SPLIT: "The Didache teaches almost nothing your Catechism teaches today."

[Mannyfit75]

A beautifully apt quote, and an example of why I am so glad I chose the great man of Hippo as my patron saint.

he is also my patron saint.

 

[Church_Militant]

Yes and that still remains fact.

The Didache teaches almost nothing

your Catechism teaches today. When I say “the Didache,” I mean the whole work, Michael.No…I’m sorry but I will not allow you to change your position now that the debate has begun, unless it is to admit that you made a specious assertion that is in fact not true. No two written works will be complete copies of each other unless that was the intent of their respective authors and this was certainly not the case here.

It is completely unreasonable for you to expect us to allow you to assert that they must be parallel en toto.

And as to anyone not learning something yet, here’s what you missed for yourself

:

"keep what you have received, neither adding thereto nor taking away therefrom"Yet as you can see from the text of the Didache, there are already things added as the teachings of the apostles were spread. I need only point out the unique doxology that is used in the Our Father later on which is not found in the oldest and best manuscripts of the New Testament and was erroneously added to the text by the King James translators…just an example.

Basic Christian ethics. Nothing particularly Roman Catholic about any of this. This is all Scripture.

Still, this remains almost nothing from your Catechism. Where is the rest?

Yet the same scriptures are used in support of those same teachings in the modern catechism…contrary to your assertion that there is so little in common between it and the Didache.

 

[Atemi]

Chapter 6. Against False Teachers, and Food Offered to Idols. See that no one causes you to err from this way of the Teaching, since apart from God it teaches you. For if you are able to bear the entire yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if you are not able to do this, do what you are able. And concerning food, bear what you are able; but against that which is sacrificed to idols be exceedingly careful; for it is the service of dead gods.

Idolatry…

This doesn’t even start to touch the modern CCC.

My church teaches against idolatry too. This is all old news. Where are all the Roman Catholic doctrines that are supposed to be here?

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

Well here’s another one that teaches something that aligns with Catholic teaching.

Actually, it does not.

Where is that infant baptism your church teaches that must happen? I wonder how the babies fasted two days before their baptism.

Where are the babies commanded to be baptised?

They are not.

This is credo-baptism. The Didache makes no allowances for babies.

Not only that, but your church teaches against the doctrine of the Didache here.

The Didache teaches that baptism is to be by IMMERSION in moving waters. Only when that is not possible, are you ever to poor on the head.

The RCC teaches the opposite, Michael.

**Chapter 8. Fasting and Prayer (the Lord’s Prayer). But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week. Rather, fast on the fourth day and the Preparation (Friday). Do not pray like the hypocrites, but rather as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, like this:

Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily (needful) bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (or, evil); for Thine is the power and the glory for ever…

Pray this three times each day.**

Well there goes the repetitious prayer allegation out the tube, (again).

LOL.

Praying “like this” three times a day is now repetitious prayer?

No, Michael.

Also, where in the CCC today does it command that believers are commanded to pray the Lord’s Prayer 3 times a day?

Fasting on Friday…

And I sure hope you have never fasted on Monday or Thursday!

Have you ever?

Please cite the CCC paragraph that commands Catholics not to fast on Monday and Thursday.

Sorry, still almost nothing the modern CCC teaches today, nevermind the contradictions that are piling up.

The Our Father.

And the only place that the doxology that we use after the Our Father at Mass is recorded.

And Protestants pray the same as well.

Nothing particularly Catholic about any of this.

**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.”**

Eucharistic doctrine, just like Catholics today.

Wrong.

No RC doctrine here at all!

It is missing, Michael.

• Where is ANY mention of Christ’s precious body and blood?
• Where is there any mention that there is any change in the bread or wine?
• Where is there any mention of ANY “Real Presence”?

What Catholic in their right mind would ever teach on the Eucharist and NEVER think to mention about Christ’s flesh and blood or even any “Real Presence” at all?

No Roman Catholic would ever do such a thing, yet this author totally eliminated this from his recorded doctrine for the churches.

Amazing.

Anyone see any signs of “open communion” here?

Yes, Michael.

“But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord”

All the baptised were accepted and invited to the Lord’s Table in the early church. Notice the authors make no mention of someone having to agree to some Catechism that will come down the road 2000 years from then.

No.

Here is the only requirement of the Didache:

“unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord”

The Roman Catholic Church has invented their own doctrine and contradict the Didache.

The Didache is surely no Roman Catholic catechism.

…

 

[Mannyfit75]

I shall read this on the side line. My bet is that Michael will win the debate. He made a convincing presentation.

