Justin Martyr on Christian worship - (the earliest record of Christian worship)

http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/justinlit.html ^ | Justin Martyr

[NYer]

Look and sound familiar :-)?

[Uncle Chip]

In your search through Justin Martyr's writings, did you find any statement of his that indicates that the apostle Peter was ever in Rome? How come he spends so much of his papyrus and ink writing about Simon Magus's 25 year episcopacy there in Rome and nothing about Peter?

[NYer]

Good morning, Uncle, and thank you for dropping by this thread. The early Christian liturgy follows the teachings of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. How close does your worship service approach it?

In your search through Justin Martyr's writings, did you find any statement of his that indicates that the apostle Peter was ever in Rome?

Your question has no bearing on this topic. But since you raised it, other church Fathers have written about Peter in Rome.

DIONYSIUS

"You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Epistle to Pope Soter of Rome [A.D. 166], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).

---

IRENAEUS

"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).

Then, too, so do ...

---

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

"The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed" (Sketches [A.D. 190], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6:14:1).

---

GAIUS

"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:5).

---

TERTULLIAN

"But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood, where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]" (De Prescriptione 36 [A.D. 200]).

[Uncle Chip]

Your question has no bearing on this topic. But since you raised it, other church Fathers have written about Peter in Rome.

My apologies. I saw Justin Martyr's name in the title and thought this was about him and/or his writings. I was just curious as to how he explained the transubstantiation of the Eucharist there in Rome without reference to Peter, the keys, the 25 year episcopacy, the priesthood, etc.

In reading through the Scriptures, I find that the original Lord's Supper and subsequent communion gatherings of the church were more like pot lucks than what later became the Mass. The people ate supper together and then afterwards ate and drank the consecrated bread and wine. In Justin Martur's day in Rome, were they still more like pot lucks, I wonder?.

[Salvation]

St. Justin Martyr (A.D. 110 - 165) [Read only]

St. Justin Martyr

Orthodox Feast of Martyr Justin the Philosopher and those with him at Rome

Justin Martyr on Christian worship - (the earliest record of Christian worship)

[AliVeritas]

Go recheck Paul on those who take the body and blood unworthily.

[narses]

Uncle Chip asks:

In your search through Justin Martyr's writings, did you find any statement of his that indicates that the apostle Peter was ever in Rome? How come he spends so much of his papyrus and ink writing about Simon Magus's 25 year episcopacy there in Rome and nothing about Peter?

Any answers for our friend Uncle Chip?

[NYer]

I was just curious as to how he explained the transubstantiation of the Eucharist there in Rome without reference to Peter, the keys, the 25 year episcopacy, the priesthood,

St. Justin Martyr is one of several Church Fathers. It is difficult not to identify his testimony with an early version of the Catholic Mass, the president or presider being a priest [presbyteros being the Greek root for our English word priest] as he speaks of the Eucharist about 155 A.D.:

For we do not receive these as common bread and common drink; but just as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have learned that the food over which thanks has been given by the prayer of the word which comes from him, [see 1 Cor 11: 23-26; Lk 22; 19] and by which are blood and flesh are nourished through a change, is the Flesh and Blood of the same incarnate Jesus.

Other Church Fathers also speak of the Eucharist. For example, St. Ignatius of Antioch may be considered an apostolic Father in the sense that he heard the Apostle John preach. About 110 A.D. he was sentenced to a martyr's death in the arena by the Emperor Trajan, who also put Pope Clement to death. On the almost 1000 mile journey to Rome from Antioch, Syria, the third largest city of the Empire, Ignatius wrote seven letters, which are his only surviving letters. They are addressed to Christian communities he presided over as bishop. He speaks of the Eucharistic mystery in mystical terms saying, "Therefore arm yourselves with gentleness, renew yourselves in faith, which is the Flesh of the Lord, and in charity, which is the Blood of Jesus Christ." His most famous passage says:

I am God’s grain, and I am being ground by the teeth of wild beasts in order that I may be found [to be] pure bread for Christ. My love has been crucified, and there is in me no fire of material love, but rather a living water, speaking in me and saying within me, ‘Come to the Father.’ I take no pleasure in corruptible food or in the delights of this life. I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who is the seed of David; and for drink I want his Blood which is incorruptible love.

