Was Justin Martyr a Mormon?

[spockrates]

Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 128, which comes right before the wikipedia quote of chapter 129 shows very clearly that Justin does not believe that Christ has a different essence from the Father. Same substance, different person. His main points in this section are to show Christ’s pre-existence using OT appearances of the Word, and also to demonstrate that the Word is numerically distinct (which we would say “different person”).

It seems the quote is ambiguous, for it could be reasonably understood to mean the Son was not created in a way that shares the indivisible essence of God the Father.

Also, just because Justin is a saint does not mean his theology was perfect or every part of his writing entirely coherent. As the author of the OCE entry for Justin notes, some of Justin’s arguments owe more to the philosophy of his time, which does not at all diminish his witness as a martyr and saint:

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Justin_Martyr%2C_Saint

So what is your opinion? Was Martyr an imperfect saint who misunderstood the nature of God the Son, or are those who read what he wrote the ones misunderstanding his beliefs?

 

[spockrates]

"Another God "?

“There is, and that there is said to be…” St. Justin here seems to be trying to express the fact that the Word [or Logos or the Son] is also fully, truly, wholly and entirely God in His own right/respect; hence St. Justin says “there is said to be…” Today we would probably express this more like: ‘there is another [from the Father, i.e. either Christ or the Holy Ghost] Who is called God and, indeed, is God.’

The Catechism explains…

I hope that helps!

Thanks 1AS7 for the correct teaching from the CCC, but don’t you see? One reason I decided to return home to the Catholic Church was the writings of the earliest of Church fathers. My thought was that they would know the truth better than the fathers of the Protestant Reformation. For the early fathers were closer in time to the one who said he is the truth.

But these words of Justin Martyr give me pause and cause me to question my decision. If we cannot trust this early Church father to teach the truth on such a fundamental concept as who Jesus is, then how can I trust my decision to return based on other words of this saint? This is why I’ve started this discussion thread.

 

[spockrates]

St. Justin the Martyr was the first to give us a most clear picture of how the Mass was said. The Roman Emperor asked him to describe what happened at Mass.

The basic structure, spirit and tone is the same as that what we witness of the Mass today.

His treatise was written around 155 AD.

There is a movement now among Mormon teachers that are discovering the writings of the Early Church Fathers, but unfortunately misinterpretating them and saying that they are proving Joseph Smith right.

St. Justin the Martyr made reference to us becoming as gods when we partake of the Eucharist…but he did not mean at all that we become gods in the literal sense, but only in receiving the Eucharist, as St. Thomas Aquinas later did in CCC460.

The Mormons use Catholic Church Catechism 460 to prove that they are right and we are merely deflecting from their idea that we become gods…entities of our own.

Remember, they believe that God was once a man and has become God through progression.

It is just very sad how they misread and project their beliefs onto ours, claim them as theirs, and miss the point of the passage.

Yes, cherry picking indeed.

That’s why I ask–I want to learn the true meaning of what the saint I’ve come to trust truly meant.

 

[spockrates]

I agree with you, and will only add the teaching where Justin describes the Word of God as the same a the your own word. When you give it, it is not separate from you, but is part of yourself. I’ve used this same method of teaching the Trinity to non-Christian catechumens, some who are unfamiliar with the Trinity all together, and have a difficulty grasping WHO the Christian God is: three Persons, One God.

In the end, of course, God is God, and humans cannot grasp fully the Mystery. We accept by faith (informed by reason) what God has revealed about Himself. Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

It’s a matter of what, as much as who, I think. One might say God is one what in three whos. Don’t you think?

 

[GaryTaylor]

It’s a matter of what, as much as who, I think. One might say God is one what in three whos. Don’t you think?

St. Athanasius’ first letter to Serapion (Ep. 1 ad Serapionem 28-30: PG 26, 594-95. 599), and is included in the Roman office of Readings for Trinity Sunday.

"It will not be out of place to consider the ancient tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church, which was revealed by the Lord, proclaimed by the apostles and guarded by the fathers. For upon this faith the Church is built, and if anyone were to lapse from it, he would no longer be a Christian either in fact or in name.

