “Was Revelation Completed by the Death of the Last Apostle? – Part I”.) However, there is a potential problem. In 1965 Vatican II said that:

the Church constantly moves forward towards the fullness of divine truth. (Dei Verbum 8)

Some people consider that that statement of Vatican II is doctrinally erroneous. They think that it conflicts with the teaching of Pius X (above), because

the Church’s tradition does not ‘progress’; it was complete with the death of the last Apostle. (Super Flumina, “The ‘Plenary Council’ Circus”)

This raises a question. Has Vatican II fallen into the doctrinal error of rejecting the completeness of revelation?

1. Revelation Completed at the Crucifixion

One possible answer to the question is provided by another text of Vatican II, from Dignitatis Humanae, which stated:

In the end, when He completed on the cross the work of redemption whereby He achieved salvation and true freedom for men, He brought His revelation to completion [revelationem suam perfecit]. (Dignitatis Humanae 11)

On the surface that text looks as if it is in full agreement with Pius X’s claim that revelation was completed by the death of the last Apostle, as it seems to say that revelation was completed at the Crucifixion.

However, if that text is indeed agreeing with Pius X, then it (allegedly) raises a new problem by being inconsistent with the Council of Trent. In 1547 Trent said that some aspects of revelation (concerning the Sacrament of Penance) were only revealed after the Resurrection. (See Session 6, Chapter 14.) So, (allegedly) if Vatican II avoids the doctrinal error of disagreeing with Pius X, it only achieves that by committing the doctrinal error of disagreeing with the Council of Trent. (See “The Principal Heresies and Other Errors of Vatican II”.)

But there is no need to read the texts of Vatican II in such a contradictory way. It is clear that after the resurrection Christ only appeared to select individuals and groups. (See Post-Resurrection Appearances.) Before his crucifixion Christ ministered to the wider public. So, there is a genuine sense in which the Crucifixion marked a completion of an aspect of his ministry of revelation, precisely as Vatican II states, above. That does not necessarily mean that there were no other types of revelation occurring after the Resurrection.

Vatican II makes precisely that point in Dei Verbum, when it notes that Jesus’ work of revelation continued through the Resurrection and Post-Resurrection events (i.e., after the Crucifixion). The Council stated:

Jesus perfected revelation [revelationem complendo perficit] by … manifesting Himself: through His words and deeds… but especially through His death and glorious resurrection from the dead and final sending of the Spirit of truth. (Dei Verbum 4)

This means that Vatican II is not contradicting the Council of Trent. However, if the text above from Dignitatis Humanae is not saying that ALL types of revelation were completed at the Crucifixion, then it is clearly irrelevant to the original question, which was about whether revelation was completed by the death of the last Apostle.

So, moving on, and returning to the original question…

2. Vatican II’s View of Revelation

To understand Vatican II’s views about revelation, it is important to focus upon Dei Verbum (DV), as that document explicitly claims that it is setting out authoritative doctrine on revelation. It states:

Following in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and of the First Vatican Council, this present council wishes to set forth authentic doctrine on divine revelation. (DV 1)

The Council explained what revelation is, by stating:

Through divine revelation, God chose to show forth and communicate Himself and the eternal decisions of His will regarding the salvation of men. (DV 6)

This explains that revelation is a communication which is intended to enable humans to achieve salvation. That understanding is so central to Dei Verbum, that it is repeated in several different ways. For example:

By this revelation…, the deepest truth about… the salvation of man shines out… (DV 2)

[Jesus]… confirmed with divine testimony what revelation proclaimed, that God is with us to free us from the darkness of sin and death, and to raise us up to life eternal.  (DV 4)

This is an important explanation of revelation, as it has implications for understanding some historical controversies. If the good news of revelation (i.e., the Gospel) is about salvation, then it is not a communication about how planets move in the sky, nor about geological timescales nor evolutionary processes. It is not a message about snakes and apples or floods and dinosaurs. Revelation is purely and simply a communication to help humans achieve salvation. Appealing to revelation to settle other matters is to fundamentally misunderstand what it is, and what it is for.

3. How Revelation Is Communicated

Dei Verbum (DV) also explains how revelation is communicated to Christians.

