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

[Penitus]

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?

…

The Didache author quotes Scripture (mostly Matthew’s gospel) almost 50 times in the document. The fact that the author weave Scripture in an out points to the likelihood that he considered Sirach to be God breathed.

 

[maurin]

Left handed compliments are to be expected, I guess.

Actually, I do.

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

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.

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.

Actually, it is not.

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

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.

Keep your personal insults and lack of respect to yourself.

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

…

Easy there, cowboy. Your attitude is most inappropriate and unnecessary.

Now, would you mind actually responding to my points? Or don’t you mind that you are quickly losing all credibility? You have yet to substantiate any of your points, and barbs completely miss their mark.

 

[Atemi]

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”.

Actually, I have never changed my position at all.

I never said that you will not find any doctrines in the Catechism that are in the Didache.

I would never say that.

What I did say, and it remains fact, is that the Didache teaches almost nothing your Catechism teaches today.

If folks do not know the difference between both statements, then I can’t help that.

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.

Done that.

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.

No. My claim is that the vast majority of the teachings of the Catechism are not found in the Didache…in any form.

You are incorrectly understanding my claim.

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

Maybe he has beat a strawman to death, but not what I claimed as that is irrefutable. This is why so many of our Catholic friends here are now working so hard to explain why so many doctrines are strangely missing.

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.

No. That is your claim.

You have to believe that at threat of grave sin.

I am free to disagree.

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.

The evidence of how little the Didache and the CCC today have in common is how little they actually have in common.

I think the best Catholic apologetic is the one that seeks to explain how so much doctrine is somehow missing rather than denying that this issue even exists to begin with.

…

 

[Pax]

Atemi,

You have shifted your position. You started with a sweeping statement that had a direction and meaning formed within the context of the original thread. IMHO your original position has been refuted. Our position is that the contents of the Didache are Catholic teaching.

No reasonable person, Catholic or otherwise, would ever contend that the two are supposed to be close to identical. Obviously, the Catechism is more highly developed and covers a much broader set of topics and does so in great detail.

 

[Atemi]

The Didache author quotes Scripture (mostly Matthew’s gospel) almost 50 times in the document. The fact that the author weave Scripture in an out points to the likelihood that he considered Sirach to be God breathed.

Ohhhhh.

So if it is quoted in the Didache, then the author (“likely”) believes Sirach to be inspired Scripture?

No.

It doesn’t work that way.

We cannot invent points the author did not make and assume he really made them.

That does not speak of truth seeking, but truth planting. That is not a wise way to approach this or any other text.

…

 

[Atemi]

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.

Nor is that the point.

You are correct, though.

The point, however, is that one cannot find any uniquely Catholic doctrine in the text in question.

That is a loudspeaker to any who will listen.

…

 

[Atemi]

Easy there, cowboy. Your attitude is most inappropriate and unnecessary.

Yet you did not find your personal attack on my faith to be the same?

How very strange.

…

 

[maurin]

Yet you did not find your personal attack on my faith to be the same?

How very strange.

…

You are full of unfounded assumptions.

I made the mistake of believing that you were interested in an intelligent conversation, and exchange of ideas. I see I was wrong.

If you wish to go back on track instead of flailing wildly, I will be happy to resume the conversation.

Otherwise, be well, and may God continue to bless you.

 

[Atemi]

You have shifted your position. You started with a sweeping statement that had a direction and meaning formed within the context of the original thread. IMHO your original position has been refuted. Our position is that the contents of the Didache are Catholic teaching.

Since I have repeated my original position, no, it has not been refuted.

No reasonable person, Catholic or otherwise, would ever contend that the two are supposed to be close to identical.

And I never said they should be.

Hmmm.

What I did say is that the Didache teaches almost nothing what your Catechism teaches today. This still is true.

I think any reasonable Catholic is just best served by saying “You’re right…and I don’t care.”

…

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Actually, I have never changed my position at all.

I never said that you will not find any doctrines in the Catechism that are in the Didache.

I would never say that.

What I did say, and it remains fact, is that the Didache teaches almost nothing your Catechism teaches today.

If folks do not know the difference between both statements, then I can’t help that.

Are you serious?

Perhaps you didn’t say in as many words that your position has changed, but the position you are arguing in your responses to CM is not the one you intitially claimed. Make up your mind.

Done that.

Um, no, you have not.

You have cited examples of Church doctrines (Real Presence, primacy of the Pope, etc.) that do not appear. You also dismiss examples that DO appear in both texts as “not particularly Roman Catholic” or “basic Christian ethics”, but you have definitively failed to demonstrate that most of what is in the Didache is not in the Catechism. To do that would require you to cite the Catechism…but we all know how you feel about homework.

No. My claim is that the vast majority of the teachings of the Catechism are not found in the Didache…in any form.

You are incorrectly understanding my claim.