We acknowledge the Trinity, holy and perfect, to consist of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In this Trinity there is no intrusion of any alien element or of anything from outside, nor is the Trinity a blend of creative and created being. It is a wholly creative and energizing reality, self-consistent and undivided in its active power, for the Father makes all things through the Word and in the Holy Spirit, and in this way the unity of the holy Trinity is preserved. Accordingly, in the Church, one God is preached, one God who is above all things and through all things and in all things. God is above all things as Father, for he is principle and source; he is through all things through the Word; and he is in all things in the Holy Spirit.

Writing to the Corinthians about spiritual matters, Paul traces all reality back to one God, the Father, saying: Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of service but the same Lord; and there are varieties of working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in everyone.

Even the gifts that the Spirit dispenses to individuals are given by the Father through the Word. For all that belongs to the Father belongs also to the Son, and so the graces given by the Son in the Spirit are true gifts of the Father. Similarly, when the Spirit dwells in us, the Word who bestows the Spirit is in us too, and the Father is present in the Word. This is the meaning of the text: My Father and I will come to him and make our home with him. For where the light is, there also is the radiance; and where the radiance is, there too are its power and its resplendent grace.

This is also Paul’s teaching in his second letter to the Corinthians (2:13): The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. For grace and the gift of the Trinity are given by the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. Just as grace is given from the Father through the Son, so there could be no communication of the gift to us except in the Holy Spirit. But when we share in the Spirit, we posses the love of the Father, the grace of the Son and the fellowship of the Spirit himself." Saint Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria

Saint Athanasius, pray for us!

 

[GaryTaylor]

That’s why I ask–I want to learn the true meaning of what the saint I’ve come to trust truly meant.

How did you come to trust him, when your confused in what he said?

 

[Joe_5859]

Thanks for the link. When I read Martyr’s words, if I find I agree with the premise that Martyr mistakenly thought Jesus a different god from the Father, will you explain to me why I’m wrong?

You’ve already read Justin’s entire corpus of work? Impressive.

I would say the burden of proof is on you to prove this very novel interpretation of his words. Perhaps you can find some independent primary sources from that time period to corroborate that such was what Justin had in mind when composing those passages.

 

[Usagi]

For Justin to have “been a Mormon,” he would have to assert rather more than a fuzzy understanding of the relationship between Father and Son. Does he anywhere claim that the Father is Himself an ascended mortal, for example?

As for his statements about the Son, we must remember that the Church did not nail down precise philosophical language for describing the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or between the divine and human in Jesus, until the early councils starting in the fourth century. Before that, even writers considered generally orthodox, like Justin, might well have had a muddier understanding of the distinctions. (I suppose we tend to assume that such early Fathers would of course have sided with the Councils rather than with the various heresies once things were clarified, but of course we cannot know that for certain, since they had died by then.)

As far as we can tell, the earliest Christians weren’t presented with a complete systematic theology and Christology directly from the mouths of the Apostles. The “raw data” of Tradition and Scripture are scattered and seemingly contradictory. It’s clear that we are to acknowledge and worship only one God, but in some places that term refers only to the Father, while in other places the Divine titles and attributes are assigned to Jesus as well. Yet Jesus is clearly not His Father. The Holy Spirit is even more vaguely described, once notably (in the story of Ananias and Saphira) as a Person who can be lied to – an act elsewhere called “lying to God” – but in other places He could reasonably be read as some kind of attribute or power of God or Jesus. Justin even seems to consider “Holy Spirit” to be one of the titles of the Logos, though I think he’s misreading the evidence there – it seems clear enough to me, from the Biblical references, that Jesus and the Spirit are just as distinct as Jesus and the Father.

Now, I don’t think that means that the Conciliar ideas of the Trinity and of the two natures of Christ were “just made up” at the Councils, as some would charge. But there does honestly seem to have been a lot more uncertainty on those topics in the earlier centuries. Looking back, we can see the seeds of the eventual doctrines in the “raw data,” but not every ante-Nicene Father used the same language when attempting to reconcile the apparent contradictions. As usual, the ultimately orthodox definitions fully embraced the paradoxical data – there is one God in three Persons, Jesus is fully God and fully Man – while the heretical alternatives emphasized only one side of the paradox, focusing on the data supporting that aspect while downplaying evidence that didn’t fit.