Christ the Lord… commissioned the Apostles to preach… that Gospel… This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the Apostles who, by their oral preaching, … handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ… or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The commission was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men who… committed the message of salvation to writing. (DV 7)

The reference to oral apostolic preaching and to written texts is explained a few lines later as referring to:

Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture [which] form one sacred deposit of the word of God … (DV 10)

The original Latin text capitalizes the “Tradition” which communicates revelation. So, we can summarize Vatican II’s position as the claim that revelation is communicated through (Sacred) Tradition and Scripture. (See also “Did Vatican II Reject Two Sources of Revelation?”)

This view embeds an important historical consequence. If (Sacred) Tradition consists ONLY of the oral preaching of the Apostles, then after the last Apostle died it became impossible to change or add anything to (Sacred) Tradition. This means that (Sacred) Tradition is immutable. It is, what it was, at the time of the death of the last Apostle; as of course Scripture also is, what it was, when it was first written.

4. Interpreting Revelation

Recognizing that revelation is communicated in (Sacred) Tradition and Scripture leads immediately to a problem of interpretation. People can, and do, disagree about what (Sacred) Tradition and/or Scripture means, so there is an ongoing need to clarify the meaning.

Dei Verbum (DV) addressed that issue, in the following words:

The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office [vivo Ecclesiae Magisterio] of the Church… This teaching office [Magisterium]… teach[es] only what has been handed on… explaining it faithfully… with the help of the Holy Spirit. (DV 10)

That text makes three important points:

1. The Magisterium is the only divinely authorized interpreter of revelation, i.e., of (Sacred) Tradition and of Scripture.
2. The Magisterium cannot add to, or otherwise change, the original revelation. It can only transmit what “has been handed on.”
3. But the Magisterium interprets the meaning of revelation, as it is divinely assisted to “explain it faithfully,” by publishing clarifications.

This raises a question. What is the status of those “clarifications?” Can they become part of the Church’s tradition?

5. Tradition and tradition

Dei Verbum mentions the word “tradition” thirteen times. It mentions “Sacred Tradition” eight times, which it describes as communicating revelation. But in addition to that, there is another version of tradition which is called “living tradition” (twice) and sometimes just “tradition” (three times).

To keep the two ideas of tradition distinct, I shall henceforth refer to the two versions as (Sacred) Tradition and as living tradition.

We can see the significance of the distinction if we reflect on an historical example from the Council of Nicaea. In 325 Nicaea (magisterially) clarified the meaning of revelation by interpreting Scripture as teaching that Jesus is God. To make that point clear, the council published a creed which described Jesus as:

God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father. (Nicene Creed)

Those words constitute an infallible dogmatic teaching.

However, those words are not part of revelation. That sentence was not spoken by an apostle, so it is not part of (Sacred) Tradition. Nor does it appear in the Bible, so it is not part of Scripture. Instead, those words are a magisterial clarification which have become part of the “living tradition” of the Church.

That “living tradition” is so authoritative, that Dei Verbum insists that it must be taken into account, and used as a hermeneutical principle when interpreting other texts of Scripture. It states:

Holy Scripture must be… interpreted… [according to] the content and unity of the whole of Scripture… The living tradition of the whole Church must [also] be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. (DV 12)

What this means is that there are two different concepts of tradition in Dei Verbum. One concept describes the information which consists of the immutable (Sacred) Tradition of revelation. But the other concept (living tradition) describes the information which also contains the Magisterial clarifications of revelation. That second type of tradition is not immutable. Its content grows and progresses over time, whenever the Magisterium has to clarify a point of revelation, as occurred of course, at the Council of Nicaea.

6. Progress and Growth

The idea that there can be growth and progress in the Church’s theology is not a new idea. It was explained initially by St. Vincent of Lérins (died c. 445). He said:

Shall there, then, be no progress [profectus] [in understanding] … Certainly… Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration [permutatio] of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged [amplificetur]…, alteration, that it be transformed [transvertatur] into something else. [So, let]… intelligence, knowledge, [and] wisdom, in the course of ages… increase and make much and vigorous progress; but… only…in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning. (Comminitory 23; Latin text)

At the heart of St. Vincent’s position is a distinction between an acceptable progress (profectus) in the understanding of revelation (i.e., an accurate clarification of the meaning), and an unacceptable alteration (permutatio) of revelation, which changes the meaning of revelation. The last clause of the paragraph above explains how to tell the difference between progress and alteration.(For more details, see “Theological Meaning: Understanding ‘Eodem Sensu Eademque Sententia’”.)

