What Does "Being in Babylon" Mean? Being Invisible Only Church? No.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Joe on Judas · A Protestant End Times Theologian (Good on End Times, at least moderately, Bad on Church History and Ecclesiology) · Great Bishop of Geneva! What Does "Being in Babylon" Mean? Being Invisible Only Church? No.

But that is unfortunately what this fan site for the Reformation (yes, they spell it with an R, I think a D is more appropriate), is telling their readers:

The Reformation Messenger January 2014
Does God have a Visible Church on This Earth?
https://www.imsmessenger.org/january-2014/does-god-have-a-visible-church-on-this-earth/

As far back as Martin Luther, Christians have recognized that God has an invisible church which consists of members from all Christian churches, because there are faithful members in all communions, including that of Rome. They have accepted Christ as their personal Saviour, and they are counted as His people. Therefore, in Revelation 18:4, in the time of the end, and this is that time, the call is made, “Come out of her (Babylon) My people.” Many of God’s people are still in Babylon; they belong to God’s invisible church. At the time of the “Loud Cry” of Revelation 18:4, they will come out and join God’s visible remnant church.

I suggest, this is wrong. In the end times, the visible Church is divided, one part is faithful to Apostolic Tradition, another part compromises with the Scarlet Beast and with a Babylonian counterfeit of the Church. But both parts are visible.

It's not the Remnant Church that is new. It is the part compromised in Babylon that is new.

And all this time, there is a visible Church, going back to the Apostles.

Luther is not unique or even very original in making a distinction between the visible Church, where some members are going to Hell, and an invisible ... to St. Augustine, it would be Platonic Archetype ... consisting of every soul that will be saved or already is finally saved.

What makes Luther special, however, and it may go back to Wycleff or Hus, is the idea that the invisible Church is sufficient to take care of the promise of indefectibility.

Here are two Biblical references to indefectibility, one from the OT, one from the NT:

The stream of the river maketh the city of God joyful: the most High hath sanctified his own tabernacle God is in the midst thereof, it shall not be moved: God will help it in the morning early
[Psalms 45:5-6]

Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world
[Matthew 28:19-20]

The first one promises indefectibility either of Israel or of a legitimate successor of Israel. We Catholics believe that to be the Church and that this is also promised in Matthew 28.

Both repeats of this promise are also tied to God claiming all power. (Matthew 28:18 as God in the flesh, and before that Psalm 45:11, before His incarnation).

Now, Luther admitted indefectibility, which Catholics were using to criticise his ecclesiology, and he responded by claiming it is the invisible Church that is indefectible.

There is some logic to this. The invisible Church is made up of only souls that go to Heaven, and therefore each soul is (ultimately) indefectible, and therefore their communion is indefectible. But there is a deep problem with this.

1. The promise itself involves a command of teaching all nations, and teaching authorities have to be visible;
2. This is even underlined elsewhere in the NT, namely for instance:
   
   

   You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house
   [Matthew 5:14-15]

The Church is visible, because the Church gives light to the world, and God is not putting that light under a bushel. We can imagine the Devil might want to put it under a bushel, but he is weaker than God.

And "a city seated on a mountain" also involves another cross-reference, namely to a Church built on a rock:

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven
[Matthew 16:18-19]

The visibility of the Church is therefore promised as "upon this rock I will build my church" in parallel with "a city seated on a mountain" and when it comes to a towing match between God and the Devil about putting the light under a bushel:

1. God does not intend to put it under a bushel (Matthew 5:15)
2. The Devil and all his counsels (the gates of a city being where the counsel thereof is taken) will not prevail to put it under a bushel (Matthew 16:18).

Meanwhile, next verse in Matthew 16 shows another reason why the Church has to be visible: it has offices and officers. You cannot obey the keeper of the keys if you cannot identify him by visibility. That's one reason Pope Michael II says against "Boniface IX" who is not openly acting as a papal claimant. That's one reason Pope Michael I back in his time had against the "Pope in Red" or "Siri was Pope" thesis, since Giuseppe Siri did not openly claim to be Pope (at least after the purported at first acceptance of papal office in the conclave).

Is this reason for a visible Church also parallelled by other loci? Yes.

And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
[Matthew 18:17]

As the context is about conflicts, this is not just the Church teaching, but also deciding, like an officer of some kind of justice or jurisdiction decides a case. So, it is a perfect parallel to Peter getting the keys. Indeed, in Catholic theology, this is a good case for when the "power of the keys" is used in the life of the Church.