I think we can read Justin as sincerely trying to reconcile all the evidence – in his case, specifically the very clear proclamation that there is only one God worthy of worship alongside the way in which the New Testament and Christian practice treat Jesus. He just doesn’t have available the language of Nicaea to compactly and precisely reconcile those truths, and so he uses language that might be read as heretical by those who are familiar with the later Nicene formulation. Just from reading this thread, though, it seems that Justin himself said different things in different places (much like the Scriptures), and so it is possible that the complete “data” of his writing is amenable to an orthodox reading even if he never uses Nicene language.

Usagi

 

[KathleenGee]

In these recent years, the Restorationists are now discovering the Early Church Fathers. By Restorationists, I mean Baptists and other fundamentalists as well as Mormons who believe there was some kind of apostasy and some kind of falling away from faith during the time of the persecutions of Christians who were going in the opposite direction Restorationists cliam, and instead remaining with Christ under great torture and suffering to the likes the Restorationists have not had among their own members.

The Early Church Fathers further clarified our understanding of Christ. St. Justin the Martyr, like all Early Church Fathers was not 100% correct. They all had their misunderstanding and errors.

What they did do right however was to submit their theological reflections to the Church for discernment.

I have read this past year now how St. Ireneaus and St. Athanasius both were proving Joseph Smith correct…about becoming gods. St. Ireneaus condemned gnosticism and all heresies and in no way would go along with Joseph Smith.

St. Athanasius is the bishop who was removed up to 4 times for resisting Arianism…which could eventually lead in a return to polytheism and subsequently paganism…an apostasy leaving Christ and going back to empowerment of Man to make himself god.

Now they are finding out some remarks of St. Justin the Martyr that were not clarifiied.

They are now saying that the great apostasy happened with the Council of Nicea. The Council of Nicea drew on the work of St. Athanasius who said that Christ is consubstantiated with the Father, Christ Who had no beginning or end.

St. Athanasius is the real framer of the Council of Nicea, who further clarified early reflections of church fathers.

In no way was Justin the Martyr a Mormon and also upheld the sacred meal of the Eucharist, and was the first to provide us documentation on how the early Mass was said…which has the same structure, spirit and tone of the Mass today.

 

[Bookcat]

St Justin, Philosopher and Martyr (c. 100-165)

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

In these Catecheses, we are reflecting on the great figures of the early Church. Today, we will talk about St Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, the most important of the second-century apologist Fathers.

The word “apologist” designates those ancient Christian writers who set out to defend the new religion from the weighty accusations of both pagans and Jews, and to spread the Christian doctrine in terms suited to the culture of their time.

Thus, the apologists had a twofold concern: that most properly called “apologetic”, to defend the newborn Christianity (apologhía in Greek means, precisely, “defence”), and the pro-positive, “missionary” concern, to explain the content of the faith in a language and on a wavelength comprehensible to their contemporaries.

Justin was born in about the year 100 near ancient Shechem, Samaria, in the Holy Land; he spent a long time seeking the truth, moving through the various schools of the Greek philosophical tradition.

Finally, as he himself recounts in the first chapters of his Dialogue with Tryphon, a mysterious figure, an old man he met on the seashore, initially leads him into a crisis by showing him that it is impossible for the human being to satisfy his aspiration to the divine solely with his own forces. He then pointed out to him the ancient prophets as the people to turn to in order to find the way to God and “true philosophy”.

In taking his leave, the old man urged him to pray that the gates of light would be opened to him.
The story foretells the crucial episode in Justin’s life: at the end of a long philosophical journey, a quest for the truth, he arrived at the Christian faith. He founded a school in Rome where, free of charge, he initiated students into the new religion, considered as the true philosophy. Indeed, in it he had found the truth, hence, the art of living virtuously.

For this reason he was reported and beheaded in about 165 during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher-emperor to whom Justin had actually addressed one of his Apologia.

These - the two Apologies and the Dialogue with the Hebrew, Tryphon - are his only surviving works. In them, Justin intends above all to illustrate the divine project of creation and salvation, which is fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the Logos, that is, the eternal Word, eternal Reason, creative Reason.