Like St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 10: 17, he saw the Eucharistic Body of our Lord as the unifying force in the Church. He wrote the Philadelphians:

Be careful to observe [only] one Eucharist; for there is only one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup of union with his Blood, one altar of sacrifice, as [there is] one bishop with the presbyters and my fellow-servants the deacons.

You still have not answered my question.

[markomalley]

It's not in the Bible. History stopped when the last book was written.

You forgot ;)

/sarc

[bornacatholic]

It doesn't.

protestant services are man made and they were created to supplant the Sacrifice of the Mass. Sadly, protestants do not have a Sacrificial Worship. It is, IOW, worship unacceptable to God.

Worship acceptable to God is the Worship Jesus Himself Commanded. His Last Supper/First Mass is the Pluperfect Sacrifice of the New Covenant and it is the Heavenly Banquet of the New Covenant

the 16th century revolutionaries rejected the Sacrifice of the Mass and substituted songs and sermons in its place.

Malchias 1 prophesied a perfect Sacrifice and Oblation - the prot revolutionaries falsified Holy Writ, excised Sacrifice and Oblation and substituted words congruent with their non-sacrificial ideology - and Jesus Commanded that Sacrificial Worship via the Eucharist continue until the end of time.

the prot revolutionaries thought Jesus was wrong in Commanding us to Worship God as He Commanded. He had to decrease. They had to increase

A the Lasst Supper, and in the Mass/Divine Liturgy, Jesus, as both priest and victim, offers Himself to God as an act of propitiation and we Redeemed Christians, gathered at the altar with the Ordained Priest, offer our lives - works, joys, sufferings etc - and our Sacrifice, matched with Jesus' PluPerfect Sacrifice is thereby made acceptable to God and innumerable Angels, gathered about the altar, take our Sacrifice to the Altar in Heaven.

meanwhile, on the other side of town...songs and a sermon

[siunevada]

the original Lord's Supper and subsequent communion gatherings of the church were more like pot lucks than what later became the Mass.

The Last Supper was a Passover meal, wasn't it? Not exactly 'bring whatever you feel like making'. More like a liturgical function with some pretty specific instructions by the Lord. (Eat the lamb.)

As to why what we have of Justin's writings don't deal with all the subjects we might be intereseted in? I guess we could speculate that not every single thing he wrote has been preserved, or he didn't feel the need to write about those subjects.

He's an interesting guy. His conversion story is interesting. And I think he's the earliest of the Church Fathers that is not a member of the clergy.

[Uncle Chip]

The early Christian liturgy follows the teachings of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. How close does your worship service approach it?

Do a study sometime of the difference between the Last Supper and the Catholic Mass, and then a between the Communion feasts of the early church and the Catholic Mass, and then ask yourself who is really doing "this", you know, the "this" that Jesus asked them to do.

To answer your question: As close to "this" as possible.

[bornacatholic]

Hey, UC, you sound like you might have formerly been a Catholic. Were you once a member of the Catholic Church ?

From the Last Supper/First Mass to the Mass I went to this morning it has all been the same Sacrifice.

Jesu sas both Priest and Victim offering Himself to God as an act of propitiation on our behalf.

When the Bible speaks about "breaking bread" that is the Mass.

The Didache teaches the same thing. Christian gathering on Sunday to offer the Sacrifice

Other than Scripture/Tradition/Church and MORE THAN TWENTY ONE UNINTERRUPTED CENTURIES OF ORTHOPRAXIS, we really don't have any evidence, I guess :)

[Titanites]

Do a study sometime of the difference between the Last Supper and the Catholic Mass, and then a between the Communion feasts of the early church and the Catholic Mass, and then ask yourself who is really doing "this", you know, the "this" that Jesus asked them to do.

Would you care to summarize for us the study you did?

[RobbyS]

Most Protestants follow Geneva in dividing the Liturgy into two parts and their service consist of reading the Scripture, exhortation and song. More like a synagogue service, by the way, than the mass. Seldom do they commemorate the Lord's Supper. What in the New Testament leads you to believe that this is how the early Christians worshiped? Justin describes it as a regular part of worship.

