Didache consecration vs Catholic consecration?

[byzgrl]

The Baptist with whom I’m currently having discussions, threw this one out at me. I’m not sure how to answer. It’s never occurred to me. I have to wonder about his question (not that I doubt anything, including the Eucharist and its definition of the Real Presence as transubstantiation)…it’s just that I never thought of this. Does the priest HAVE to state Jesus’ words, precisely, as they do now…for the consecration to actually take place? And what about this (what seems to be a different prayer)? Can anyone help me on this one? Here’s the baptist’s statement:

"The consecration seen in the Didache are not the words of Christ. Here is the consecration as seen in the Didache:

“Concerning the Eucharist, give thanks in this way. First for the cup; “We give thanks to thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David thy servant, which thou madest known to us through thy servant Jesus. To thee be the glory for … See Moreever. As this broken bread was scattered upon the hills, and was gathered together and made one, so let thy Church be gathered together into thy kingdom from the ends of the earth; for thine is the glory and the power through Christ Jesus forever.”

So if this is the consecration, then how can there be transubstantiation?

 

[Rightlydivide]

The few pieces of existing information, and I do mean few, in Ignatius and Justyn Martyr’s writings indicate a belief that is close to what Catholics presently believe. However, there is a problem. In the Didache we have the actual words said at the Eucharist.
They say absolutely nothing about a change that occurs in the substance of the bread and wine because they did not believe it occured. Perhaps some did. Perhaps most people did. But in this document, no.

 

[paul_c]

The Didache reference you have doesn’t describe the consecration of the host and wine, it merely says how the Christian is to give thanks; Its a catechism, not a missal. Here is the reading in question:

Chapter 9. The Eucharist. Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:

We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever…

And concerning the broken bread:
We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever…

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”

And yes, Justin Martyr described the mass in his apology written ~150AD. Here is the link":
remnantband.com/documents/justinmartyrapology.doc

 

[JustaServant]

The few pieces of existing information, and I do mean few, in Ignatius and Justyn Martyr’s writings indicate a belief that is close to what Catholics presently believe. However, there is a problem. In the Didache we have the actual words said at the Eucharist.
They say absolutely nothing about a change that occurs in the substance of the bread and wine because they did not believe it occured. Perhaps some did. Perhaps most people did. But in this document, no.

Rather than continuing to try to make Scripture alone authoritative, or Papal Bulls alone authoritative, or the Didache alone authoritative, I think you need to realize that the Catholic Church believes its interpretation of how to integrate practices from the ancient Church, doctrinal development from the ancient Church, etc., into current beliefs and practices, is infallible. Scripture is inerrant, but the Church is the infallible interpreter. The Didache is enlightening on early practice (which can change) and early dogma (which cannot), and the Church applies as necessary. That is what Catholicism means by both Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

 

[happilycatholic]

Rather than continuing to try to make Scripture alone authoritative, or Papal Bulls alone authoritative, or the Didache alone authoritative, I think you need to realize that the Catholic Church believes its interpretation of how to integrate practices from the ancient Church, doctrinal development from the ancient Church, etc., into current beliefs and practices, is infallible. Scripture is inerrant, but the Church is the infallible interpreter. The Didache is enlightening on early practice (which can change) and early dogma (which cannot), and the Church applies as necessary. That is what Catholicism means by both Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

…and to this we say:

Amen.

 

[OchsFam]

The few pieces of existing information, and I do mean few, in Ignatius and Justyn Martyr’s writings indicate a belief that is close to what Catholics presently believe. However, there is a problem. In the Didache we have the actual words said at the Eucharist.
They say absolutely nothing about a change that occurs in the substance of the bread and wine because they did not believe it occured. Perhaps some did. Perhaps most people did. But in this document, no.

As it was pointed out, the next part of the Didache reads as follows:

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”

Now if the Didache was not speaking of an actual change of substance, what would be the harm of feeding a cracker or grape juice to a dog? The fact is, this concecrated bread and wine the Didache speaks of has been set apart, or made holy, somehow. The Didache assumes a knowledge of the Eucharist. This is evident in the statement quoted above.