St. Vincent’s views were taken up by Vatican I, in 1870. The Council paraphrased his words, as follows:

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase [crescat] as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish [proficiat], in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding. (Dei Filius 4 14; Latin text)

Vatican I made the same point as St. Vincent, albeit in slightly different language. Vatican I believed that over time, theological knowledge will increase or grow (crescat) and it will flourish, or become more completed (proficiat). But the Council did not name the process whereby it happens, although St. Vincent himself referred to it as “a progress” (profectus). Modern theologians tend to refer to it as a “development of doctrine.”

7. Vatican II

When Vatican II reflected on the issues of revelation and the clarification of its meaning, it essentially combined the insight that there are two distinct models of tradition (see section 5), with the idea that there can be a “progress and growth” in understanding (see section 6). Dei Verbum (DV) stated:

This tradition which comes from the Apostles develops [proficit] in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth [crescit] in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. (DV 8)

In this paragraph Vatican II chose its language carefully to precisely echo the words of Vatican I.

Vatican I used the verb proficere in its subjunctive form (proficiat) to say “may there be flourishing (or progress)” in understanding (see section 6). Vatican II used precisely the same verb in the first sentence above, but it used it in its indicative form (proficit) to assert that there is indeed a development (or progress) in understanding.

Vatican I also used the verb crescere, in its subjunctive form (crescat) to say “may understanding grow.” Vatican II used precisely the same verb to assert that understanding does grow (crescit).

The difference between Vatican I and Vatican II (on this issue), consists in what is said to be progressing and growing. Vatican I described it as “understanding.” Vatican II described it as “tradition.”

If Vatican II had said that “Sacred Tradition” progresses or grows, then it would clearly have erred, as we saw that the revelation of Sacred Tradition cannot change (by growing or progressing). (See section 3.)

In the text above, from Dei Verbum, Vatican II does not refer to “Sacred Tradition.” It refers just to tradition. That means that Vatican II is referring to the living tradition which includes Sacred Tradition PLUS the Magisterial clarifications of that Sacred Tradition (such as the statements of councils like Nicaea). The living tradition can, of course, progress and grow, as Church Councils add authoritative clarifications of revelation to the Church’s understanding. (See section 5.)

With that understanding of what Vatican II is stating in the paragraph above, then it becomes immediately clear that there is nothing unorthodox or doctrinally erroneous in what Vatican II is saying.

8. Conclusion

Vatican II described revelation as being conveyed through (Sacred) Tradition and Scripture. It also said that “the tradition which comes from the Apostles” continues to grow throughout time.

That comment is not a rejection of the doctrine that revelation was completed by the death of the last Apostle. This is because Vatican II was referring to two different types of tradition.

When it said that tradition continues to grow, it was referring to the “living tradition” which contains the original revelation of (Sacred) Tradition, as well as the Magisterial clarifications which have explained its meaning (such as the decrees of councils like Nicaea). The Council said that it (i.e., living tradition) comes from the Apostles, because living tradition has its origins and foundations in the (Sacred) Tradition which it reflects on, whenever the Magisterium acts to clarify its meaning. So, of course the Church’s living tradition grows throughout time. And it will continue to do so for as long as there is a changing world for which the Church must constantly interpret and clarify the meaning of revelation.

However, the fact that there is a “living tradition” (consisting of revelation + clarification), does not mean that it cannot also be the case, as Pius X said, that there is an immutable and unchangeable original revelation, which was completed by the death of the last Apostle.

Revelation … was not completed [completa] with the Apostles. (Lamentabili Sane 21)

The last Apostle to die was John the Apostle (or John the Evangelist). St. Irenaeus (d. 202) tells us that John was still alive until the reign of the emperor Trajan, who came to power in the year 98 (see Against Heresies 3, 3, 4). So, John’s death is usually assigned to a date around the year 100.

This means that the positive content of Pope Pius X’s teaching (above) is the claim that revelation was completely communicated to humanity by the death of the last Apostle, i.e., by around the year 100.

On the surface that seems to be a fairly clear and straightforward teaching. However, there are some complications…

1. Natural Manifesting

The first complication is the traditional idea that God is continually self-revealing through nature. As the Psalms put it:

The heavens declare the glory of God. (Psalm 19:2)

That text can be understood to mean that every time someone looks at the heavens, then they have a revelation of God. As people can look at the heavens in 2025, that challenges Pius X’s view that revelation was completed by the death of the last Apostle.