[SIGN]CHURCH MILITANT[/SIGN]

 

[Church_Militant]

Got an errand to run guys, but I’ll be back later and carry on.

 

[Church_Militant]

I shall read this on the side line. My bet is that Michael will win the debate. He made a convincing presentation.

[SIGN]CHURCH MILITANT[/SIGN]

 

[Teflon93]

he is also my patron saint.

Yet another reason to enjoy your posts, Manny—I’ve certainly noticed an Augustinian flavor to your writing; heartfelt, probing, insightful.

And thank you for your service.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Yet another reason to enjoy your posts, Manny—I’ve certainly noticed an Augustinian flavor to your writing; heartfelt, probing, insightful.

And thank you for your service.

My posts are imperfect but at least the point is noted. I’m no pro in apologetics but I think you learn something about it.

 

[Atemi]

**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 madest 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.**

Look there at the way the Eucharistic prayers parallel this bolded portion.

All of this is found in modern Catholic liturgy and belief.

And my church teaches the same as the bolded as well.

Nothing particularly Catholic here either.

Where are all the RC doctrines that are supposed to be here that we find in the modern Catechism?

• Where is the Real Presence here?
• Where is the talk about true flesh and blood being the Eucharist?
• Where is the talk that the Eucharist is a propitiation for our sins?
• Where is the talk that the priest is to offer the Eucharist?
• Where is the talk that the priest offers Christ to the Father in the Eucharist?

It goes on and on, yet we find almost no RC Eucharistic teaching anywhere in the Didache.

Why would the author choose to teach what he did, but specifically leave out all the other vital RC doctrines?

I know why. Do you?

Chapter 11. Concerning Teachers, Apostles, and Prophets. Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not. But if he teaches so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord. But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there’s a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet. And every prophet who speaks in the Spirit you shall neither try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven. But not every one who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet; but only if he holds the ways of the Lord. Therefore from their ways shall the false prophet and the prophet be known. And every prophet who orders a meal in the Spirit does not eat it, unless he is indeed a false prophet. And every prophet who teaches the truth, but does not do what he teaches, is a false prophet. And every prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of the Church in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself does, shall not be judged among you, for with God he has his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets. But whoever says in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, you shall not listen to him. But if he tells you to give for others’ sake who are in need, let no one judge him.

This appears more period specific than anything, though it certainly is good counsel for us all today.

Agreed.

This may not have much comparison to the modern catechism, but the allegation is “The Didache teaches almost nothing your Catechism teaches today.” and so I don’t have to find a match in every detail. I have already proven that Atemi is dead wrong in his assertion.

Actually, you haven’t

You seem to think I have claimed that you will find not one doctrine in the Didache that the Catechism teaches.

That is a very careless reading of what I said.

Still we have found almost nothing in the Didache that the Catechism teaches. This remains irrefutable.

Where did it all go?

Or better yet, where did all the new doctrines come from?

…

 

[Atemi]

Chapter 12. Reception of Christians. But receive everyone who comes in the name of the Lord, and prove and know him afterward; for you shall have understanding right and left. If he who comes is a wayfarer, assist him as far as you are able; but he shall not remain with you more than two or three days, if need be. But if he wants to stay with you, and is an artisan, let him work and eat. But if he has no trade, according to your understanding, see to it that, as a Christian, he shall not live with you idle. But if he wills not to do, he is a Christ-monger. Watch that you keep away from such.

I guess that bolded part is in line with the modern catechism when it teaches us to receive those who are believers and yet not Catholic and to discern them.

Wrong.

The author says no such thing about discerning who is “not Catholic.”

Please.

He speaks of Christians, not some group called “Catholics.” And as far as I know, the Catechism teaches that non-Catholic Christians are Christians too.

No such claim here, Michael. That was such a horrible stretch.

**Chapter 13. Support of Prophets. But every true prophet who wants to live among you is worthy of his support. So also a true teacher is himself worthy, as the workman, of his support. Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, you shall take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests. But if you have no prophet, give it to the poor. If you make a batch of dough, take the first-fruit and give according to the commandment. So also when you open a jar of wine or of oil, take the first-fruit and give it to the prophets; and of money (silver) and clothing and every possession, take the first-fruit, as it may seem good to you, and give according to the commandment. **

And tithing is the lowest among Catholics from what just about every poll can tell.

Giving to our teachers tro support them is a Scriptural mandate going back thousands of years. Nothing particularly Roman Catholic about this at all.

Not in the least.

**Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord’s Day. 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. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: “In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.” **

Looks like they went to Mass every Sunday

Sorry, Michael, but there is no “Mass” mentioned here at all. A gathering of Christians does not constitute a “Mass.” Adding your own filling to the text is uncalled for.

Please note that they did not go to service on Saturday…like the RCC teaches today.

confessed their sins in a sacramental confession

Where on earth are you getting any “sacramental confession” here?

Why would you insist on adding to the text when it does not say what you would pefer. This is unacceptable.

There is no “sacramental confession” here at all.

This is men repenting of their sin before God like they always did. You find no mention of confessing any sins to any priest anywhere in the entire Didache.

As the Scriptures teach:

1Cr 11:28 " But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup."

and considered the Eucharist a sacrifice.

Yes. Their sacrifice.

Not the “re-presentation” of Calvary for the forgiveness of sins by any priest. Of course, also nowhere mentioned in the Didache.

And plainly, the Didache refers to the consecrated Eucharist as bread, just as Scripture does, which it truly is. And even more plainly, it does not speak of the consecrated Eucharist to even be the body of Christ.

What Catholic is their right mind today would ever do that?

Not one.

Chapter 15. Bishops and Deacons; Christian Reproof. Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Therefore do not despise them, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers. And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel. But to anyone that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents. But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in the Gospel of our Lord.

Looks like the need for good works is preached the same as in the catechism today.

Nothing particularly Roman Catholic about this either.

What else is new?

Please note that nowhere in the DIdache is any priesthood ever mentioned.

Please also note that no "Papacy" is ever mentioned either.

Please also note WHO appoints the bishops in the early church (as the teaching of the Apostles)?

Who? The people.

Notice that the Pope does not appoint any bishops, as there is no papacy in the early church at all.

It is the people that were to appoint their own bishops and deacons alike. This is not the same as modern RC teaching, that is for sure.

Why would the RCC not follow the doctrine of the Apostles as is supposedly taught in this early RC Catechism, the Didache?

…

 

[Atemi]

Chapter 16. Watchfulness; the Coming of the Lord. Watch for your life’s sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ready, for you know not the hour in which our Lord will come. But come together often, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you are not made perfect in the last time. For in the last days false prophets and corrupters shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall be turned into hate; for when lawlessness increases, they shall hate and persecute and betray one another, and then shall appear the world-deceiver as Son of God, and shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands, and he shall do iniquitous things which have never yet come to pass since the beginning. Then shall the creation of men come into the fire of trial, and many shall be made to stumble and shall perish; but those who endure in their faith shall be saved from under the curse itself. And then shall appear the signs of the truth: first, the sign of an outspreading in heaven, then the sign of the sound of the trumpet. And third, the resurrection of the dead – yet not of all, but as it is said: “The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him.” Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven.

Uh oh…looks like the teaching here is that one can lose one’s salvation by not persevering to the end. That’s always been Catholic teaching.

Uhhh, no, Michael.

This chapter is all eschatology.

It speaks of the singular Anti-Christ, the Tribulation, and the Rapture.

That should sound very familiar and is nothing I ever heard at Mass.

Same as in the catechism… yet do you see any of that "Rapture " teaching in this? I sure don’t.

Read carefully:

“then the sign of the sound of the trumpet. And third, the resurrection of the dead”

That is the Rapture when the Lord returns. It looks like the author held a post-Tribulation rapture view, but that is the rapture, like it or not.

Does Atemi’s assertion that “The Didache teaches almost nothing your Catechism teaches today.” hold any water?

Yes. Still does.

You have clearly shown that the Didiache teaches almost nothing that we find in the Catechism today.

• Where are the priests?
• Where is the Papacy?
• Where is Purgatory?
• Where is the offering up of Christ to the Father during Mass?
• Where is the Real Presence?
• Where is the Eucharist as the real flesh and blood of our Lord?
• Where is the Immaculate Conception?
• Where is the Assumption?
• Where are prayers for the dead?
• Where are prayers to the “Saints” for intercession?
• Where are the infants being baptised?

Again and again and again. Etc., etc., etc…

All found in the modern CCC but totally missing from the Didache.

Yes.

You covered the entire Didache in six little posts. Can we do the same with the huge, voluminous RC Catechism which Catholics supposedly must believe to be faithful Christians?

No way.

The Didache teaches almost nothing your Catechism teaches today.

This is readily evident.

…

 

[Hellisreal]

Atemi,

Where does the Church teach I cant go to Mass daily?

Why single out saturday?