The people who are told to get out of Babylon in Apocalypse 18 are already visibly Catholics. It is just that they have compromised their Catholicity in a sinful relation with the spiritual darkness of Babylon (Modernist Anglicanism comes to mind as a candidate) and a manipulative as well as sinful relation with The Scarlet Beast (Communism comes to mind as a candidate). Meanwhile, full Catholicity without such compromise is found the other side of a very recent split within Catholicism.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Decapitation of St. John
the Baptist
29.VIII.2024

Decollatio sancti Joannis Baptistae, quem Herodes circa festum Paschae decollari praecepit. Ipsius tamen memoria solemniter hac die colitur, qua venerandum ejus caput secundo inventum fuit; quod, postea Romam translatum, in Ecclesia sancti Silvestri, ad Campum Martium, summa populi devotione asservatur.

Who Was Berthier?

In the Haydock commet, on Psalm 13 (which some consider as 14), I encounter the words of one Berthier.

Who was he? I'll trust good old wiki on it:

Guillaume-François Berthier (7 April 1704 – 15 December 1782) was a Jesuit professor and writer, tutor of the French Dauphin's sons, and librarian of the court library.

Anything more in particular?

Berthier was one of the authors of the multi-volume Histoire de l'église Gallicane, which was started by Jacques Longueval. In 1745 he was appointed editor of the influential Jesuit periodical the Journal de Trévoux, holding the post until 1762 and doing much to expand the circulation. Because of his powerful opposition to the infidel "encyclopédistes" he was bitterly attacked, especially by Voltaire.

Hmm, no friend of Voltaire! Sounds good!

After his death several of his works were published by Father de Querbuef: (1) A translation of the Psalms with notes (8 vols.); this was often reprinted. (2) Five volumes on Isaiah. (3) Five volumes of "Réflexions Spiritualles."

Pretty obviously, this translation and especially notes are notes that were cited in the Haydock comment. So, let's get to it.

First, verse 1 of Psalm 13, not in Berthier's French, but in Douay / Rheims / Challoner's English:

1 Unto the end, a psalm for David.

The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God.

They are corrupt, and are become abominable in their ways: there is none that doth good, no not one.

Now, anyone who knows anything of Evangelical Protestantism is well aware what they will make of it, especially the last words. The T of the black Doordrecht TULIP. The first point of "five point Calvinism", Total corruption.

What does Berthier have to say?

St. Paul (Romans iii.) proves from this text, and Isaias lix. 7, that all stand in need of grace and faith, and cannot be saved either by the law of nature or of Moses. But it does not follow that faith alone will save, or that the most just are still wicked, as Calvin and Beza falsely expound the Scriptures. For the prophets speak of those who were not yet justified, teaching that all mankind were once in sin, and could not be justified but by Christ. At the same time, they assert that, when they are justified, they must serve justice to bear fruit, and obtain happiness, Romans vi. These points are well explained by St. Augustine: (de Sp. et lit. i. 9.) "The just are justified freely by his grace," not by the law or will; though this is not effected without the will, &c. The same holy doctor (c. 27) observes, that the just do not live free from all venial sins, and yet remain in the state of salvation; while the wicked continue in the state of damnation, though they do some good works. (Worthington)

So, the observation is about the state of the unredeemed, as the prior words give to understand, these ones: "The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God."

And on top of that, "does good" as denied does not mean "does some good," which they do, it means "does consistently, habitually, good" ...

Wait, the above quote was from Worthington. Now, the actual just adjacent quote from Berthier is this one:

Some explain this of mankind in general, as all are born in sin. David refers also to actual and habitual sinners. (Berthier)

So, Berthier agrees that it is not about man as justified. But prior to justification.

Who was Worthington? Probably one of two Thomas Worthington, namely either

Thomas Worthington, D.D. (1549 at Blainscough Hall, near Wigan, Lancashire - possibly 1627, at Biddulph Hall, Staffordshire) was an English Catholic priest and third President of Douai College.

or else

Thomas Worthington (1671−1754), was a Dominican friar and writer. He received his education in the college of the English Jesuits at St. Omer. In 1691, he entered the Dominican Order at the convent of Bornhem in Flanders, and in the following year he made his solemn confession as a member of the order. He was ordained priest at Rome in 1695, and went afterwards to the college of St. Thomas Aquinas at Louvain, where he became successively professor of philosophy, theology, and sacred scripture. ...

Either way, let's agree with Berthier and the Thomas Worthingtons, not with heretics like Calvin and Beza!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts Paul and Juliana,
brother and sister, martyrs
17.VIII.2024

Ptolemaide, in Palaestina, passio sanctorum Martyrum Pauli, ejusque sororis Julianae Virginis; qui ambo, sub Aureliano Imperatore, cum in Christi confessione permanerent immobiles, jussi sunt variis et dirissimis tormentis affligi ac tandem capite obtruncari.

Ptolemaide = in Acre. sub Aureliano Imperatore = under this guy