Or does it?

The Church has traditionally distinguished between Natural Revelation (also called General Revelation) and Supernatural Revelation (also called Special Revelation).

A natural revelation is the self-manifesting of God through nature, which was what the Psalms described (above). It is available to all people, and at all times, regardless of their religious or cultural backgrounds. However, it is a very general manifestation. It can be thought of as almost non-religious, in the sense that it does not convey information which is specific to a particular faith, such as Christianity.

The other type of revelation (Supernatural Revelation) is the revelation of the Gospel. It appeared in the historical words and actions of Jesus. It is that communication of the Gospel which Pope Pius X was referring to, when he said that revelation was completed by the death of the last Apostle.

2. Continuous Revelation

Another complication arises because many Christians believe that God continues to communicate and reveal information, long after the death of the last Apostle.

We can see instances of this in the lives of saints. For example, St. Augustine (d. 430) believed that God revealed information to him when he was told to “pick up and read” a book, which completely changed his life. St. Patrick (fifth century) believed God guided his footsteps, when he heard a voice saying: “Behold, your ship is ready!” And St. Francis of Assisi (d. 1226) believed that God communicated with him, when he heard a voice telling him to “repair my Church.”

There are also modern religious communities which are fully committed to the idea that God is continually revealing new ideas. Thus the Mormons believe in additional Scriptures, such as the Book of Mormon. And the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that God can give “new light” at any moment. Pentecostal and Charismatic communities also tend to believe that God can communicate prophecies to modern worshipers.

The idea that God continues to reveal specific information is sometimes called the doctrine of Continuous Revelation. Its existence seems to challenge the teaching of Pope Pius X that revelation was completed with the Apostles.

Or does it?

3. Informal Guidance

The Church has traditionally distinguished between two modes of revelation: Public Revelation and Private Revelation. The Catechism summarizes the differences as follows: Private revelation may be believed, and often is beneficial to believers; but unlike public revelation, private revelation does not require the assent of all the members of the Church, and it does not improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation (CCC 67).

This distinction states that the (historical) revelation of the Gospel is the public revelation. It is a guaranteed FORMAL communication from God which all Christians are therefore obliged to accept and respond to with religious Faith.

A private revelation is an INFORMAL guidance, communicating information which may (or may not) be from God. It is not a guaranteed form of communication, so it may also involve confusing obscurities which can mislead people. It typically needs to be interpreted very carefully. (See “Norms for Proceeding in the Discernment of Alleged Supernatural Phenomena”.) These factors mean that Christians are not obliged to accept or believe in any of the informal guidance which is typically called “private revelation.”

Referring to that kind of informal guidance as “private revelation” can be confusing. This is because a private revelation can occur (privately) to an individual, such as when St. Bernadette (d. 1879) said that she was told to dig to find a spring in the Marian apparitions at Lourdes. But “private revelations” can also involve groups and crowds, such as the 50,000 people who gathered in 1917 at the Fatima miracle of the sun.

This means that the fact that there are ongoing (informal) communications from God, does not conflict with Pius X’s teaching that (formal) revelation was completed by the death of the last Apostle. It just means that after the death of the last Apostle, all communications which are alleged to have come from God, are automatically to be considered as instances of informal guidance (i.e., as private revelation), rather than as revelation which must be responded to with Faith. (See “Has Revelation Ended or Does God Continue to Reveal Himself to Us?”)

4. Official Clarification

Another complication with Pius X’s teaching is that the Church has traditionally claimed that the Holy Spirit is at work in the Church, constantly revealing the meaning of Scripture to the Church. The ongoing work of the Holy Spirit means that the original revelation can always be interpreted and promulgated through the Church’s magisterium.

That view can be seen in these 1870 comments of Vatican I:

For the holy Spirit was promised… that… by his assistance… [the Church]… might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation… (Pastor Aeternus Chap. 4, 6)

The doctrine… which God has revealed… [has been]… committed to the… [Church]… to be… infallibly promulgated… (Dei Filius Chap. 4, 13-14)

The idea that the Holy Spirit is constantly helping the Church to understand revelation, by constantly clarifying its meaning, can be understood as a claim that there must be an ongoing divine revelation of clarification from the Holy Spirit. If so, then that would again challenge the teaching of Pius X that revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.