Every person as a rational being shares in the Logos, carrying within himself a “seed”, and can perceive glimmers of the truth. Thus, the same Logos who revealed himself as a prophetic figure to the Hebrews of the ancient Law also manifested himself partially, in “seeds of truth”, in Greek philosophy.

Now, Justin concludes, since Christianity is the historical and personal manifestation of the Logos in his totality, it follows that “whatever things were rightly said among all men are the property of us Christians” (Second Apology of St Justin Martyr, 13: 4).

In this way, although Justin disputed Greek philosophy and its contradictions, he decisively oriented any philosophical truth to the Logos, giving reasons for the unusual “claim” to truth and universality of the Christian religion. If the Old Testament leaned towards Christ, just as the symbol is a guide to the reality represented, then Greek philosophy also aspired to Christ and the Gospel, just as the part strives to be united with the whole.

And he said that these two realities, the Old Testament and Greek philosophy, are like two paths that lead to Christ, to the Logos. This is why Greek philosophy cannot be opposed to Gospel truth, and Christians can draw from it confidently as from a good of their own.

(to be continued)

–Pope Benedict XVI

 

[Bookcat]

continued

Therefore, my venerable Predecessor, Pope John Paul II, described St Justin as a “pioneer of positive engagement with philosophical thinking - albeit with cautious discernment… Although he continued to hold Greek philosophy in high esteem after his conversion, Justin claimed with power and clarity that he had found in Christianity ‘the only sure and profitable philosophy’ (Dial. 8: 1)” (Fides et Ratio, n. 38).

Overall, the figure and work of Justin mark the ancient Church’s forceful option for philosophy, for reason, rather than for the religion of the pagans. With the pagan religion, in fact, the early Christians strenuously rejected every compromise. They held it to be idolatry, at the cost of being accused for this reason of “impiety” and “atheism”.

Justin in particular, especially in his first Apology, mercilessly criticized the pagan religion and its myths, which he considered to be diabolically misleading on the path of truth.

Philosophy, on the other hand, represented the privileged area of the encounter between paganism, Judaism and Christianity, precisely at the level of the criticism of pagan religion and its false myths. “Our philosophy…”: this is how another apologist, Bishop Melito of Sardis, a contemporary of Justin, came to define the new religion in a more explicit way (Ap. Hist. Eccl. 4, 26, 7).

In fact, the pagan religion did not follow the ways of the Logos, but clung to myth, even if Greek philosophy recognized that mythology was devoid of consistency with the truth.

Therefore, the decline of the pagan religion was inevitable: it was a logical consequence of the detachment of religion - reduced to an artificial collection of ceremonies, conventions and customs - from the truth of being.

Justin, and with him other apologists, adopted the clear stance taken by the Christian faith for the God of the philosophers against the false gods of the pagan religion.

It was the choice of the truth of being against the myth of custom. Several decades after Justin, Tertullian defined the same option of Christians with a lapidary sentence that still applies: “Dominus noster Christus veritatem se, non consuetudinem, cognominavit - Christ has said that he is truth not fashion” (De Virgin. Vel. 1, 1).

It should be noted in this regard that the term consuetudo, used here by Tertullian in reference to the pagan religion, can be translated into modern languages with the expressions: “cultural fashion”, “current fads”.

In a time like ours, marked by relativism in the discussion on values and on religion - as well as in interreligious dialogue - this is a lesson that should not be forgotten.

To this end, I suggest to you once again - and thus I conclude - the last words of the mysterious old man whom Justin the Philosopher met on the seashore: “Pray that, above all things, the gates of light may be opened to you; for these things cannot be perceived or understood by all, but only by the man to whom God and his Christ have imparted wisdom” (Dial. 7: 3).

–Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20070321_en.html

 

[spockrates]

St. Athanasius’ first letter to Serapion (Ep. 1 ad Serapionem 28-30: PG 26, 594-95. 599), and is included in the Roman office of Readings for Trinity Sunday.

"It will not be out of place to consider the ancient tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church, which was revealed by the Lord, proclaimed by the apostles and guarded by the fathers. For upon this faith the Church is built, and if anyone were to lapse from it, he would no longer be a Christian either in fact or in name.