1 Cor 11:29 says:
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

This is the reason for the statement in the Didache. You cannot discern the body if the bread is not the body. This would have been the commonly understood concept of the Eucharist. This much is evident from every Church Father of the time. All recognized the literal body and blood of Christ are present in the form of bread and wine. None argued against this point until the protestant reformation.

In the end, the way to respond is “keep reading”. If they believe there is some reason a cracker and grape juice (that is not actually the body and blood of Jesus Christ) cannot be fed to a dog, then they are transforming the cracker and grape juice into something more than these “elements” and are coming closer to a Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. There are other questions you would have for them at this point based on what they believe the cracker and grape juice have become.

God Bless.

 

[Rightlydivide]

It says to give thanks because there is no turning it into anything. This is what they said. There is no inidication that anything else was said. Only an anchronistic understanding would demand that something should be added.

 

[paul_c]

It says to give thanks because there is no turning it into anything. This is what they said. There is no inidication that anything else was said. Only an anchronistic understanding would demand that something should be added.

You are trying to make something out of this that it is not. The didache is a catechism. It tells the faithful what they should do. It is not meant for the priest who consecrates the eucharist. Similarly, today’s catholic catechism does not list include the eucharistic prayer that is used to consecrate the host. That is found in the missal

And frankly, you are wrong in denying transubstantiation. This is covered in scripture. Read 1 Corinthians 11:23-0:
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.

And by the way, this concept of only the worthy being able to consume the eucharist is consistent with the Didache. The last sentence of chapter 9 is :
But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”

And this is chapter 10 from the didache:
Chapter 10. Prayer after Communion. But after you are filled, give thanks this way:

We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name’s sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant. Before all things we thank Thee that You are mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou have prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.

But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire

Notice it speaks of spiritual food and drink. Can you see now ,that they truly believe in the real presence of Jesus in the eucharist?

 

[Rightlydivide]

You are trying to make something out of this that it is not. The didache is a catechism. It tells the faithful what they should do. It is not meant for the priest who consecrates the eucharist. Similarly, today’s catholic catechism does not list include the eucharistic prayer that is used to consecrate the host. That is found in the missal

And frankly, you are wrong in denying transubstantiation. This is covered in scripture. Read 1 Corinthians 11:23-0:
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.

And by the way, this concept of only the worthy being able to consume the eucharist is consistent with the Didache. The last sentence of chapter 9 is :
But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”

And this is chapter 10 from the didache:
Chapter 10. Prayer after Communion. But after you are filled, give thanks this way:

We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name’s sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant. Before all things we thank Thee that You are mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou have prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.

But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire

Notice it speaks of spiritual food and drink. Can you see now ,that they truly believe in the real presence of Jesus in the eucharist?

Priest?? In the 1st century?? No, the church was still using the correct terms in the 1st century.
Of course it is spiritual food and drink. It is not literal anything. As Mr. Carson said in another thread, thanks for proving MY point.

 

[crazy32989]

They say absolutely nothing about a change that occurs in the substance of the bread and wine because they did not believe it occured. Perhaps some did. Perhaps most people did. But in this document, no.

You are wrong.

Quote from the Didache, Chapter 14:
*
“But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your** sacrifice** may be pure. . .”*

They believed it be a sacrifice.

 

[happilycatholic]

On the Didache:

Using the absence of obvious mention of Transubstantiation in the Didache to argue the validity of Trans. at mass is completely lacking.

The substance of the Elements were assumed known here. Otherwise we would see the Fathers telling us what the Eucharist *is *before telling us how to be thankful for it.

Nonetheless, OchsFam has pointed out that in the Didache the Eucharist obviously holds a place other than that of ‘regular food’. And if it is not seen as regular food, then it is seen as something transformed from regular food.

Let’s remember, this was not written for the lay, but for the religious. It is not as detailed as one who is unfamiliar with the Euharist might require. The Church does not look to the Didache for reasoning of Transubstantiation. The Church uses the literal words of Christ as quoted in John’s Gospel, 6:26, and Christ’s words at the Last Supper with His Disciples: Matthew 26:26 and reiterated by Sts. Mark and Luke in their Gospels.

This is not an assumption, but rather the only conclusion one can make upon reading the Didache as they are reconciled with Scripture itself.

