At the conclusion of his first letter, Peter says, “The chosen one [Peter] at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son” (1 Pet. 5:13). What place was meant by “Babylon“?
In a curious twist, a Catholic priest-professor at the University of Padua claims “Babylon” did not mean Rome, but referred to an actual city named Babylon–not the Babylon to which the ancient Jews were carried off, but to a small city of that name near Cairo. The twist is that the professor promotes this conclusion as a way of undercutting Protestant criticism of the papacy–yet, at the same time, it tends to bolster a common argument used by anti-Catholic commentators.
According to an article in the September issue of 30 Days, Giorgio Fedalto “happened to come across this little Egyptian city which, in terms of the importance of its bishopric, came immediately after the patriarchal see of Alexandria.” The placement of the city’s name high up in lists suggests that one of its bishops was an important figure in the early Church. Could that bishop have been Peter? Fedalto thinks so. He blames Eusebius, whose Ecclesiastical History appeared in 325, for (erroneously) concluding that “Babylon” meant Rome and that Peter was using the term to imply that the Rome of the first century was as corrupt as the old capital of the Babylonian Empire.
The twist in this interpretation is that Fedalto’s argument gives support to the Fundamentalist assertion that Peter never was in Rome at all.
One of the proofs traditionally deduced by Catholic apologists (including us) for his presence there (a minor proof, but a proof nonetheless) is that Peter, ensconced in Rome, was wanted by the Roman authorities and needed to disguise his whereabouts. In his private correspondence, which was easily intercepted by the authorities, he referred to his city of residence as “Babylon,” a code word for Rome. This way the government wouldn’t be as likely to search for him in Rome.
But Fedalto claims “Babylon” really meant the city Babylon, though not the city Fundamentalists claim it meant. They think it referred to the Babylon of the Chaldees; Fedalto says it referred to the small town of Babylon in Egypt. He is not denying that Peter eventually went to Rome and died there. He is just claiming that Peter’s letters (or at least his first one) were composed in Egypt.
Another twist: Fedalto is partial to his interpretation because it avoids Peter making an “anti-Roman” statement. Ancient Babylon, the one to which the Jews were carted off, was a place of debauchery. If Peter likened Rome to that Babylon, he was saying Rome was a place of debauchery, but this played into the hands of the Protestant Reformers, who, centuries later, asserted that the Rome of the popes was a place of debauchery. This refrain is repeated by some of today’s Protestants. We can undercut their position, implies Fedalto, if the “Babylon” Peter was referring to wasn’t Rome at all.
But this is a double-edge sword. Fedalto’s position minimizes, however slightly, justification for the Reformation based on debaucheries in papal Rome, but it also tends to minimize the case for Peter being in Rome at all. Of course, if Fedalto’s interpretation is correct, so be it. The fact of Peter’s presence in Rome is not actually lessened by the removal of one argument for that presence.
But is Fedalto correct? We don’t think so. Here’s why.
His theory rests on “Babylon” first being used to mean Rome by Eusebius, who writes, “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon” (Ecclesiastical History, 2:15:4). Eusebius seems to say it was either from Clement of Alexandria‘s book Sketches, written around the year 200, or possibly from Papias, who lived around 130, that he got his information on the use of the word “Babylon.”
If so, then it couldn’t have been the case, as Fedalto says, that Eusebius, who was a partisan of Constantinople (being, as he was, in service to the Emperor Constantine), merely said out of dislike of the old capital that “Babylon” referred to Rome. Clement and Papias would have had no preference for Constantinople since that city, in their day known as Byzantium, was insignificant and had no imperial importance–and would not until Eusebius’s own time, when Constantine moved the Empire’s capital there and renamed the city after himself.
But there’s another reason not to give much credence to Fedalto’s theory: the Bible. The book of Revelation uses “Babylon” to refer to Rome six times. Ditto for the first-century apocryphal books known as 4 Ezra (3:1) and the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1). Even the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f.), which were written in Greek from the second century B.C. through the second century A.D., use the terminology.
The result: Eusebius must have been right, Fedalto wrong. Yes, there may well have been a town called Babylon not far from Cairo, but there is no good reason to think this is where Peter wrote from. Fedalto’s theory does not stand up to the ancient usage of “Babylon” for Rome, a usage already old by Eusebius’s time. Anti-Catholics may poke around and stumble across Fedalto’s argument. If they do they will try to use it to their advantage. But they, like he, will be wrong.