We acknowledge the Trinity, holy and perfect, to consist of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In this Trinity there is no intrusion of any alien element or of anything from outside, nor is the Trinity a blend of creative and created being. It is a wholly creative and energizing reality, self-consistent and undivided in its active power, for the Father makes all things through the Word and in the Holy Spirit, and in this way the unity of the holy Trinity is preserved. Accordingly, in the Church, one God is preached, one God who is above all things and through all things and in all things. God is above all things as Father, for he is principle and source; he is through all things through the Word; and he is in all things in the Holy Spirit.

Writing to the Corinthians about spiritual matters, Paul traces all reality back to one God, the Father, saying: Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of service but the same Lord; and there are varieties of working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in everyone.

Even the gifts that the Spirit dispenses to individuals are given by the Father through the Word. For all that belongs to the Father belongs also to the Son, and so the graces given by the Son in the Spirit are true gifts of the Father. Similarly, when the Spirit dwells in us, the Word who bestows the Spirit is in us too, and the Father is present in the Word. This is the meaning of the text: My Father and I will come to him and make our home with him. For where the light is, there also is the radiance; and where the radiance is, there too are its power and its resplendent grace.

This is also Paul’s teaching in his second letter to the Corinthians (2:13): The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. For grace and the gift of the Trinity are given by the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. Just as grace is given from the Father through the Son, so there could be no communication of the gift to us except in the Holy Spirit. But when we share in the Spirit, we posses the love of the Father, the grace of the Son and the fellowship of the Spirit himself." Saint Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria

Saint Athanasius, pray for us!

 

[spockrates]

How did you come to trust him, when your confused in what he said?

I was a Protestant investigating Jesus’ words in John 6 and considering the concept of the Real Presence. I found Christ’s words ambiguous, for I saw that either the Evangelical understanding of what he said, or the Catholic understanding of what he said might be correct. To resolve the ambiguity, I took the advice of Catholics, here and looked to what Justin Martyr and other fathers wrote on the subject. His words were clear and clearly Catholic.

But now, if I cannot trust his word on who Jesus is in essence, then how can I trust his word on who the Eucharist is in essence?

 

[spockrates]

You’ve already read Justin’s entire corpus of work? Impressive.

I would say the burden of proof is on you to prove this very novel interpretation of his words. Perhaps you can find some independent primary sources from that time period to corroborate that such was what Justin had in mind when composing those passages.

Yes, the burden of proof would be on me, but only if I was trying to prove something to you. As it is, I’m not proving–I’m asking. Would you say to everyone who asks you an important question this?

“I’m not answering your question, because I didn’t ask it. The burden of finding an answer is on you!”

 

[spockrates]

For Justin to have “been a Mormon,” he would have to assert rather more than a fuzzy understanding of the relationship between Father and Son. Does he anywhere claim that the Father is Himself an ascended mortal, for example?

As for his statements about the Son, we must remember that the Church did not nail down precise philosophical language for describing the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or between the divine and human in Jesus, until the early councils starting in the fourth century. Before that, even writers considered generally orthodox, like Justin, might well have had a muddier understanding of the distinctions. (I suppose we tend to assume that such early Fathers would of course have sided with the Councils rather than with the various heresies once things were clarified, but of course we cannot know that for certain, since they had died by then.)

As far as we can tell, the earliest Christians weren’t presented with a complete systematic theology and Christology directly from the mouths of the Apostles. The “raw data” of Tradition and Scripture are scattered and seemingly contradictory. It’s clear that we are to acknowledge and worship only one God, but in some places that term refers only to the Father, while in other places the Divine titles and attributes are assigned to Jesus as well. Yet Jesus is clearly not His Father. The Holy Spirit is even more vaguely described, once notably (in the story of Ananias and Saphira) as a Person who can be lied to – an act elsewhere called “lying to God” – but in other places He could reasonably be read as some kind of attribute or power of God or Jesus. Justin even seems to consider “Holy Spirit” to be one of the titles of the Logos, though I think he’s misreading the evidence there – it seems clear enough to me, from the Biblical references, that Jesus and the Spirit are just as distinct as Jesus and the Father.