Or does it?

The Church has traditionally distinguished between revelation and clarification. Revelation consists of God’s providing of information (i.e., revealing the Gospel). The magisterium’s role of clarification is a divinely assisted interpretation of the original revelation. This means that clarification is not a form of revelation, as it is not providing new information.

The distinction between revelation and clarification is at the heart of the doctrine of the development of doctrine. That doctrine states that the content of revelation can be developed over time, through clarification. But, the meaning of the original revelation cannot ever be changed by the addition of new information, as there has been no new revelation which could provide that new information.

Understanding the role of the magisterium as clarification (and not revelation) also explains why the Church cannot oblige members to accept a private revelation, such as Fatima (see “Must Catholics Believe in Fatima?”). The Church could only know for sure that Fatima is a genuine revelation from God (and thus oblige people to accept it), if there were to be a new revelation from God telling the magisterium that it is indeed genuine. But the magisterium only receives clarification regarding the original revelation of the Gospel. So, all that the Church can do with private revelations is to assess them and say whether they are consistent with the original revelation of the Gospel, and thus whether they are believable (or not, as the case may be).

Understanding the role of the magisterium as clarification rather than as revelation, means that the activity of the magisterium does not conflict with the claim that revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.

5. The Revelation of Scripture

Another complexity with Pius X’s teaching arises from the dating of Scriptural documents. At the time that Pius X wrote (i.e., 1907), it was widely believed that all the documents of Scripture were written by the death of the last Apostle. But some Scripture scholars now believe that some New Testament documents (such as 2 Peter) may have been written at a later date. So, biblical scholarship now seems to conflict with the teaching of Pius X.

Or does it?

Besides the fact that biblical scholars are in disagreement about the dating of New Testament documents, there is the additional factor that the Church has never believed that Revelation is reducible to Scripture. So, issues about the date when Revelation was completed, cannot be reduced to issues about when Scripture was completed.

In the background of these issues is the separate question of whether the divine inspiration of Scripture is to be understood as (just) a revealing of information, or whether it could also be an assisted recalling of previously revealed information. If it is understood in the latter sense, then divinely inspiring a Scriptural text after the year 100 does not mean that the content of the text is itself being revealed after the year 100.

The implication of these issues is that the dating of Scriptural texts is not necessarily relevant to the dating of the original revelation itself, so the dating of a specific book of the New Testament has no implications for the teaching of Pius X.

6. The Revelation of Apostolic Tradition

However, if a distinction is to be made between the original revelation and its communication through a (later) Scripture, then this raises a question about how revelation was first communicated.

The Catechism clarifies that matter as follows:

The Gospel was handed on in two ways: orally “by the apostles…by the spoken word of their preaching, … [and] by the example they gave,” [And] in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing [as Scripture].” (CCC 76)

What this means is that there was an oral transmission of revelation, before it was communicated in Scripture. The Catechism calls that oral transmission a “Holy Tradition” (CCC 81), but it is also sometimes called “Apostolic Tradition.”

However, there is a complication, as the word “tradition” can refer to other communications of information, besides the communication of the original revelation. To clarify the point, the Catechism states:

The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit… Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions born in the local churches over time… In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned, under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium. (CCC 83)

In this paragraph the Catechism distinguishes between Tradition (with a capital “T”) which is communicating the divine revelation of the Gospel; and tradition (with a lowercase “t”) which is communicating human ideas and customs. It notes that the Church has authority to change tradition (i.e., to change human customs) but it has no authority to change Tradition (i.e., to change the content of revelation), as revelation comes from God, not from humans.

These issues can become confusing when there is discussion of ideas and practices which could be understood as either a Tradition or a tradition. For example, we know that the Church in the first century used to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays (see Didache, Chapter 8). That practice may well have originated in an instruction from an Apostle. But if so, then it is a tradition (not a Tradition), and so it has been changed over time.

Once we recognize that revelation can be conveyed through (Apostolic) Tradition, as well as through Scripture, then we can also see why Pius X would have said that revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. This is because once the last Apostle died, then there were no more Apostles who could provide input into the content of an (Apostolic) Tradition.

