George of ConvertJournal.Com wrote a piece on the myth of the Whore of Babylon. It’s a good piece but I have to respectfully disagree on certain points.
[+] The Bible does not come from the Catholic Church. Its original language is not Latin — the “Old Testament” was written in Hebrew and translated to Greek during the period between the testaments in a form known as the Septuagint (for the 72 scholars doing the translation). The “New Testament” was originally written in Koine Greek, the dialect of Greek leftover from the Greek occupation of Palestine at the time of Alexander the Great. It would be more proper to say that the Bible came from the church catholic or the universal church because East and West were unified at the time of the decisions being made on the canon of Scripture. St. Jerome’s Vulgate wasn’t commissioned until the late 4th century and isn’t completely his own translation — it’s more his editing. (Source: Wikipedia) The Eastern Church never used the Latin version.
=Church History Interlude=
The Roman Empire was split in half around the time of Christ with a ruling party in the East at Constantinople (formerly Adrianople) and a ruling party in the West at Rome. (One of Justinian’s aims was unifying the empire again during his rule in Constantinople.) The fall of the Roman Empire in 475 was the fall of the Western Empire. The East didn’t fall until 1000 years later. The Pope was also not the sole bishop of the Church — he’s the bishop of Rome. There were also bishops at Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople. The BIG schism in 1054 happened over the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed which is the part where the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son”. Frederica Mathewes-Green explains it well in Facing East when she explains that it was originally a triangle with the Father at the top and Son and Holy Spirit as the bottom points. The filioque clause put the Father and Son on equal footing and the Spirit at the bottom, effectively turning the triangle on its side or upside down.
[+] Luther’s writing, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, has nothing to do with the idea of the Roman Catholic Church as the “whore of Babylon”. The premise of The Babylonian Captivity of the Church is that the Church was holding the wine element of the Eucharist captive in the same way that the Babylonians held the Jews captive. At the time, there wasn’t good catechisis on the elements of the Eucharist and the Host was considered to be magical with people rushing in to see the Elevation of it. The wine was rarely if ever given to the laity. Luther’s issue was with that. Improved catechesis after the Council of Trent remedied that issue.
[+] George erroneously argues that Luther was the first to shatter Christian unity. In actuality, the true shattering of Christian unity was the Great Schism in 1054 in which both East and West excommunicated each other. Luther was also not completely the first to disagree with the Church. Some of his teachings were similar to Jan Hus who was raising issues in the eastern part of the Holy Roman Empire.
The argument I have with George is that Luther was a man of his time and he saw some grave injustices being committed by the Roman Catholic Church. (I am being very intentional about using “Roman Catholic Church” because “catholic” by itself means “universal”. Churches that alter the Nicene Creed to read “one holy Christian and apostolic Church” incur my ire for that reason.) His first opus, The 95 Theses, were written in Latin and intended for dialogue. Unfortunately for Luther, the printing press was the new and cool invention and they were circulated and translated far more than he intended. They addressed the sale of indulgences by the Roman Catholic Church to pay for the construction of St. Peter’s Basilica. Fear tactics were being used to sell them, in the case of Luther’s district by a shifty monk named Johann Tetzel, and they argue that if the Pope could remit the sins of all in a plenary indulgence if he so chose. Other arguments followed about things like the withholding of sacraments and matters of erroneous theology. He escaped death because his patron Frederick of Saxony hid him in the Wartburg.
Most, if not all, of Luther’s complaints and issues were addressed and remedied at either the Council of Trent or the Second Vatican Council. However, distance has grown between the Roman Catholic Church and many of the Protestant denominations so that unity is probably not going to happen. One of my big pet peeves as a church historian is that many Protestant denominations are ignorant of their roots and do perpetuate the myth of the Roman Catholic Church as the “whore of Babylon”. The ELCA and AALC do not teach this. Other more conservative Lutheran sects do and I find that to be a pity. (One of my big gripes is that many Lutherans seem to think that the Lutheran Church “magically” descended from Heaven in 1517, completely ignoring the fact that, DUDE, we have a shared history with the Roman Catholic Church.)
