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

[Atemi]

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

Yes, I understand that is the Catholic claim. It can claim nothing else or collapse under the revelation otherwise.

…

 

[Atemi]

I post because I know that Michael pointed out to you the points in the Catechism and its parallel comparison to the Didache.

To be a parallel, the doctrines must actually be parallel.

Huge gaps and contradicting doctrines do not make for any “parallels.”

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?

So then cheerlead via PM.

It has no place in a thread on the Didache.

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

It is not a debate between us. Everyone is invited to contribute.

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

Please do.

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.

But I always thought these were doctrines always taught and believed by the Church. That is what Catholics tell me daily.

I thought they were Apostolic. The Didache is supposedly the doctrine of the Apostles…not only “defined” doctrines which we will not see for almost 2 millenia…

…

 

[maurin]

To be a parallel, the doctrines must actually be parallel.

Huge gaps and contradicting doctrines do not make for any “parallels.”

So then cheerlead via PM.

It has no place in a thread on the Didache.

It is not a debate between us. Everyone is invited to contribute.

Please do.

But I always thought these were doctrines always taught and believed by the Church. That is what Catholics tell me daily.

I thought they were Apostolic. The Didache is supposedly the doctrine of the Apostles…not only “defined” doctrines which we will not see for almost 2 millenia…

…

(Atemi,

your attempts to proselytize might be more successful if you’re attitude were at all Christ-like.)

 

[Atemi]

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.

Yes.

This portion of the Didache was written early on in the church before the Agape meal and the Eucharist were separated.

That explains why the author never teaches that the Eucharist is Christ’s real flesh and blood and anything whatsoever about any “Real Presence”?

What Catholic in their right mind would not speak of any of this when speaking of the Eucharist?

Both you and I know that no faithful Catholic would EVER do so…especially if what they are teaching will be used by the churches as a form of catechism.

No.

That is not an acceptable conclusion.

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

Catholics say all the time that Paul himself teaches the Real Presence and about Christ’s real flesh and blood all the way before the separation.

And are you saying that the feast is not Apostolic in origin?

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.

Well juxtaposing what others teach later upon what the Didache itself plainly teaches is a mistake.

We are talking about the Didache and how it teaches almost nothing that the modern CCC teaches.

…

 

[Atemi]

All doctrine taught within such a small document is by default implied for us; assumed for them.

So you are saying that what the Didache plainly does not teach you are more than welcome to fill in the blanks and assume it teaches.

That is not a very sound way of determining truth, IMV.

Where that a Catholic understanding of the eucharist is implied in the didache is in the language it uses in general discreption.

There is absolutely no Catholic understanding in the Didache. It is totaly bereft of any uniquely Catholic interpretations of the Eucharist.

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?

No.

My church thanks the Father for Jesus’ too.

There is absolutely no talk of this being blood or Jesus being present at all.

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.

We all thank the Father for Jesus. There is nothing particularly Catholic about this at all.

What is conspicuously missing from these instructions says more about the Didache than what it included.

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.

Wrong.

The practice and partaking of the Eucharist, Catholic or not, is a sacred and holy thing. Please notice that the Didache teaches that all the baptised have a place at the Table. What does the RCC teach in that regard?

As far as symbols being holy, please refer back to your OT and start at the Temple and Jewish Law.

Something “real going on” (which the Didache never teaches) does not automatically equate to Transubstantiation, constant.

This is basic.

…

 

[maurin]

Yes.

That explains why the author never teaches that the Eucharist is Christ’s real flesh and blood and anything whatsoever about any “Real Presence”?

What Catholic in their right mind would not speak of any of this when speaking of the Eucharist?

Both you and I know that no faithful Catholic would EVER do so…especially if what they are teaching will be used by the churches as a form of catechism.

Catholics say all the time that Paul himself teaches the Real Presence and about Christ’s real flesh and blood all the way before the separation.

We are talking about the Didache and how it teaches almost nothing that the modern CCC teaches.

…

Atemi,

I will admit to you that to an uninformed Christian, you make an excellent case!