God Bless,

HC

 

[paul_c]

Priest?? In the 1st century?? No, the church was still using the correct terms in the 1st century.
Of course it is spiritual food and drink. It is not literal anything. As Mr. Carson said in another thread, thanks for proving MY point.

What is the point you are trying to prove?

 

[happilycatholic]

You are trying to make something out of this that it is not. The didache is a catechism. It tells the faithful what they should do. It is not meant for the priest who consecrates the eucharist. Similarly, today’s catholic catechism does not list include the eucharistic prayer that is used to consecrate the host. That is found in the missal

Hi paul c:

You are so right about the Didache being sort of a ‘first catechism’ but we must realize that a “catechism” wouldn’t have been used by the lay firstly because writings were not distributed to the lay, but rather were used by the religious to teach to the lay. A catechumen of this time would have went through much more than we do today.

The Didache could not and would not have been distrubuted as the printed form of our Catechism is today.

So in this way, the Didache was a teaching tool, among an entire Deposit of Faith, used by priests and other religious.

God Bless,

HC

 

[happilycatholic]

Priest?? In the 1st century?? No, the church was still using the correct terms in the 1st century.
Of course it is spiritual food and drink. It is not literal anything. As Mr. Carson said in another thread, thanks for proving MY point.

Respectfully,

You would have to assume the spirit of Christ as something other than literal and alive to be correct. Do you believe that Christ is not literal? Do you believe that Christ is not alive?

Of course you don’t.

How can you believe that the Fathers meant something other than spiritual in the sense of a literally alive Christ?

Blessings,

HC

 

[paul_c]

Hi paul c:

You are so right about the Didache being sort of a ‘first catechism’ but we must realize that a “catechism” wouldn’t have been used by the lay firstly because writings were not distributed to the lay, but rather were used by the religious to teach to the lay. A catechumen of this time would have went through much more than we do today.

The Didache could not and would not have been distrubuted as the printed form of our Catechism is today.

So in this way, the Didache was a teaching tool, among an entire Deposit of Faith, used by priests and other religious.

God Bless,

HC

You are right that without the printing press, the Didache’s distribution would have been limited. My point was that it was not meant to include the prayers used to consecrate the host. To this, I think we are in agreement.

And it certainly doesn’t imply what rightly divide reads into it, which is a denial of the real presence.

 

[happilycatholic]

What is the point you are trying to prove?

One must read the words of Christ backward to believe that the Body and Blood are bread and drink. The words of Christ say that the bread and drink are His Body and His Blood given up for us.

His Body and His Blood were literally given up for us, not figuratively. I’m not sure how Christ could have made it any clearer.



Blessings,

HC

 

[happilycatholic]

You are right that without the printing press, the Didache’s distribution would have been limited. My point was that it was not meant to include the prayers used to consecrate the host. To this, I think we are in agreement.

And it certainly doesn’t imply what rightly divide reads into it, which is a denial of the real presence.

We are definitely in agreement.

And reading things into writings of the Early Church Fathers seems to be a common practice of those who claim to adhere strictly to Scripture (also the writings of the ECFs).

And we trudge on, discounting error.

God Bless,

HC

 

[happilycatholic]

IMHO, In order to recieve the full Truth of Christ’s words at the Last Supper we have to understand what Christ is doing and why He’s doing it that particular way.

This was a very somber time as Christ and His Disciples are certain that Christ will die at the hands of His enemies. This is also the Passover Meal, the meal in which the sacrifice of the lambs is remembered and the celebration of God’s passing over of those of His People. Remember, God knew them by the first lamb’s blood. This is a celebration, although a very somber one.

This was also as you can imagine, a time of instruction. Look at it this way, if your father were about to die and he was giving you instruction on various things, wouldn’t you be taking him literally? Wouldn’t you assume that what he is telling you didn’t need any translation?

This was not a teaching moment, but rather an instructional one. No symbols and no metaphors. There were no parables to figure out. It was literal, all of it. There was no time for hoping the twelve would ‘get it’.

So Jesus tells them, “Take this and eat it”. Then He ‘shows’ them. Has he ever done that before when He has presented them with symbolism, parables, or the like? No.

