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

[Teflon93]

Exactly! And his assertion was that “The Didache teaches almost nothing your Catechism teaches today.”, to which I responded by showing, as I have done that he offered a rhetorical and false statement.However, I would not have phrased my thinking like that.

They may be Catholic (in name…perhaps in the same sense that n-Cs will use the term “Christian”.), but they are not in authority, qualified to offer their dissent or opposition, nor are they found to be faithfully practicing the Catholic faith. Their rhetoric and/or practices no more reflect faithful Catholicism than any “backslider” does the faith of their respective n-C communities.An interesting point, but perhaps more pertinent to the other thread on unity since this one really is only about the comparison of the Didache to the teachings of the Catechism and modern Catholic practice.

You’re right—I confused the threads.

So has Atemi redacted his claim that the Didache teaches nothing of what the Catechism teaches? Has he redacted his claim that the Didache is one page long?

Or has he simply repeated the charge again?

 

[Church_Militant]

You’re right—I confused the threads.

So has Atemi redacted his claim that the Didache teaches nothing of what the Catechism teaches? Has he redacted his claim that the Didache is one page long?

Or has he simply repeated the charge again?

I don’t think he’s seen this thread yet, but I’m sure he will.

I just checked and even if you shrink the fonts down to a mere standard 10…it’s still at least 3 pages long and it’s 4 as it is on most sites, though I did see one that came out to 2 pages but the print would be minuscule. So even in that assertion he appears to be in error…

We’ll see how he handles this thread.:juggle:

 

[Tomster]

What is indisputable is how little the Early Church of the Didache resembles most Protestant communities’ worship services and practices today.

When it comes to the debate over the Early Church, only the Orthodox and the Catholic have a leg to stand on.

Thus the debate has continued down to our own day, the disputants having only this much in common: a concern to pursue their investigations in the light of reason alone and a rejection of any authoritative guidance, divine or otherwise.

Is there any explanation, apart from the fallibility of even the most conscientious student, of the inconsistencies into which the private interpretation of Scripture has led them?

We know from the New Testament itself that Jesus gave further teaching to his disciples over and above what came down to us in the four Gospels. St. Paul, when at Ephesus, recalls a well remembered saying not recorded by the evangelists: " . . . the words spoken by Jesus himself, It is more blessed to give than to receive." (Acts 20:35) We have evidence also of additional instruction on the kingdom of God between the Resurrection and the Ascension. (Acts 1:3) But at no point in our records do we find the conception of a definite doctrinal tradition, a formulated teaching transmitted from the apostles to be lacking. The Didache testifies to it. St. Polycarp, writing only a few years later to the Christians at Philippi, warns any who might be disposed to waver to “reject the vanity and false teaching of the many, and return to the doctrine which had been handed down from the beginning.” (Epistle to the Philippeans 7:1)

 

[Church_Militant]

Atemi was on briefly earlier today, but did not post on this, so I have PMd him a link to it.

We’ll see if he is really interested in discussing this like he said.

I’m curious as to how he will respond to the posts containing the Didache and showing that his remark was (at best) ill informed.

 

[Church_Militant]

 

[Tonks40]

I was thinking the exact same thing! He must’ve seen this thread by now! The curiosity is killing me!

 

[Teflon93]

I was thinking the exact same thing! He must’ve seen this thread by now! The curiosity is killing me!

Just waiting long enough to repost his original post with no acknowledgement whatsoever that it has been utterly refuted.

 

[Church_Militant]

I was thinking the exact same thing! He must’ve seen this thread by now! The curiosity is killing me!

Just waiting long enough to repost his original post with no acknowledgment whatsoever that it has been utterly refuted.

Actually he was on last night briefly and got my PM and replied that somehow he had missed it but planned to get into it in the next day or so.

 

[Atemi]

First off, thanks to Mr. Francis for splitting this off for us…

**The Didache teaches almost nothing your Catechism teaches today. What a horrible claim. **

Okay… let’s just examine this claim of yours atemi.

The Didache
The Lord’s Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations.