7. What the Catechism States

Pius X published his view of revelation in 1907. So, perhaps a question arises about the status of his view, and whether the Church still holds the position that revelation was completed by the death of the last Apostle.

The Catechism states:

The Christian economy… is the new and definitive Covenant,… no new public revelation is to be expected… Revelation is already complete [completa]… (CCC 66; Latin text)

God has revealed himself fully by sending his… Son… The Son is his Father’s definitive Word; so there will be no further Revelation after him. (CCC 73)

Jesus Christ… is the perfect and definitive Word of the Father. In the sending of the Son and the gift of the Spirit, Revelation is now fully complete. (Compendium of the Catechism 9)

These texts are unambiguous. They explicitly agree with Pope Pius X, that revelation has been completed.

However, they do not clarify a timescale, or a date by which revelation is supposed to have been completed.

Or do they…?

8. What Does ‘Completed’ Mean?

Although the Catechism is not explicit about when revelation was completed, it does make comments which have implicit implications.

To see those implications, we need only reflect on what the purpose of revelation is supposed to have been; as another way of saying that revelation has been completed, is to say that its purpose has been achieved.

The Catechism summarizes the purpose of revelation as:

[to] open up the way to heavenly salvation. (CCC 54)

If revelation exists for, and to the extent that, it enables people to achieve salvation, then revelation would have been completed (i.e., completely communicated to humans) by the point at which humans began to achieve salvation.

The Church has always taught that the earliest Christians in the first century were able to achieve salvation. That includes martyrs, whose heavenly intercession was requested, but it also includes the wider faithful who, as St. Paul put it, “have fallen asleep in Christ” (1 Corinthians 15:18).

If the faithful in the Apostolic era were able to achieve salvation, then they must have had access to the revelation which makes salvation possible. That means that revelation must indeed have been completed by the death of the last Apostle.

9. Conclusion

Pope Pius X taught that revelation (of the Gospel) was completed by the death of the last Apostle.

That teaching is consistent with wider teachings about the natural manifesting of God as General Revelation (see section 1) and the informal divine guidance of Continuous Revelation and Private Revelation (see sections 2-3). It is also consistent with an understanding of the role of the magisterium as clarification (section 4), and it is not dependent upon issues about the dating of Scripture (section 5) or the role of Apostolic Tradition as a communication of revelation (section 6).

The teaching of Pius X is also repeated in the modern Catechism, partially explicitly (section 7) and partially implicitly (section 8).

On the surface, this issue of the completeness of revelation can seem somewhat trivial and of marginal relevance for modern Christians. But it can have some serious theological implications.

Before we enquire about those specific implications, there is another problem which impinges upon these issues. That is the allegation that Vatican II has taken a different view and that it has denied the teaching of Pius X. That issue will be the focus of the follow-up piece: “Did Vatican II Reject the Completeness of Revelation? – Part II”

The most famous of Egyptian periods just happens to be the one that contains the Exodus, the 18^th dynasty. And the most famous religious artefact and depiction, from this the most famous of periods, is the Egyptian conceptualization of life and death, judgement and eschatology. What is known as “the weighing of the heart”.

The scenario is pretty straight forward: the deceased subject is led to a scale upon which the symbolic heart, one’s deeds, thoughts and intentions, are weighed against the equally symbolic weight of a feather. If the feather is outweighed by sins and deeds, then the further passage is shut; if they weigh less than the feather, the road continues towards the seated king, Osiris, and a latter, more private chamber. This is the general interpretation, that the scenario is an outlined eschatology for all individuals and, in simple terms, how the Egyptians looked at what happens after death. But what if there is more to this than meets the eye?

Let’s begin with a wild speculation but also, a somewhat informed one. Because if it now deals with death and resurrection, then what do we have in the Catholic faith that tells the same story? What if the scenario of the “weighing of the heart” is a reference to the cave and the crucifixion of Christ, his death and resurrection? What if the subject that is led through the obstacles and events is not just any individual, but a prophecy of Christ Jesus himself? Let’s take a look.

Begin from the top of the image, at what seems to be a row of people sitting in a rudimentary chronological order. Fourteen, to be precise, sitting in what seems as a descending or latter order towards one ancestral figure. A genealogical number not all too strange to a Christian narrative. As a matter of fact, the reference to fourteen generations is quite explicit and clear, as seen in the Genealogy of Jesus in Matthew: “Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah (Matthew 1:17).”