Rome is perhaps the city of seven hills mentioned in the Book of Revelation but to say the Roman Catholic Church is “the whore of Babylon” is false teaching. It fits the time of Luther, however, because he and his compatriots thought they were living in the End Times as the Turks were coming ever closer to parts of the Holy Roman Empire. (Read Luther’s commentaries on the Book of Ezekiel for more on this.)
George further cites the axing of the Apocrypha from the canon of Scripture as well as Revelation (though he forgets to mention James). I do take issue with that as the books in the Apocrypha give us the history of the time “between the Testaments”. They do not, however, allude to the coming of Christ which is why they got the ax. The Epistle of James fails to mention Jesus which is why it was almost axed. The Book of Revelation was suspect but kept in the canon. In more recent times, readings from the Apocrypha are creeping into the lectionary in churches that follow the Revised Common Lectionary (the Roman Catholic Church and the mainline Protestant churches).
I agree with George wholeheartedly that it is false to teach that the church in Rome is “the whore of Babylon” but I cannot agree with where he is finding the assertion.
This is such an interesting post. I’ve never heard the history of Luther spelled out this way, not that I’ve gone looking much; I figured that no matter whose version I read, it would be skewed one way or another. And although we tend to think of ourselves as being THE church that stretches all the way back, you’re right about the canon being established before East and West split. Thanks for the post.
I’m glad for your conclusion (that the Church in communion with the pope is not the whore of Babylon), however, I have a few notes of varying importance. Sorry for the length.
“The Bible does not come from the Catholic Church. Its original language is not Latin ?? the ??Old Testament?? was written in Hebrew and translated to Greek during the period between the testaments in a form known as the Septuagint (for the 72 scholars doing the translation).”
First, I don’t think he claimed that the Bible did come from the Catholic Church. Rather, the canon of the Bible is what comes from the Tradition of the Church. Interesting aside, the Eastern churches use the same canon as the Catholic Church, but with a couple additional books. The Septuagint Bible actually included the deuterocannonical (“apocryphal”) books, which were originally written in Greek. Eastern, Catholic ,and Protestant Bibles do not differ in the New Testament canon, save that some (I don’t think it’s many) Protestants will dispute the inspiration of James, Hebrews, and Revelation, in following Luther’s lead. It’s worth noting that a number of good first and early-second Christian writings are excluded from this canon: Epistles from Clement and Ignatius martyr, the Didache, etc. I mention this because I have a Protestant friend who has concluded that it is the duty of every Protestant to try and figure out the canon of the Bible for himself: though this kind of defeats the purpose of Sola Scriptura when you get to pick what counts as Scripture.
“The Roman Empire was split in half around the time of Christ with a ruling party in the East at Constantinople (formerly Adrianople) and a ruling party in the West at Rome. (One of Justinian??s aims was unifying the empire again during his rule in Constantinople.) ”
You are referring to Justinian I? The emperor of the late 5th century? The Empire’s history is a bit more varied than just being split. I think the original division which you are referring to occurred in the late third century: after the “Crisis of the Third Century” (25 emperors in 60 years), Diocletian split the ruling position into a Tetrarchy of 4 co-emperors, two East and Two West–a “senior” Augustus and a “junior” Ceaser. These Tetrarchs had one capital each–and oddly enough neither Rome nor Byzantium (the later Constaninople) was one of them. Constantine ended the Tertarchy when he became the sole emperor in the fourth century (it’s more complicated than that, btw). The empire was then split between his three sons, though two died and so Constantius II also ruled the whole empire. Theodosius I (died 395 AD) was the last of the emperors to rule over a “united” Roman empire. The Western Empire eventually fell to Barbarians (Rome was sacked in the early 5th century, the occasion of which sparked St Augustine to write his “City of God”), which were eventually Christianized (Aleric of the Visigoths was actually an Arian at the time that he sacked Rome). The Eastern empire (including the provinces in North Africa) first rapidly by barbarians and Caliphates in the 7th and 8th centuries, which remained thoroughly Mohammedan; and ultimately Constantinople fell to the marauding Islamic hordes in the 16th century.