Now, I don’t think that means that the Conciliar ideas of the Trinity and of the two natures of Christ were “just made up” at the Councils, as some would charge. But there does honestly seem to have been a lot more uncertainty on those topics in the earlier centuries. Looking back, we can see the seeds of the eventual doctrines in the “raw data,” but not every ante-Nicene Father used the same language when attempting to reconcile the apparent contradictions. As usual, the ultimately orthodox definitions fully embraced the paradoxical data – there is one God in three Persons, Jesus is fully God and fully Man – while the heretical alternatives emphasized only one side of the paradox, focusing on the data supporting that aspect while downplaying evidence that didn’t fit.

I think we can read Justin as sincerely trying to reconcile all the evidence – in his case, specifically the very clear proclamation that there is only one God worthy of worship alongside the way in which the New Testament and Christian practice treat Jesus. He just doesn’t have available the language of Nicaea to compactly and precisely reconcile those truths, and so he uses language that might be read as heretical by those who are familiar with the later Nicene formulation. Just from reading this thread, though, it seems that Justin himself said different things in different places (much like the Scriptures), and so it is possible that the complete “data” of his writing is amenable to an orthodox reading even if he never uses Nicene language.

Usagi

I think what you are saying is this: Many heads are better than one. If we want a more accurate understanding of the truth, we must consider the teachings of all of the Church counsels, and let the majority of wise opinion rule.

 

[spockrates]

In these recent years, the Restorationists are now discovering the Early Church Fathers. By Restorationists, I mean Baptists and other fundamentalists as well as Mormons who believe there was some kind of apostasy and some kind of falling away from faith during the time of the persecutions of Christians who were going in the opposite direction Restorationists cliam, and instead remaining with Christ under great torture and suffering to the likes the Restorationists have not had among their own members.

The Early Church Fathers further clarified our understanding of Christ. St. Justin the Martyr, like all Early Church Fathers was not 100% correct. They all had their misunderstanding and errors.

What they did do right however was to submit their theological reflections to the Church for discernment.

I have read this past year now how St. Ireneaus and St. Athanasius both were proving Joseph Smith correct…about becoming gods. St. Ireneaus condemned gnosticism and all heresies and in no way would go along with Joseph Smith.

St. Athanasius is the bishop who was removed up to 4 times for resisting Arianism…which could eventually lead in a return to polytheism and subsequently paganism…an apostasy leaving Christ and going back to empowerment of Man to make himself god.

Now they are finding out some remarks of St. Justin the Martyr that were not clarifiied.

They are now saying that the great apostasy happened with the Council of Nicea. The Council of Nicea drew on the work of St. Athanasius who said that Christ is consubstantiated with the Father, Christ Who had no beginning or end.

St. Athanasius is the real framer of the Council of Nicea, who further clarified early reflections of church fathers.

In no way was Justin the Martyr a Mormon and also upheld the sacred meal of the Eucharist, and was the first to provide us documentation on how the early Mass was said…which has the same structure, spirit and tone of the Mass today.

Yes, and Justin Martyr’s teachings on the Eucharist are one reason why I returned to the Catholic faith I left as a teen. I’m just taken aback at the fact that his understanding of the truth on another important doctrine now seems to be in error. Not sure I can trust what he says, now.

 

[pablope]

Thanks 1AS7 for the correct teaching from the CCC, but don’t you see? One reason I decided to return home to the Catholic Church was the writings of the earliest of Church fathers. My thought was that they would know the truth better than the fathers of the Protestant Reformation. For the early fathers were closer in time to the one who said he is the truth.

But these words of Justin Martyr give me pause and cause me to question my decision. If we cannot trust this early Church father to teach the truth on such a fundamental concept as who Jesus is, then how can I trust my decision to return based on other words of this saint? This is why I’ve started this discussion thread.

Well, for one thing…I do not think the Church has condemned as heretical any of Justin’s writings. Keep in mind thought…who was he writing for when he wrote this…was it for the informed (who had in idea of what he was talking about) or those he was instructing in the faith?

We trust Justin Martyr…because of this…Romans 10…15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[g]

He was sent and ordained…and he did not disobey authority…from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

From this link…the 4 marks of the Church: star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m3/4mrko.html

Church as an Article of Faith

I want to back up a bit and share with you one fundamental concern that I have, and that is we seldom think of the Church as an object of our faith. Ultimately, of course, God is the one in whom we put all of our faith and all of our hope and all of our love. But we also know that God calls us to love others for the love of Him. So also He shares with us the Holy Spirit so that we might put our faith in the Apostles, not only in their writings within Scripture but also in the many, mighty works that God accomplished through them, especially as He built up His Church through the Apostles and their successors.