However, to an informed one you do not. You have referenced Paul’s teaching of the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, so let me start there:

1 Cor 11:27: Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

We Catholics cannot understand, if the bread and the chalice of the Lord are not in fact The Body and the Blood of the Lord, how one could be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. Can one be guilty of bread and wine?

And what of this guilt? Guilt of what? I think, Atemi, that we can both agree that it is my sin and yours which nailed Christ’s Body to the Cross, yes? But were you or I there when He was Crucified? Were we alive and sinning? Of course not. I was born in 1963, almost 2 millenia later. And you?

So how can we rightly say that our sins Nailed Him There? I think we both agree on the answer.

So my point about ‘guilt’ the way Paul is speaking of it above, is that as Catholics, we believe that we can’t be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord when we Communicate unworthily if the Matter of Communion is not in fact God. Otherwise, Paul’s words make no sense.

We have much evidence, as has already been cited (and you have ignored or rejected), from the first generations of Christians that this is exactly how The Blessed Sacrament was viewed from the start: The Body and Blood of the Lord.

To call the Didache a “form of Catechism” as you have is your conjecture, though. A Catechism is a formal Teaching of the Faith. The Didache was simply a Church Manual, guidelines for the Congregation. There is a chasm between Catechism and Manual.

If The Didache was considered inspired and infallible, we might have found it in the Canon of Scripture. Because we do not find it as a book of Scripture, inspired and infallible, it is no surprise that there may or may not be mistakes in it.

What it all boils down to though, Atemi, is that we accept Paul’s teachings on the Eucharist on Faith.

It seems your pov comes from a lack of faith.

 

[Penitus]

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

Who? The people.

This disproves nothing. SEVERAL, SEVERAL Catholic Popes, bishops, priests, and deacons have been elected by the people through the years. Once elected, they went to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. Let me list a few:

Hilary of Poitiers (bishop)
Celestius V (Pope)
Paschal I (Pope)
Cyril of Jerusalem (bishop)
Leo IX (Pope)
Athanasius (bishop)
Germanus of Paris (bishop)

this list could go on and on Artemi. The fact that the people elected their church leaders has nothing to do with the sacrament of holy orders or apostolic succession.

 

[Penitus]

Also I’d like to point out that the Didache 4:5 is a direct reference to Sirach 4:31. So if the author of the Didache quotes Sirach as Scripture, he probably considers it as God-breathed as the rest of Scripture he quotes.

Didache 4:5

Do not be one who holds out his hand to receive, but one who draws it back to give.

Sirach 4:31

Do not let your hand be stretched out to receive and closed when it is time to give.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Seems to me that Atemi has (as usual) switched his position once his original was shot down.

Original claim: “The Didache contains almost nothing taught in the Catechism”.

Current claim: “The Didache does not contain all doctrines found in the Catechism”.

Atemi, all of your responses to CM’s posts seem geared to pointing out bits of the Catechism that are not in the Didache, when you ought - for the sake of intellectual honesty - to defend your original claim by demonstrating how the Didache contains almost nothing that can be found in the Catechism.

In other words, the burden is on you to show that the vast majority of the teachings of the Didache are not to be found in the Catechism.

So far, CM has shown you to be wrong on this count.

Furthermore, one of your frequent fallbacks is “Nothing particularly Roman Catholic here…basic Christian ethics…etc.” In making such statements, you are ignoring the fact that to be Christian at the time of the Apostles was to be Catholic.

Finally, even if that wasn’t the case, the fact that a particular teaching is shared among Christian communities has no bearing on whether or not it is found in the Catechism. If it is to be found there, it’s Catholic doctrine, and if it’s also in the Didache, it’s further evidence against your claim that the Didache and the Catechism have little in common.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Atemi]

This disproves nothing.

It proves that the Catholic Church today does not practice what is supposedly “the doctrine of the Apostles” in having the people choose their bishops and deacons for themselves.

Of course, the Didache never mentions priests because there were none in the earliest church.

