Saint Justin Martyr the Catholic, Lutheran Saint

[Angainor]

I’m just saying that the Lutheran position is not transubstantiation. Transubstantiation means that there is no longer bread, but the body of Christ: one substance. The Lutheran position is that the bread and Christ exist side by side : two substances.

Confound it if I haven’t forgotten what the point of all this was.

Oh yeah, June 1 is the Lutheran day of commemoration for Justin, martyr. That should tell you something.

I would really be interested to know what Justin said on the matter. It is my understanding that complex philosophical explanations of the supper involving talk of “substances” and such did not develop until sometime later.

I googled around and didn’t find anything to link Trentian transubstantiation with Justin, but you are welcome to cut 'n paste linked text here. I’ll read it.

 

[Contarini]

I don’t understand why Saint Justin is recognized as a saint by the Lutheran Church…especially since he taught transubstantiation in his Apologies.

Where do you see him teaching transubstantiation (as opposed to a more generic doctrine of the Real Presence, which Lutherans certainly believe)? I have read his works and do not remember any such teaching. As far as I know, the first articulation of something that could loosely be called transubstantiation (i.e., the transformation of bread and wine into Body and Blood so that they are no longer bread and wine but something metaphysically quite different) is in the fourth century, with Cyril of Jerusalem and Ambrose of Milan.

Edwin

 

[TheApologist]

Justin Martyr’s Second Apology, Chapter LXVI

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

He didn’t teach the very, very specific notion of the accidents, but he definetly has the substance down.

Also he mentions that one must be regeneratively baptised. Lutherans don’t believe in regenerative baptism, do they?

 

[Contarini]

Justin Martyr’s Second Apology, Chapter LXVI

He didn’t teach the very, very specific notion of the accidents, but he definetly has the substance down.

I see no mention of the bread and wine not being bread and wine any longer, and I see no mention of their substance being transformed. (The one reference to “transmutation” is not talking about the bread and wine being turned into Body and Blood, but about the bread and wine nourishing us–clearly he’s making a parallel, but the parallel is about nourishment, and is one that, say, the Heidelberg Catechism could agree with.) I see a statement that the bread and wine are no longer “common bread and wine,” and a statement that they are the flesh and blood of Jesus. There is nothing here than a Lutheran, or an Anglican, or even a high-church Calvinist or Methodist could not agree with.

Also he mentions that one must be regeneratively baptised. Lutherans don’t believe in regenerative baptism, do they?

Yes, they do. You don’t know much about Lutherans. (OK, some Lutheran websites dislike the term, but essentially they believe in it.)

Edwin

 

[Angainor]

Also he mentions that one must be regeneratively baptised. Lutherans don’t believe in regenerative baptism, do they?

From the Small Catechism
How can water do such great things?
Certainly not just water, but the word of God in and with the water does these things, along with the faith which trusts this word of God in the water. For without God’s word the water is plain water and no Baptism. But with the word of God it is a Baptism, that is, a life-giving water, rich in grace, and a washing of the new birth in the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul says in Titus, chapter three: “He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying”
(Titus 3:5-8).

• What does such baptizing with water indicate?*
  It indicates that the Old Adam in us should by daily contrition and repentance be drowned and die with all sins and evil desires, and that a new man should daily emerge and arise to live before God in righteousness and purity forever.
• Where is this written?*
  St. Paul writes in Romans chapter six: “We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life” (Romans 6:4).
  Also I second what [post=2081700]Contarini said[/post]. Justin’s comments seem just what Lutherans are looking for, a straightforward explanation without the use of philosophical accidents.