Yet Another "Why Don't Protestants" Thread

“For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 66:1-20 [A.D. 148]).

Why don’t Protestants read things like this, written a mere 120 years after the Ascension of our Lord, and not immediately question why it is that they think they are more like the first Christians? Are the writings of St. Justin inconsistent, or are there other early documents that show Christianity in a more Protestant light, or what? (I actually don’t know- this is not a thread to bait people). :confused:

I heard references to “Justin Martyr” in sermons when I was protestant.
BTW: Where did you pick up your copy of St. Justin Martyr’s First Apology?
I have never come across anything like that.

You can read most of the works of most of the early fathers here:

newadvent.org/fathers/

newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm
wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/fathers/ante-nic/justin/justin.htm
librivox.org/the-first-apology-by-martyr/

The eucharistic liturgy of the United Methodist Church is based on the liturgies of Justin Martyr.

Another Protestant-bashing thread. :shrug:

Oh yeah I really bashed the heck out of Protestants, huh? As I said in OP, Simply asking a question, and two, as far as I know, the UMC considers itself a part of the true church- so you have the desire, just not the desire to obey the rules. So you’re not Protestants with a Big P. Heretics, but not Protestants. :thumbsup:

Sorry, I couldn’t resist

So if I called you an idol worshipper and then said with a smiley that I couldnt resist that would be OK?

OS LUKE,

It is not another Protestant Bashing Thread how can it be. What Justyn Martry wrote was way before your church existed lol. Here it is again: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 66:1-20 [A.D. 148]).

os Luke, since you say that “The Eucharistic Liturgy of the Untited Methodist Church is Based on liturgies of Justyn Martyr” You obviously don’t practice what you preach.

Beacuse, the above saying of Justyn Martyr if practiced, you would be a Catholic.

Am I bashing you? NO! The Truth Just Hurts.

Come home we need More Deacons, it is the reason why Jesus Has You here.

Ufamtobie

Luke, my man, just try and accept the fact that some things will never change for certain people…regardless of what church they go to.

What do you think Martyr is saying here that non-Catholics are not seeing? Just curious before I answer.

From Luther’s Large Catechism:

Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar?

Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink. And as we have said of Baptism that it is not simple water, so here also we say the Sacrament is bread and wine, but not mere bread and wine, such as are ordinarily served at the table, but bread and wine comprehended in, and connected with, the Word of God.

It is the Word (I say) which makes and distinguishes this Sacrament, so that it is not mere bread and wine, but is, and is called, the body and blood of Christ. For it is said: Accedat verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum. If the Word be joined to the element, it becomes a Sacrament. This saying of St. Augustine is so properly and so well put that he has scarcely said anything better. The Word must make a Sacrament of the element, else it remains a mere element. Now, it is not the word or ordinance of a prince or emperor, but of the sublime Majesty, at whose feet all creatures should fall, and affirm it is as He says, and accept it with all reverence, fear, and humility.

With this Word you can strengthen your conscience and say: If a hundred thousand devils, together with all fanatics, should rush forward, crying, How can bread and wine be the body and blood of Christ? etc., I know that all spirits and scholars together are not as wise as is the Divine Majesty in His little finger. Now here stands the Word of Christ: Take, eat; this is My body; Drink ye all of it; this is the new testament in My blood, etc. Here we abide, and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken. It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word or regard it without the words, you have nothing but mere bread and wine. But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive.

Hey jfallaw maybe to prevent critism and confusion can I reword your question? If that’s OK, here it is:

Why don’t Protestants that follow Zwingli’s line of ideology towards communion read things like this and not immediately question why it is that they think they are more like the early church than those that adhere to the ideas of St. Justin Martyr? Are the writings of St. Justin Martyr inconsistent with other early church writings on this subject, or are there other early documents that show Christian Communion in a more Zwinglian light, or what? (I actually don’t know- this is not a thread to bait people). :confused:

Yep.

I don’t think most Protestants spend much time reading the early fathers. They tend to focus on what they were brought up with—the Scriptures and the rules/tenants of their denominations. Just like many many Catholics have no clue about the early fathers, sad to say. Most Catholics I go to Mass with went through catechism and were raised through the motions just like many protestants are raised with vacation bible study, appreciation of the scriptures, fellowship, and a sense of mission. Most Catholics and Protestants don’t look as deep as many folks in CAF of both catholic and protestant persuasions.

I suspect that if more protestants read into the early fathers and read the gambit from the earliest guys, Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp and then went much later to Cyprian, Augustine, Chrystostom, etc. they would think much differently about their Christian faith. It would be hard to read the fathers and deeply analyze the early church and then come away allowing women’s ordination, gay marriage, bible-alone theology, OSAS, and the notion of starting churches without episcopal oversight, etc. The fathers give us a deep glimpse into the past and make us aware of what the early church was—apostolic, three-fold with the bishop being the heart of the faith (where there is no bishop, there is no church), Eucharistic (not in a calvinist, empty sense), and they sure as shooting wouldn’t ordain women. That idea was reserved for gnostic herestics and pagans.

I don’t think most people read the fathers. More should. We’d all be better off! I wish these mega church guys with the ten cans of hairspray or the Rick Warrens of the world would crack opn the ECF’s!!

Who is St. Justin Martyr? I can’t find him in my copy of the Bible. :):):slight_smile:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.