You’ve seen the anti-Catholic tracts which list “Catholic inventions.” After each “invented” doctrine or practice is the year in which it supposedly arose. Loraine Boettner’s Roman Catholicismincludes such a list. Among the “inventions” are:
Sign of the cross, A.D. 300
Priestly vestments, 500
Extreme Unction, 526
Latin used in Mass, 600
Worship [sic] of images, 786
Priestly celibacy, 1079
Transubstantiation, 1215
Confession to a priest, 1215
Apocrypha added to Bible, 1546
These claims are refuted in Catholicism and Fundamentalism, and they are refuted in two senses: First, in the cases in which the act really happened (such as Latin first being used at Mass), the dates are wrong–much too late; second, in the cases in which the act never happened (such as the institution of image-worship), the date may be right, but it refers to something other than the supposed activity.
Lists such as this are always a nuisance. After all, it’s easier to spread lies than truth, and, to answer a lie that occupies a single line in a book, you might need a full page. Dealing with lists of “Catholic inventions” is labor-intensive.
After a while you being to wonder whether the best approach is to take a cue from the opposition. If anti-Catholics say the Catholic Church has invented things, well, why not issue a list of things the Church indeed has “invented”–a list with accurate dates, of course.
So, for your edification we offer you this short list of “Real Catholic Inventions.” (Depending on one’s school of thought with respect to the year of the Crucifixion, the following dates may be too high by three years. Adjust accordingly.)
Resurrection of the dead, A.D. 33
Ascension, 33
Descent of the Holy Spirit, 33
Baptismal regeneration, 33
Confession, 33
Eucharist and the Mass, 33
Confirmation, 33
Matrimony, 33
Orders, 33
Anointing of the sick, 33
Veneration of saints, 33
Papacy, 33
Apostolic succession, 33
Purgatory, 33
Title of “Father” for priests, 33
Informed sources report that Alberto Rivera, whose story is chronicled in the comic books published by Chick Publications, privately denies, in contradiction to the comic books, that he ever was a Jesuit or a bishop. Sources say he now claims to be the offspring of an illicit union between Enrico Caruso and Madame Bovary. For some months rumors have been circulating that Rivera is contemplating closing his Antichrist Information Center and moving to West Hollywood, where he will open a frozen yogurt store. “I attribute my past indiscretions to overdosing on sugar,” he has confided to intimates. “I plan to do penance by promoting good health.”
The Midnight Call is a flashy, four-color magazine published from West Columbia, South Carolina. It is available in seven languages and claims its mission is “proclaiming the whole Bible as the unfailing and eternal written Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit.”
In a column written from New Zealand, writer G. L. Hart asks, “What Does Reunion with Rome Mean?” His answer: disaster. If Protestants unite with Rome, he says, this is what will occur:
“1. The Pope will replace Christ as head of the Church.
“2. Roman dogma will replace the Bible as the standard of belief.
“3. Roman canon law (there are 2,414 canons altogether [wrong: there are 1,752]) will replace the Bible as the standard of conduct and they will be rigidly enforced.
“4. Ministers of the gospel will become sacrificing priests.
“5. The observance of the Last Supper will be abolished and replaced by the sacrifice of the Mass–in direct contradiction to God’s Word which teaches that Christ made a complete sacrifice for our sins.
“6. The preaching of salvation by the grace of God, received through faith, will be forbidden and replaced by instruction in salvation through the rites and ceremonies conducted by the priests.
“7. The declaration of the forgiveness of sins to all those who confess to Christ, truly repent, and believe the gospel, will be declared heretical, and confession to a priest will be compulsory.
“8. Direct access to Christ will be discouraged. Mary, the saints, and the priests will virtually replace Christ as the only mediator between man and God.
“9. Belief in the dogma of transubstantiation–that a priest has the power to summon Christ down to a Roman altar, localize him in a wafer of bread, offer that wafer to God as a sacrifice for sins, and hold it aloft to be worshiped–will be imposed on all Christians.
“10. Reunion with Rome will mean the end of Christian liberty as it has grown since the Reformation. The individual will be subject to the authority of the priest; so will the congregation. The priest in turn will be subject to a bishop who will be subject to the Pope.”
The editor of Midnight Call adds that any unity with Rome will be “the false unity of the spirit of Antichrist.”
The funny thing is that Hart’s list is partly correct. Any reunion with Rome would be voluntary–you can’t force anyone to believe, and reunion implies a voluntary but real submission to newly-perceived truth and righteous authority.
You may want something more substantial than Midnight Call. If so, turn to Satan’s Final Trap for the Church, a new book by G. Drummond Hamilton. The flashy cover features a portrait of John Paul II and, under it, an unattributed quotation, made to look as though it came from the Pope: “The success of the ecumenical movement will mean death to religious freedom and the end of real Christianity.” Gosh, is that what he’s after?