Chapter 1. The Two Ways and the First Commandment. There are two ways, one of life and one of death, but a great difference between the two ways. The way of life, then, is this: First, you shall love God who made you; second, love your neighbor as yourself, and do not do to another what you would not want done to you. And of these sayings the teaching is this: Bless those who curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for those who persecute you. For what reward is there for loving those who love you? Do not the Gentiles do the same? But love those who hate you, and you shall not have an enemy. Abstain from fleshly and worldly lusts. If someone strikes your right cheek, turn to him the other also, and you shall be perfect. If someone impresses you for one mile, go with him two. If someone takes your cloak, give him also your coat. If someone takes from you what is yours, ask it not back, for indeed you are not able. Give to every one who asks you, and ask it not back; for the Father wills that to all should be given of our own blessings (free gifts). Happy is he who gives according to the commandment, for he is guiltless. Woe to him who receives; for if one receives who has need, he is guiltless; but he who receives not having need shall pay the penalty, why he received and for what. And coming into confinement, he shall be examined concerning the things which he has done, and he shall not escape from there until he pays back the last penny. And also concerning this, it has been said, Let your alms sweat in your hands, until you know to whom you should give.

Most of the early part of this chapter is a given & in fact parallels the catechism.

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

Nothing particularly Roman Catholic about any of this.

A clear reference to Purgatory.

Whoa.

Not even close, Michael.

Not only is there no explicit reference to Purgatory here, but there is no implicit mention of Purgatory here either.

What the author is doing is citing our Lord in Matt 5:26.

There is absolutely no reference of Purgatory in Matt 5:26 and the footnotes of the Catholic NAB explain:

“The severity of the judge in the parable is a warning of the fate of unrepentant sinners in the coming judgment by God.”

And that Bible is correct. You are horribly mistaken.

Since the concept of Purgatory still remained just a possibility in the 5th century, you have no such argument here at all.

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

Not particularly Roman Catholic either.

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

So far it’s a clean sweep, which means that you are already proved wrong…but we’ll go on anyway.

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.

…

 

[Teflon93]

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.

…

Looks like I won the pool!

 

[Atemi]

Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Grave Sin Forbidden. And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued, for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbor. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.

Wow! Sounds almost identical to the catechism on the commandments, so again atemi is proved dead wrong.

Wrong. Not identical at all.

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

And again, you have misunderstood my claim. I have not been proved “dead wrong.” Not by any long shot at all.

Abortion is a mortal sin. Same as the catechism teaches today.

Notice also here the discourse is about what we term today as “Mortal Sin”. Still wanna claim “The Didache teaches almost nothing your Catechism teaches today.”? I sure wouldn’t.

Nonsense. Pure nonsense.

This is not teaching on “mortal” sin and makes no claim to.

And does your church teach that to even swear is to commit “mortal” sin?

Please.

**Chapter 3. Other Sins Forbidden. My child, flee from every evil thing, and from every likeness of it. Be not prone to anger, for anger leads to murder. Be neither jealous, nor quarrelsome, nor of hot temper, for out of all these murders are engendered. My child, be not a lustful one. for lust leads to fornication. Be neither a filthy talker, nor of lofty eye, for out of all these adulteries are engendered. My child, be not an observer of omens, since it leads to idolatry. Be neither an enchanter, nor an astrologer, nor a purifier, nor be willing to took at these things, for out of all these idolatry is engendered. My child, be not a liar, since a lie leads to theft. Be neither money-loving, nor vainglorious, for out of all these thefts are engendered. My child, be not a murmurer, since it leads the way to blasphemy. Be neither self-willed nor evil-minded, for out of all these blasphemies are engendered.

Rather, be meek, since the meek shall inherit the earth. Be long-suffering and pitiful and guileless and gentle and good and always trembling at the words which you have heard. You shall not exalt yourself, nor give over-confidence to your soul. Your soul shall not be joined with lofty ones, but with just and lowly ones shall it have its intercourse. Accept whatever happens to you as good, knowing that apart from God nothing comes to pass.**

The Cardinal and Theological Virtues…just as they are found in CCC 1805 & 1810 today.

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

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?

Gee atemi, did ya think we were stupid enough to take your assertion as fact?!!

My assertion still remians fact.

The silence of the Didache is deafening.