By the way, can you go to corporate worship daily?

 

[Atemi]

But what was your assertion? "The Didache teaches almost nothing your Catechism teaches today."

What part of “almost nothing” is difficult to understand?

And this already shows that your assertion is not true.Matthew 5:26 has more meanings than the one cited by the NAB and other sources. Especially since it speaks of “getting out”, which we all know full well one cannot do from hell.

 

[Atemi]

I shall read this on the side line. My bet is that Michael will win the debate. He made a convincing presentation.

[SIGN]CHURCH MILITANT[/SIGN]

Why not post on topic instead of cheerleading?

Is this why you post here on CA?

…

 

[savedsinner]

And my church teaches the same as the bolded as well.

Nothing particularly Catholic here either.

Where are all the RC doctrines that are supposed to be here that we find in the modern Catechism?

• Where is the Real Presence here?
• Where is the talk about true flesh and blood being the Eucharist?
• Where is the talk that the Eucharist is a propitiation for our sins?
• Where is the talk that the priest is to offer the Eucharist?
• Where is the talk that the priest offers Christ to the Father in the Eucharist?

It goes on and on, yet we find almost no RC Eucharistic teaching anywhere in the Didache.

Why would the author choose to teach what he did, but specifically leave out all the other vital RC doctrines?

I know why. Do you?

Agreed.

Actually, you haven’t

You seem to think I have claimed that you will find not one doctrine in the Didache that the Catechism teaches.

That is a very careless reading of what I said.

Still we have found almost nothing in the Didache that the Catechism teaches. This remains irrefutable.

Where did it all go?

Or better yet, where did all the new doctrines come from?

…

The Didache was not written in one sitting, it was a collection of the teachings, so some of it’s teachings were as many as twenty years older than other portions.
This portion of the Didache was written early on in the church before the Agape meal and the Eucharist were separated.
We see this in Paul’s writings when he is telling his readers to eat before they come to Mass. That is the point in time where the Church was separating the two
This doesn’t mean that they didn’t believe in the real presence, because we can see in the other writings of the apostolic church fathers that indeed they did believe in the real presence of the Eucharist.

 

[rtconstant]

Wrong.

No RC doctrine here at all!

It is missing, Michael.

Where is ANY mention of Christ’s precious body and blood?
Where is there any mention that there is any change in the bread or wine?
Where is there any mention of ANY “Real Presence”?

What Catholic in their right mind would ever teach on the Eucharist and NEVER think to mention about Christ’s flesh and blood or even any “Real Presence” at all?

No Roman Catholic would ever do such a thing, yet this author totally eliminated this from his recorded doctrine for the churches.

Amazing.

All doctrine taught within such a small document is by default implied for us; assumed for them. Where that a Catholic understanding of the eucharist is implied in the didache is in the language it uses in general discreption.

Let us look closer:

"First, concerning the cup:
We thank You, our Father,
For the Holy Vine of David Your servant,
Whom You made known to us through Your Servant;
May the glory be Yours forever. "

Interesting choice of words isn’t it? This is the the blessing of the cup yet it is Jesus who the celebrant is giving thanks for. Interesting isn’t it?

Let see if the patern continues with the bread:

"Concerning the broken bread:
We thank You, our Father,
For the life and knowledge
Which You made known to us through Your Servant;
May the glory be Yours forever. "

So again we have a thanks for the life and works of Jesus given at the blessing of bread. Further this bread is then used in reference to the Church as the Body of Christ.

"As this broken bread was scattered over the mountains,
And was gathered together to become one,
So let Your Body of Faithful be gathered together
From the ends of the earth into Your kingdom;
for the glory and power are Yours forever. "

Finally it is refered to as holy. Crackers and juice, as my protestant friends like call communion are not holy. Symbolic gestures are likewise not holy. If there is truly any real danger for those who partake without being worthy there must be something very real going on.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Why not post on topic instead of cheerleading?

Is this why you post here on CA?

…

I post because I know that Michael pointed out to you the points in the Catechism and its parallel comparison to the Didache. I happen to have a copy of the Didache on my computer. Most of what Michael say would probably be the same stuff I would write.

Why repeat the same answers when they have already been given to you?

Since this debate is between you and Michael; I shall leave it at that, Atemi.

If I wish to give my points here I would be more than happy to discuss them.

Besides, I don’t know enough about this thread since I need to read over the the material being used.

Realistically speaking, Atemi. The Catechism teaches core essential beliefs that is founded in the Didache. The Didache doesn’t have the Assumption or Immaculate Conception in it because they were not defined then.