Hamilton thinks so. He isn’t modest about his authority to write: “Having been led by the Holy Spirit, I have spent five years researching and compiling information to make this book available to the ‘Bible Believing’ people of God.” (Five years seems to us like a long time for someone being guided by the Holy Spirit to take to produce a thin book, but what do we know about the finer points of inspiration?)
The flyer touting the book explains that Hamilton “reveals and exposes the international secret plot by the Roman Catholic Church to destroy the Christian Church as we know it! This book proves that the Roman Catholic church is not a Christian institution, but a counterfeit, idolatrous, and pagan religion! …The author proves that the Roman Catholic Priests practice witchcraft(transubstantiation) when they administer their sacrament of the Holy Eucharist (Communion). The Holy Communion in the Protestant Church is not the same as that in the Catholic Church!” Indeed it’s not.
We’re intrigued by the revelation that priests practice witchcraft. We thought only Starhawk and her friends did that. Do you think Hamilton will be taken to task by witches who are insulted at being told that priests are taking over their territory?
Ah, another contact for us in Denver in anticipation of John Paul II‘s visit! Another person to help us explain the faith to all the young people who will gather for the World Youth Day 1993. Another–
Wait a minute! This isn’t someone on our side. It’s none other than Kathleen R. Hayes, editor of The NRI Trumpet, published by the National Research Institute. She writes against the Church but has the courtesy not to claim the Pope is the Antichrist. He’s only a false prophet. The Antichrist is Spain’s King Juan Carlos I. (Watching the Olympics, we suspected something was strange about that guy. He smiled broadly only when the Spanish athletes won. And you know Spain’s history in the New World. . . .)
So it looks at this early date that at least three anti-Catholic groups will focus on Denver next August: Hayes’ NRI, Bill Jackson‘s Christians Evangelizing Catholics, and James White‘s Alpha and Omega Ministries. Day by day our plan to have a large contingent of Catholic apologists and evangelists seems better and better. Speaking of evangelists…
“Hello, we’re from St. Leo Catholic Church. We’re going through the neighborhood talking about the Catholic faith.” This is how 90 evangelists greeted residents of Fairfax, Virginia this summer as they took part in the Youth Evangelization Project.
“This kind of work seems to energize young people,” said Mary Sue Laing, vice president of St. Leo’s Legion of Mary chapter. Nearly 3,000 homes were visited during a campaign lasting nine days. Many evangelists were teens.
How successful was the work? More than 300 homes (one in ten) agreed to a follow-up visit, and many inactive Catholics expressed interest in coming back to the Church and having their children receive the sacraments.
Laing credits the success to the evangelists’ tactics. “We go as inferiors approaching superiors,” she said, “no matter what their spiritual state.” This disarms people and makes them open to the message.
In the September issue of The New Oxford Review John Warwick Mont-gomery, an Evangelical leader, writes about “The Strange Decline of American Evangelicalism.” He notes that Christianity Today, founded by Billy Graham and edited at first by Carl F. H. Henry, originally was published out of Washington, D.C., the better to influence American policy.
Then the magazine was moved to Wheaton, Illinois, “Evangelicalism’s capital city.” At that point “Henry left in disgust.” The new editor was Harold Lindsell, whose own successor, in an effort to boost circulation, “turned the magazine over to breezy journalists….What had been a journal of ideas soon descended to the level of a slick, Evangelically-oriented family magazine….Once upon a time CT made news by impacting the world of ideas; today, at best, it merely reports news.”
The same kind of thing happened with Evangelical publishers, says Montgomery. When Hal Lindsey‘s Late, Great Planet Earth became a best seller, “Evangelical publishers realized the possibility of mass sales of popular titles. The result has been to turn the annual Christian Booksellers Convention trade fair into a cheap carnival of trivia and the average local Christian bookshop into a place to purchase audio cassettes of Evangelical country and western music and pencils inscribed with Bible verses….[One publisher] prides itself on having sold 970,000 copies of Free To Be Thin, an Evangelical weight- loss program.”
Have we come to Evangelicalism Lite? Apparently so, says Mont- gomery, citing the intellectual decline in Evangelical seminaries, “Evan-gelicalism’s deep-seated anti-intellectualism,” “Evangelicalism’s confused social behavior” (“in reality the Evangelical is not biblical enough”), “Evangelicalism’s overstress on inner experience,” and “Evangelicalism’s poor priorities.” He points to the “pharisaic amoralism” which comes “when sanctification is separated from justification.”
The solution? Montgomery recommends that Evangelicals go back to their roots in the Reformation “for the doctrine of justification” and to “the early church for the objectivity of the creeds and the holiness of classical worship.”
We can’t recommend the latter. Any Evangelical going to the creeds and early liturgy, in all likelihood, will end up seeing those same creeds and same liturgy in today’s Catholic Church–and you know what that might suggest to him.