…

 

[YADA]

I could not disagree with Atemi more…

From my study the Didache is an example of [and perhaps is] an early Cathechism and Sacramentary being both an instruction in the faith and practice of being a Christian and the rubrics of the practice.

It includes scriptural quotations, instruction and interpretations of those quotations, instructions on how to baptize and the Eucharistic prayers, who is admitted to communion, etc.

And it is very “Catholic” in its Christian message and presentation.

The first time I read the Eucharistic prayer chapter the hairs on the back of my neck stood up. I found it beautiful and eerily familiar. I guess I would have expected more changes to have occurred over time [nearly 2000 years of development]. Yet in the core essentials and most of the words/sentiments expressed it was what I heard at Mass every Sunday.

What a blessing and treasure the Didache is for the Church today…and IMHO, if we lived and practiced our faith as expressed in the Didache we would be in harmony withthe CCC of today and fully Christian…

 

[Atemi]

Chapter 4. Various Precepts. My child, remember night and day him who speaks the word of God to you, and honor him as you do the Lord. For wherever the lordly rule is uttered, there is the Lord. And seek out day by day the faces of the saints, in order that you may rest upon their words. Do not long for division, but rather bring those who contend to peace. Judge righteously, and do not respect persons in reproving for transgressions. You shall not be undecided whether or not it shall be. Be not a stretcher forth of the hands to receive and a drawer of them back to give. If you have anything, through your hands you shall give ransom for your sins. Do not hesitate to give, nor complain when you give; for you shall know who is the good repayer of the hire. Do not turn away from him who is in want; rather, share all things with your brother, and do not say that they are your own. For if you are partakers in that which is immortal, how much more in things which are mortal? Do not remove your hand from your son or daughter; rather, teach them the fear of God from their youth. Do not enjoin anything in your bitterness upon your bondman or maidservant, who hope in the same God, lest ever they shall fear not God who is over both; for he comes not to call according to the outward appearance, but to them whom the Spirit has prepared. And you bondmen shall be subject to your masters as to a type of God, in modesty and fear. You shall hate all hypocrisy and everything which is not pleasing to the Lord. Do not in any way forsake the commandments of the Lord; but keep what you have received, neither adding thereto nor taking away therefrom. In the church you shall acknowledge your transgressions, and you shall not come near for your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life.

That red part is one that Atemi hasn’t learned yet I guess…or have you ever read this for yourself? It doesn’t appear that you have or I wouldn’t be proving you dead wrong in every chapter so far. Remember what you said? Here, lemme refresh your memory a little Atemi. “The Didache teaches almost nothing your Catechism teaches today.”

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.

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”

Hey, I got a strange idea! How about we leave the personal attacks aside and just stay on topic. Is that really so difficult?

Chapter 5. The Way of Death. And the way of death is this: First of all it is evil and accursed: murders, adultery, lust, fornication, thefts, idolatries, magic arts, witchcrafts, rape, false witness, hypocrisy, double-heartedness, deceit, haughtiness, depravity, self-will, greediness, filthy talking, jealousy, over-confidence, loftiness, boastfulness; persecutors of the good, hating truth, loving a lie, not knowing a reward for righteousness, not cleaving to good nor to righteous judgment, watching not for that which is good, but for that which is evil; from whom meekness and endurance are far, loving vanities, pursuing revenge, not pitying a poor man, not laboring for the afflicted, not knowing Him Who made them, murderers of children, destroyers of the handiwork of God, turning away from him who is in want, afflicting him who is distressed, advocates of the rich, lawless judges of the poor, utter sinners. Be delivered, children, from all these.

This is one of the best so far and anyone who can’t locate most all of this in the current CCC please just PM me and I’ll show you how to use the searchable CCC.

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?

…

 

[Teflon93]

The Didache teaches almost nothing your Catechism teaches today. When I say “the Didache,” I mean the whole work, Michael.

Would that be the one page Didache you originally referred to or the multipage Didache with which all of us are familiar?

At least you seem to have taken some time in between to better acquaint yourself with the Didache, Atemi, if only to know what you distort.

 

[adrift]

Wrong. Not identical at all.

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

And again, you have misunderstood my claim. I have not been proved “dead wrong.” Not by any long shot at all.

Nonsense. Pure nonsense.