The fact that the people elected their church leaders has nothing to do with the sacrament of holy orders or apostolic succession.

Holy Orders?

This is yet another sacrament never taught in the Didache but taught in the modern Catechism.

Of course, there is no teaching of anything called “Apostolic Succession” in the Didache either.

…

 

[Atemi]

Also I’d like to point out that the Didache 4:5 is a direct reference to Sirach 4:31. So if the author of the Didache quotes Sirach as Scripture, he probably considers it as God-breathed as the rest of Scripture he quotes.

I am sorry, but can you please cite where in the Didache the author says that he was quoting Scripture there?

Would that also mean that the pagan Greek poetry the Holy Spirit quoted in His Word were also inspired Scripture?

…

 

[Pax]

…
…

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?

…

This is a fabrication on your part. Bishops were and have been appointed in many different ways since Pentecost. Please note what scripture has to say on this issue when it comes to some appointments:

Acts 14:23
And when they[Paul and Barnabas] **had appointed elders **for them in every church, with prayer and fasting, they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.

1 Tim 4:13-16
Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you. Practice these duties, devote yourself to them, so that all may see your progress. Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

1 Tim 5:17
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;

Titus 1:4-11
To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior. This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, **and appoint elders **in every town as I directed you, if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of being profligate or insubordinate. For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled; he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it. For there are many insubordinate men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially the circumcision party; they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for base gain what they have no right to teach.

Your contention is simply untenable.

 

[maurin]

It proves that the Catholic Church today does not practice what is supposedly “the doctrine of the Apostles” in having the people choose their bishops and deacons for themselves.

Of course, the Didache never mentions priests because there were none in the earliest church.

Holy Orders?

This is yet another sacrament never taught in the Didache but taught in the modern Catechism.

Of course, there is no teaching of anything called “Apostolic Succession” in the Didache either.

…

Your starting point is that the Didache is a Catechism. It is not, Atemi. And it is claimed by both Syria and Egypt as its place of origin, not Rome, which always was the center of the Church.

And the people choosing their own Bishops and Priests (presbyteroi is not found in the Scriptures, huh?) is not a Doctrine, it is a discipline. Disciplines change with the times, Doctrine (faith and morals) does not (accept in the protestant ecclesial communities where we have seen in the last 100 years radical changes in their doctrines: birth control, acceptance of homosexuality as natural, and divorce, anyone?).

 

[Pax]

It proves that the Catholic Church today does not practice what is supposedly “the doctrine of the Apostles” in having the people choose their bishops and deacons for themselves.

Of course, the Didache never mentions priests because there were none in the earliest church.

Holy Orders?

This is yet another sacrament never taught in the Didache but taught in the modern Catechism.

Of course, there is no teaching of anything called “Apostolic Succession” in the Didache either.

…

This is indirectly but clearly refuted by my prior post.

 

[Pax]

Atemi,

You are arguing in a fashion that is a bit disingenuous. Please note that no one is claiming that all doctrine and teaching is contained in the Didache. Instead, the contention is that the contents of the Didache are Catholic.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Seems to me that Atemi has (as usual) switched his position once his original was shot down.

Original claim: “The Didache contains almost nothing taught in the Catechism”.

Current claim: “The Didache does not contain all doctrines found in the Catechism”.

Atemi, all of your responses to CM’s posts seem geared to pointing out bits of the Catechism that are not in the Didache, when you ought - for the sake of intellectual honesty - to defend your original claim by demonstrating how the Didache contains almost nothing that can be found in the Catechism.

In other words, the burden is on you to show that the vast majority of the teachings of the Didache are not to be found in the Catechism.

So far, CM has shown you to be wrong on this count.

Furthermore, one of your frequent fallbacks is “Nothing particularly Roman Catholic here…basic Christian ethics…etc.” In making such statements, you are ignoring the fact that to be Christian at the time of the Apostles was to be Catholic.

Finally, even if that wasn’t the case, the fact that a particular teaching is shared among Christian communities has no bearing on whether or not it is found in the Catechism. If it is to be found there, it’s Catholic doctrine, and if it’s also in the Didache, it’s further evidence against your claim that the Didache and the Catechism have little in common.