 

[savedsinner]

Y

Basic Christian ethics. Nothing particularly Roman Catholic about any of this. This is all Scripture.

…

Ummm… Atemi,
Roman Catholicism is basic Christianity in it’s fullest truth.

 

[guanophore]

It (Didache) parallels teachings from all faiths, and includes references to the Gospels themselves.

All faiths? Like which?

Nothing particularly Roman Catholic about any of this.

No. At the time, the Latin Rite had not yet developed, and all the Catholic Churches were more similar in liturgical practices. However, the teaching itself has not changed.

The need for giving alms is still a teaching of the Catholic Church.

Do you think this is inappropriate, or not consistent with Jesus commandments?

Not particularly Roman Catholic either.

I guess I am not sure why you are looking for references to the Latin Rite?

 This ***does not even begin*** to touch the magnitude of doctrine in the modern CCC.

It is almost an exact outline of the same CCC today. THe catchism has been fleshed out quite a bit, and depth added to address more modern issues, but the principle concepts are the same.

The Didache is the “first edition” and we are up to the 20th now.

 I don't think you properly grasped what I claimed.

I DID NOT say:

“The Catechism teaches almost nothing the Didache teaches”

I said:

“The Didache teaches almost nothing your Catechism teaches today”

The difference between the two is where you are erring. And I was proven right the day the new Catechism was printed. The Didache contains almost nothing your present Catechism teaches.

This is incontestable.

…

Perhaps we will not be able to contest it with you, Atemi, as you seem to have your mind made up. However, almost 100% of what is in the Didache is found in the CCC today, and more.

 

[guanophore]

It (Didache) parallels teachings from all faiths, and includes references to the Gospels themselves.

All faiths? Like which?

Nothing particularly Roman Catholic about any of this.

No. At the time, the Latin Rite had not yet developed, and all the Catholic Churches were more similar in liturgical practices. However, the teaching itself has not changed.

The need for giving alms is still a teaching of the Catholic Church.

Do you think this is inappropriate, or not consistent with Jesus commandments?

Not particularly Roman Catholic either.

I guess I am not sure why you are looking for references to the Latin Rite?

 This ***does not even begin*** to touch the magnitude of doctrine in the modern CCC.

It is almost an exact outline of the same CCC today. THe catchism has been fleshed out quite a bit, and depth added to address more modern issues, but the principle concepts are the same.

The Didache is the “first edition” and we are up to the 20th now.

 I don't think you properly grasped what I claimed.

I DID NOT say:

“The Catechism teaches almost nothing the Didache teaches”

I said:

“The Didache teaches almost nothing your Catechism teaches today”

The difference between the two is where you are erring. And I was proven right the day the new Catechism was printed. The Didache contains almost nothing your present Catechism teaches.

This is incontestable.

…

Perhaps we will not be able to contest it with you, Atemi, as you seem to have your mind made up. However, almost 100% of what is in the Didache is found in the CCC today, and more.

This is all from Scripture and even Jewish doctrine. Nothing particularly Roman Catholic about any of this. Basic ethics,

Indeed, the bulk of the CCC is basic ethics, and they are grounded in scripture and Sacred Oral Tradition, which is what Jesus learned and taught all his life. That is why it is called the Teaching of Jesus and the Apostles. They were all well versed in Sacred Oral Tradition also. No wonder it is not Roman, as there were not cultural distinctions at the time. There was one united Catholicity.

Basic Christian ethics here. Nothing particularly Roman Catholic about any of this.

The CCC is not intended to be “Roman” either, so I am not sure I get your point here.

This is no Catholic Catechism so far, that is for sure. All the most vital Catholic doctrines still remain missing. Where are all of them that we find in the huge Catholic Catechism today?

These ARE the core of the Catholic doctrines, Atemi.

My assertion still remians fact.

The silence of the Didache is deafening.

…

This is no Catholic Catechism so far, that is for sure. All the most vital Catholic doctrines still remain missing. Where are all of them that we find in the huge Catholic Catechism today?

My assertion still remians fact.

The silence of the Didache is deafening.

…

I find it curious that you consider your assertions facts. That is amazing! I also wonder if you think some other religion spawned the Didache, and that it was not written by CAtholics. Do you think it is a spurious document?

Jesus said that the Kingdom would be like a mustard seed, the smallest of all seeds that grows into a huge tree. In the Didache, you see the tiny mustard seed (well, Book of Actsfirst) and now the huge tree that has branches for nesting birds. Perhaps you do not recognize that this tree came from that seed?