This is not teaching on “mortal” sin and makes no claim to.

And does your church teach that to even swear is to commit “mortal” sin?

Please.

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

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 said:

"The Didache teaches almost nothing your Catechism teaches today"

You state it is not identical but you don’t say why.

Your assertion is just that an assertion that is not based in fact.

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

That isn’t surprising since scripture came from the Catholic Church. It is what the Church teaches. You have yet to show anything that is not taught that is mentioned in the Didache.

 

[Church_Militant]

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

Nothing particularly Roman Catholic about any of this.

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

And this already shows that your assertion is not true.

Whoa.

Not even close

, Michael.

Not only is there no explicit reference to Purgatory here, but there is no implicit mention of Purgatory here either.

What the author is doing is citing our Lord in Matt 5:26.

There is absolutely no reference of Purgatory in Matt 5:26 and the footnotes of the Catholic NAB explain:

“The severity of the judge in the parable is a warning of the fate of unrepentant sinners in the coming judgment by God.”

And that Bible is correct. You are horribly mistaken.

Since the concept of Purgatory still remained just a possibility in the 5th century, you have no such argument here at all.

Woe to him who receives; for if one receives who has need, he is guiltless; but he who receives not having need shall pay the penalty, why he received and for what. And coming into confinement, he shall be examined concerning the things which he has done, and he shall not escape from there until he pays back the last penny.

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.

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

Not particularly Roman Catholic either.

This does not even begin to touch the magnitude of doctrine in the modern CCC.But again…your assertion was that there was “almost nothing” in the Didache that parallels the current Catechism.

Again…your assertion is proved to be false.

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.Oh I think I did indeed catch your meaning. You intend to tell us that the Didache does not teach in parallel with the Catholic Catechism of today, and that is plainly not the case.

Further, I suspect that you are seeking to infer that Catholic teaching today is not the same as that of the Didache, and I have already show that you are wrong in this.

I submit that your assertion is wishful thinking at best.

You’ve already been proved wrong Atemi, but I’ll ride it out with you as I always do…and as usual…you’re not going to like it.

 

[Church_Militant]

Looks like I won the pool!

 

[Church_Militant]

Wrong. Not identical at all.

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

And irrelevant…is this taught in the current catechism? Yes it is. Again…your assertion is in error.

And again, you have misunderstood my claim. I have not been proved “dead wrong.” Not by any long shot at all.

Nonsense. Pure nonsense.

This is not teaching on “mortal” sin and makes no claim to.

And does your church teach that to even swear is to commit “mortal” sin?

You can attempt to put forth that assertion but any catholic w/ an eyeball in his head and an active brain cell or two can see the truth there.

Basic Christian ethics here

. Nothing particularly Roman Catholic about any of this.Sorry, but this is ethically Catholic as the entire New Testament. Since you have so little historic connection to the teachings of the early church, you can attempt to claim anything that you want, but the objective reader will see the truth. I don’t expect that to be you…

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?I don’t have to show you all of them…that was not your assertion.

Does anyone else see merit in his case so far? I don’t.

My assertion still remians fact.

The silence of the Didache is deafening.

…

 

[Hesychios]

Actually it’s even better than that - fasting on the FOURTH day AND the Day of Preparation means … drumroll … fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays! Exactly what many a devout Catholic still does today.

Positively spooky how little some things have changed.

Interesting that you brought this up.

That still happens to be the rule in Holy Orthodoxy, and has been continually all those long years (centuries…actually) the text of the Didache was lost.

I have never met a Roman Catholic who actually fasts on Wednesdays, although I see that it is possible some would, particularly those living a regular or monastic life. When I mention it to Roman Catholic friends and relatives I am usually greeted with a quizzical expression and comments ranging from “how odd” to “how awful!”. Clearly they have not heard of it or considered the practice themselves.

Rules like this tend to discourage conversions to Orthodoxy.

Peace,

 

[Mannyfit75]

What is indisputable is how little the Early Church of the Didache resembles most Protestant communities’ worship services and practices today.

When it comes to the debate over the Early Church, only the Orthodox and the Catholic have a leg to stand on.

I noticed that very well. The practices and custom mention in the Didache is rarely practiced in the Protestant churches.