Peace,
Dante

Bump.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Pax]

I am sorry, but can you please cite where in the Didache the author says that he was quoting Scripture there?

Would that also mean that the pagan Greek poetry the Holy Spirit quoted in His Word were also inspired Scripture?

…

Please explain your question. I am not familiar with the passage you are referring to in reference to the Holy Spirit. I would say, however, that if something is in scripture then it is the inspired word of God. This does not mean that a pagan declaration quoted in scripture is God’s word. It does, however, have a place in scripture and is an integral part of the inspired word or it would not have been included.

Beyond that, it is pretty clear that you are dismissing a point that may be quite legitimate by drawing a parallel when it is inappropriate to do so. Your questions resemble a quip and not a refutation.

 

[Penitus]

Holy Orders?

This is yet another sacrament never taught in the Didache but taught in the modern Catechism.

Of course, there is no teaching of anything called “Apostolic Succession” in the Didache either.

…

Of course, Roman Catholics aren’t sola-Didachists either. Who ever said we should expect to find every single teaching of the Church in this one document? Not even a Protestant can find all their beliefs based on one single document.

 

[Atemi]

I will admit to you that to an uninformed Christian, you make an excellent case!

Left handed compliments are to be expected, I guess.

However, to an informed one you do not.

Actually, I do.

It is only to biased Christians that no case can be made.

You have referenced Paul’s teaching of the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, so let me start there:

1 Cor 11:27: Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

We Catholics cannot understand, if the bread and the chalice of the Lord are not in fact The Body and the Blood of the Lord, how one could be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. Can one be guilty of bread and wine?

And what of this guilt? Guilt of what? I think, Atemi, that we can both agree that it is my sin and yours which nailed Christ’s Body to the Cross, yes? But were you or I there when He was Crucified? Were we alive and sinning? Of course not. I was born in 1963, almost 2 millenia later. And you?

So how can we rightly say that our sins Nailed Him There? I think we both agree on the answer.

So my point about ‘guilt’ the way Paul is speaking of it above, is that as Catholics, we believe that we can’t be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord when we Communicate unworthily if the Matter of Communion is not in fact God. Otherwise, Paul’s words make no sense.

This thread is about the Didache and what it does, or does not, teach. This thread is not about Catholic Eucharistic theology.

You are welcome to start one if you like.

We have much evidence, as has already been cited (and you have ignored or rejected), from the first generations of Christians that this is exactly how The Blessed Sacrament was viewed from the start: The Body and Blood of the Lord.

Not from the Didache, that is for sure, and that is what this thread is about.

The Didache never refers to the Eucharist as the body and blood of the Lord when it easily could have and should have if the authors were even slightly interested in doing so.

No mention of anything even resembling Transubstantiation or any “Real Presence” either.

This is very significant.

No faithful Catholic would ever, ever speak of teachings on the Eucharist and never mention any one of the above.

To call the Didache a “form of Catechism” as you have is your conjecture, though.

Actually, it is not.

It is the conjecture of your fellow Catholic here and is the very impetus from where this thread originated.

If The Didache was considered inspired and infallible, we might have found it in the Canon of Scripture. Because we do not find it as a book of Scripture, inspired and infallible, it is no surprise that there may or may not be mistakes in it.

Ahhh.

The deafening silence on almost every major Roman Catholic doctrine that we find in the Catechism today is simply a “mistake.”

I cannot believe that, though you are more than welcome to.

It seems your pov comes from a lack of faith.

Keep your personal insults and lack of respect to yourself.

Personally attacking me as you wander off topic does not help this thread any.

…

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Of course, Roman Catholics aren’t sola-Didachists either. Who ever said we should expect to find every single teaching of the Church in this one document? Not even a Protestant can find all their beliefs based on one single document.

Which is odd, considering that the totality of Protestant doctrines that are shared across denominations would fit on a matchbook.

Peace,
Dante