The predisposition of this genealogy, that it sits above the ceremonial scenario, might point to the fact that it claims the actual scenario itself: it is the premise of the whole thing, the ingress, if you will. In other words, if we are to look at the rest of the image, we might need to see it through the lens of genealogy. Furthermore, Osiris himself, just as Christ was the fourteenth generation, is said to have been separated into fourteen different dismembered pieces. Then before Isis, the Egyptian way of depicting Mary, manages to put him together again: before he after fourteen generations or “pieces” is incarnated in one piece or body again by his mother, Mary.

The fourteenth generational deceased is then led to a scale. Next to the scale stands Thot, also known as the “bull of the sky”. In Christian terminology, the scale is what symbolizes the Omega and the bull that oversees the scale would symbolize the Alfa: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” (Revelations 22:13). In the chart of Egyptian and subsequently Western astrology, the Omega represents the sign of libra, and the Alfa represents the sign of taurus. Which is relevant in terms of a birth chart. Even in the Tibetan version of The Book of the Dead, the Alfa or bull oversees the scales. Moving on.

By the scales we then have this strange little figure: a crocodile with weird, almost anthropomorphic features. But the latter is not due to simple artistic inability, no, it is actually supposed to be a crocodile-lion-hippo, hence its strange appearance. However, let’s not dwell too much on that. Here the crocodile is the only blatantly relevant aspect of the creature, then in the context of Jesus. This for the simple reason that the word for crocodile in ancient Egyptian mdw ntr is either mûs-hus or msch, a predecessor to the Hebrew word Mashiach, in its turn the ancestral form of the word Messiah. So, why this specific animal?

Well, at first glance, crocodiles seem to have this special quality to them: they are seemingly somewhat eternal. Crocodiles die because of starvation, injuries, lack of water or space. But left in the right conditions, theoretically, a crocodile has the biological potential to basically live forever. Which is of course not the case, eventually all crocodiles die, but as a biological creature in the flesh they come pretty close. They also embody a dual nature, as both protectors of the life-giving waters of the Nile, and as destroyers. So, what animal better to symbolize the eternal nature of Christ the Messiah, an eternal redeemer and warrior, than a crocodile? Making the colloquial image into an eternal symbol sitting next to a set of scales. Scales, which in Egyptian mythology, represented two truths expressed in one. Not unlike the two truths of the Son and the Father, or the two truths of both God and man coming together as one through the birth of Christ.

The subject of a sinless heart, someone without sin, then moves on towards the royal throne. There sits Osiris, right between Mary and Mary Magdalene, Isis and Nephthys, as the embodiment of libra or Omega, the end. Astrology then tells us that this is just that, Omega or libra, the O in the “Alfa and Omega”, seeing Osiris sits between the Virgin Mary, virgo, and the Mary Magdalene, scorpio. Just like libra in an astrological chart. Furthermore, he bears the epithet “King of the dead”, due to overcoming death. Not unlike Christ, with epithets like “firstborn from the dead”, “the son of the dead”, “The Resurrection and the Life”, “He who overcomes death” and so on: a royal epithet concerning death and resurrection. And when so, when deceased, resurrected and established as ruler – just as in the context of the biblical crucifixion and resurrection, he is again also joined by Mary and Mary Magdalene. Both who, in their turn, get their names from the Egyptian Maryamon, who later became Miriam and subsequently Mary.

In conclusion: the similarities do seem to accumulate, pointing towards a scenario and contextualization of the birth, death and Resurrection of Christ. At least if we allow ourselves to be a bit romantic. Ergo: could the imagery of “the weighing of the heart” represent the Egyptian way—within the narrative framework of their era—of depicting this emerging story? Could the scales, essentially a cross, have been their way of conceptualizing what the Christian tradition explicates as the Crucifixion? Seeing the latter is on the historical, not prophetically assuming, side of it? Was the Crucifixion the “weighing of the heart” for Christ Jesus Himself? To see if he, God, could keep his heart light as a feather, even in the obvious horror of his circumstances, and forgive humanity for all their sins.

In other words: did Christ Jesus come to pass the weighing of the heart for us all? And is the seated variation of him, the king, the Messiah fourteen generations after the exile or a more far reaching prophecy, a second coming?