[Running On Empty]

The Mass is well framed in the last chapter of Luke:

"their hearts were burning in their breasts as He explained Scripture to them"....and they asked Him to "remain with them" and He answered their request and ... "they recognized Him in the breaking of the bread."

The two parts of the Mass are the reading and explanation of the Scriptures (the Old Testament and/or the Epistles, the Psalms, and the Gospel), followed by words of Consecration and the Breaking of the Bread.

We recognize Him in the "breaking of the Bread" and the reception of his Body, Blood , Soul and Divinty in the Eucharist. In this way, by Word and Sacrament, He fulfills our desire for Him to "remain with us."

And up to this day, He does so, at all hours around all the world.

[bornacatholic]

Amen, brother.

The 16th century LUZR's, (Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, and other Revolutionaries), dethroned Jesus and chased Him out of the Sanctuary.

Now, I have nothing against the progeny of the protestant progenitors. They are doing their level best to study Scripture and attend Sunday services and they try and follow Jesus.

However, not one in one million know the truth about the 16th century LUZR's.

Malachias 1 prophesies ...

For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.

*But, the protestant revolutionaries falsified Scripture substituting incense for Sacrifice and pure offereing for oblation (and also heathen for gentile)

*It is clear they absolutely had no love for Scripture when it came to a Prophesy their ideology rejected. They simply falsified Scripture to cement their revolution which abandoned the Commands of Jesus vis a vis Worship.. Now, is there one in one hundred million well-intended protestant who knows this? NO. We must preach it to them.

We must preach this truth to them because they have been denied their birthright as Baptised Christians. As Baptised Christians, they ARE related,imperfectly, to the Church.

However, their worship is sans Sacrifice.

For Catholic and Orthodox, our Churches are permeated with the Odor of Sanctity because ours is not only the Worship Prophesied by Malachias, it is the Worship Malachias Prophesied and Perfected by Jesus and He Commanded His Apostles to Worship this way as The Way until the end of time.

At a Catholic Mass/Orthodox Divine Liturgy, it is the action of Jesus, as Priest, Victim, Meal, which is the focus and essence of Worship.

In a protestant service, it is solely the action of man - reading and commenting upon scripture and singing hymns and praising God. Now, there is nothing wrong with that. HOWEVER, there IS something wrong in that Our Lord and Saviour has been excised from the exercise. Protestants tells us the works of man are bloody rags. By their own words they are condemned. Their service is solely about the work of man (bloody rags)as the protestant progenitors jettisoned the Sacrifice, Priesthood, Eucharist and rejected Apostolic Succession, Eucharist, Mass etc.

What IS acceptable to God as Worship? Bloody Rags or the PluPerfect Sacrifice of the New Covenant?

They need to hear the truth. And I will preach it to them

[Salvation]

American Catholic’s Saint of the Day

June 1, 2007

St. Justin

(d. 165)

Justin never ended his quest for religious truth even when he converted to Christianity after years of studying various pagan philosophies.

As a young man, he was principally attracted to the school of Plato. However, he found that the Christian religion answered the great questions about life and existence better than the philosophers.

Upon his conversion he continued to wear the philosopher's mantle, and became the first Christian philosopher. He combined the Christian religion with the best elements in Greek philosophy. In his view, philosophy was a pedagogue of Christ, an educator that was to lead one to Christ.

Justin is known as an apologist, one who defends in writing the Christian religion against the attacks and misunderstandings of the pagans. Two of his so-called apologies have come down to us; they are addressed to the Roman emperor and to the Senate.

For his staunch adherence to the Christian religion, Justin was beheaded in Rome in 165.

Comment:

As patron of philosophers, Justin may inspire us to use our natural powers (especially our power to know and understand) in the service of Christ and to build up the Christian life within us. Since we are prone to error, especially in reference to the deep questions concerning life and existence, we should also be willing to correct and check our natural thinking in light of religious truth. Thus we will be able to say with the learned saints of the Church: I believe in order to understand, and I understand in order to believe.

Quote:

"Philosophy is the knowledge of that which exists, and a clear understanding of the truth; and happiness is the reward of such knowledge and understanding" (Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 3).

[Ciexyz]

Praise the Lord that these writings from the second century survived.