 

[spockrates]

In these recent years, the Restorationists are now discovering the Early Church Fathers. By Restorationists, I mean Baptists and other fundamentalists as well as Mormons who believe there was some kind of apostasy and some kind of falling away from faith during the time of the persecutions of Christians who were going in the opposite direction Restorationists cliam, and instead remaining with Christ under great torture and suffering to the likes the Restorationists have not had among their own members.

The Early Church Fathers further clarified our understanding of Christ. St. Justin the Martyr, like all Early Church Fathers was not 100% correct. They all had their misunderstanding and errors.

What they did do right however was to submit their theological reflections to the Church for discernment.

I have read this past year now how St. Ireneaus and St. Athanasius both were proving Joseph Smith correct…about becoming gods. St. Ireneaus condemned gnosticism and all heresies and in no way would go along with Joseph Smith.

St. Athanasius is the bishop who was removed up to 4 times for resisting Arianism…which could eventually lead in a return to polytheism and subsequently paganism…an apostasy leaving Christ and going back to empowerment of Man to make himself god.

Now they are finding out some remarks of St. Justin the Martyr that were not clarifiied.

They are now saying that the great apostasy happened with the Council of Nicea. The Council of Nicea drew on the work of St. Athanasius who said that Christ is consubstantiated with the Father, Christ Who had no beginning or end.

St. Athanasius is the real framer of the Council of Nicea, who further clarified early reflections of church fathers.

In no way was Justin the Martyr a Mormon and also upheld the sacred meal of the Eucharist, and was the first to provide us documentation on how the early Mass was said…which has the same structure, spirit and tone of the Mass today.

Yes, and Justin Martyr’s teachings on the Eucharist are one reason why I returned to the Catholic faith I left as a teen. I’m just taken aback at the fact that his understanding of the truth on another important doctrine now seems to be in error. Not sure I can trust what he says, now.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It’s a matter of what, as much as who, I think. One might say God is one what in three whos. Don’t you think?

Sure.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, and Justin Martyr’s teachings on the Eucharist are one reason why I returned to the Catholic faith I left as a teen. I’m just taken aback at the fact that his understanding of the truth on another important doctrine now seems to be in error. Not sure I can trust what he says, now.

You should like the whole dialogue with Trypho no? It is very Socratic. Did you read all of it yet?

You have to remember, Justin was well educated, which means he understood and used rhetoric. First rule of rhetoric? Isn’t it know your audience? His audience is a group of Jewish men he met on the road while traveling, and the all stopped together for the night, striking up a conversation about Christianity.

Justin Martyr walks them through the OT, pointing out where God is, the names of God, the acts of God, but always he is circling around Jesus.

There is nothing “wrong” in here. For a Christian, the Trinity begins with the Word of God, Jesus Christ. Go back to Sunday’s daily readings. TWO readings, one from the OT, and one from Jesus quoting the OT saying, God is one.

Justin Martyr certainly understood this, and never strays from God is One. No Jewish person, then or now, would listen to anyone who first did not have the unbreakable doctrine, that God is one.

The wiki entry is Mormons, guessing at what they don’t understand. They never begin with the premise that God is one, because for them, God is many. Not only three, but innumerable and unnameable.

Justin Martyr wasn’t a Mormon. A person who believe in the Eucharist, most certainly understands Jesus IS God, and God is One. The two doctrines cannot be separated, and make any sense at all. The Eucharist, for one, would make no sense. Why would we take into ourselves A God, and not THE God?

Very, very paganistic ideas when you head down that path. All of which have been soundly rejected as heresies. Justin Martyr was not a pagan, and he was not a heretic, so adjust your thinking accordingly! Justin Martyr is certainly more trustworthy than the Mighty Wiki that has been edited by people who know nothing about Christianity.

Counter it with a book by Pope Benedict XVI, “Church Fathers, Clement of Rome to Augustine”.