Jesus is literally showing them what to do. While doing so, Jesus is speaking with pointed few words, "Take this (we are to receive) AND eat it (not look at it, not discern what it may be, but put it in your mouth and swallow it into your body), it is my body given up for you (we have broken it and by eating it we are one). It has been broken and made whole again by our communion with one another. Jesus then does the same with the wine. He goes one step further by making this a sign of the New Covenant. Since when has any sign of any Covenant with God been symbolic? Never. It is the way God and His people know to whom we ‘belong’ as a people.

Then Christ says, “Do this in remembrance of me”. Again, a sign of His people so that all would know to whom we belong. In ‘doing’ this we call to mind who we are and how we came to be in this Covenant with God. We do the same in our Baptizms.

So, would Christ really do all this because it was symbolic? Nothing about this event was symbolic and it continues to be literal and to celebrate the Christ ALIVE and in communion with us and His Church.

It is how we know we are His people.

God Bless,

HC

 

[paul_c]

IMHO, In order to recieve the full Truth of Christ’s words at the Last Supper we have to understand what Christ is doing and why He’s doing it that particular way.

This was a very somber time as Christ and His Disciples are certain that Christ will die at the hands of His enemies. This is also the Passover Meal, the meal in which the sacrifice of the lambs is remembered and the celebration of God’s passing over of those of His People. Remember, God knew them by the first lamb’s blood. This is a celebration, although a very somber one.

This was also as you can imagine, a time of instruction. Look at it this way, if your father were about to die and he was giving you instruction on various things, wouldn’t you be taking him literally? Wouldn’t you assume that what he is telling you didn’t need any translation?

This was not a teaching moment, but rather an instructional one. No symbols and no metaphors. There were no parables to figure out. It was literal, all of it. There was no time for hoping the twelve would ‘get it’.

So Jesus tells them, “Take this and eat it”. Then He ‘shows’ them. Has he ever done that before when He has presented them with symbolism, parables, or the like? No.

Jesus is literally showing them what to do. While doing so, Jesus is speaking with pointed few words, "Take this (we are to receive) AND eat it (not look at it, not discern what it may be, but put it in your mouth and swallow it into your body), it is my body given up for you (we have broken it and by eating it we are one). It has been broken and made whole again by our communion with one another. Jesus then does the same with the wine. He goes one step further by making this a sign of the New Covenant. Since when has any sign of any Covenant with God been symbolic? Never. It is the way God and His people know to whom we ‘belong’ as a people.

Then Christ says, “Do this in remembrance of me”. Again, a sign of His people so that all would know to whom we belong. In ‘doing’ this we call to mind who we are and how we came to be in this Covenant with God. We do the same in our Baptizms.

So, would Christ really do all this because it was symbolic? Nothing about this event was symbolic and it continues to be literal and to celebrate the Christ ALIVE and in communion with us and His Church.

It is how we know we are His people.

God Bless,

HC

It goes back to the episode in John 6, right after Jesus feeds the 5000. He says that you must eat his body and drink his blood to enter into eternal life. That pronouncement caused his disciples to abandon him. They wouldn’t have abandonned him if they thought he was only speaking figuratively. After all, they didn’t run away when he said he was the good shepard or that he was the vine and they were the branches. They took him literally as he meant it to be and he didn’t stop them from leaving. This is true even today. He will not stop those who chose to abandon him by denying the real presence in the eucharist. Everyone can choose whether to follow his words or not. But he did say that you will have no life unless you eat his bread and drink his blood, so be careful how you choose

 

[happilycatholic]

It goes back to the episode in John 6, right after Jesus feeds the 5000. He says that you must eat his body and drink his blood to enter into eternal life. That pronouncement caused his disciples to abandon him. They wouldn’t have abandonned him if they thought he was only speaking figuratively. After all, they didn’t run away when he said he was the good shepard or that he was the vine and they were the branches. They took him literally as he meant it to be and he didn’t stop them from leaving. This is true even today. He will not stop those who chose to abandon him by denying the real presence in the eucharist. Everyone can choose whether to follow his words or not. But he did say that you will have no life unless you eat his bread and drink his blood, so be careful how you choose

Amen!