“George erroneously argues that Luther was the first to shatter Christian unity. In actuality, the true shattering of Christian unity was the Great Schism in 1054 in which both East and West excommunicated each other. Luther was also not completely the first to disagree with the Church. Some of his teachings were similar to Jan Hus who was raising issues in the eastern part of the Holy Roman Empire.”
Actually, the shattering of Christian unity is much older than the schism of 1054. If we exclude the heresy of Arianism–not sure if this could at some point be counted as a schism or not, because I don’t think that there was ever an actual break in the Church, but it was most certainly a heresy–there were nonetheless at least two schisms prior to 1054 which continue today. These are the “Oriental Orthodox” (Monophysites, “non-Chalcedonian/Pre-Chalcedonian” because they broke with the church in rejecting the council of Chalcedon, c. 451) and the “Assyrian Orthodox” (Nestorians or “Non-Ephesian/Pre-Ephesian Orthodox,” reject the council of Ephesus, c. 431).
On the Deuterocanonicals,
Does this not refer to Christ?
On who wrote the Bible books: I think the confusion stems from the view of what exactly is the Church that Jesus formed. Catholics believe there is only one and that other Christian communities (e.g. Protestantism) remain part of that, although not in full communion. The name “Catholic” (meaning “universal”) itself became necessary in the early Church (c 100) to differentiate the true Church from various heresies that appeared.
On the canonization of the Bible: Pope Damasus I in the Decree of Damasus officially set the 46 Old Testament and 27 New Testament books in 382 and commissioned St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate c. 383. Of course the books were not written originally in Latin, but a common reference Bible was necessary and the Catholic Church has never changed from the Vulgate. The Bible was confirmed in 393 at the Council of Hippo and the 419 Council of Carthage.
On Church history: Pope is indeed the title given to the bishop of Rome, but not merely another bishop as St. Peter was not just another Apostle. The Pope is the successor of Peter. The Great Schism of 1054 is unfortunate and more complex than the filioque and papal primacy. Catholicism and Orthodoxy remain theologically close with differences that may be viewed as hair-splitting by those outside of these camps. Catholics and Orthodox both have valid apostolic succession, the same Bible, male Holy Orders, real presence in the Eucharist, distribution of the Eucharist only to those in communion (i.e. “closed table), ever virgin Mary the Mother of God, the existence of purgatory, acceptance of the 7 sacraments and the conveyance of grace through them, veneration of Saints, the process of salvation, Sacred Tradition (i.e. not sola scriptura), the Mass / Divine Liturgy (vs. a “worship service”).
On Babylonian Captivity of the Church / “whore of Babylon”: sources include Wikipedia article, another Wikipedia article, this article, onpedia and this paper among others.
On shattering Christian unity: the Great Schism is more of a crack in Christian unity. Catholicism and Orthodoxy while not in full communion, are very close (see above). The gap between Catholicism/Orthodoxy and Protestantism is huge and apparently growing larger. This break is the legacy of Luther.
On the Church in Luther’s time: I can not disagree with you here. It was a mess then and at other times too. The discipline (distinct from dogma and other doctrine) is not infallible, can change and can be corrupted. We are human and sinners, after all. Luther had a valid beef. My issue is how he dealt with it and the significant theological changes he made on his own accord. Others have had issues with the Church too, but instead chose to obediently work through them making the Church better as a result.
I like the title of this piece (“A Man Seeking Justice”) and think that is what Luther intended when he nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. That probably wasn’t the best way to go about it (via public scandal), but I think his initial motives were pure. Unfortunately it spiraled into much more resulting in the split we have today.