No, sir – you are misrepresenting your claim.

In the very post to which I am responding right now, the very first thing you said was

the Didache teaches almost nothing your Catechism teaches today

If you don’t know the difference between these two statements, I can’t help that.

Maybe he has beat a strawman to death, but not what I claimed as that is irrefutable. This is why so many of our Catholic friends here are now working so hard to explain why so many doctrines are strangely missing.

Talk about strawmen!

The point, according to the initial claim you made (and on which you have now been caught backtracking) is that the Didache “teaches almost nothing” of what is in the Catechism. This is patently false, and CM demonstrated several solid examples of Catholic doctrine that appear in both texts.

Check the Catechism.

No. That is your claim.

You have to believe that at threat of grave sin.

I am free to disagree.

You can disagree with documented fact if you so choose.

The evidence of how little the Didache and the CCC today have in common is how little they actually have in common.

I think the best Catholic apologetic is the one that seeks to explain how so much doctrine is somehow missing rather than denying that this issue even exists to begin with.

The fact is, Atemi, that you have failed to demonstrate that which would support your claim (which is, again, “The Didache teaches almost nothing your Catechism teaches”). The fact that there are things in the Catechism which are not in the Didache is completely irrelevant to your claim.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Atemi]

Perhaps you didn’t say in as many words that your position has changed, but the position you are arguing in your responses to CM is not the one you intitially claimed. Make up your mind.

I know full well my position, Dante, and it has remained the same.

If you want to argue against a position that I never held, then knock yourself out. I may even join you.

you have definitively failed to demonstrate that most of what is in the Didache is not in the Catechism.

That is because that is not my position.

LOL.

My position is that most of what is in the Catechism is not in the Didache…in any form.

You got it backwards, friend.

I said earlier, as stated in the OP:

“The Didache teaches almost nothing your Catechism teaches today.”

Please notice that I distinctly did not say:

“The Catechism teaches almost nothing the Didache teaches.”

The two statements are not equivalent.

You charge me with the latter when I clearly said the former.

No, sir – you are misrepresenting your claim.

LOL, Dante.

I think I would know my own claim. I have repeated it numerous times now.

I do understand, however, that only the position I have never held can be controverted, so that may be the temptation here.

It is possible all you guys would simply like to argue against a position I do not hold because it may make you feel better and all. I will just leave you all to have a bash-a-position-Atemi-does-not-hold party.

…

 

[rtconstant]

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.

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

No.

My church thanks the Father for Jesus’ too.

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

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.

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.

…

Wow. Way to miss the point completely.

 

[Penitus]

Nor is that the point.

You are correct, though.

The point, however, is that one cannot find any uniquely Catholic doctrine in the text in question.

That is a loudspeaker to any who will listen.

…

That is simply not so. I have your uniquely Catholic doctrine. The Didachist is not a Sola Scriptura Christian. He alludes to several, several ideas that are simply NOT FOUND in scripture. Here’s an uncomplete list:

(1) Didache 2:2 - Abortion is forbidden. This idea may be implicitly found throughout Scripture, but it is never found explicitly in Scripure, as it is here.
(2) Didache 4:6 - Almsgiving pays a “ransom” for sins. Why would the author even mention this if Jesus paid the full price for sins on the cross? The answer can only point to Purgatory.
(3) Didache 7:1 - The idea that baptism should take place preferably in living (running) water.
(4) Didache 7:3 - We can baptize by pouring water instead of full immersion.
(5) Didache 7:4 - Those baptizing and being baptized should fast before the baptism itself
(6) Didache 8:2 - The Our Father contains the phrase, “For yours is the power and the glory forever,” even though Jesus never taught us to pray that.
(7) Didache 9-10 - The prayers for Communion are not found anywhere in Scripture.
(8) Didache 9:5 - The idea that only baptized Christians can partake of holy communion.
(9) Didache 14:3 The author links the prophecy about sacrifice from Malachi 1:11, 14 with holy communion, asking that Christians reconcile so that their “sacrifice” may be pure.

There you have it friends. The Didachist was no Sola Scriptura Protestant.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I know full well my position, Dante, and it has remained the same.

If you want to argue against a position that I never held, then knock yourself out. I may even join you.

That is because that is not my position.

LOL.

My position is that most of what is in the Catechism is not in the Didache…in any form.

You got it backwards, friend.

I said earlier, as stated in the OP:

“The Didache teaches almost nothing your Catechism teaches today.”

Please notice that I distinctly did not say:

“The Catechism teaches almost nothing the Didache teaches.”

The two statements are not equivalent.

You charge me with the latter when I clearly said the former.

False logic.

To demonstrate that the Didache teaches almost nothing that is found in the Catechism, you must show that the vast majority of the things that appear in the Didache do not appear in the Catechism – it’s pretty simple. All you have done so far is deny that the things that are in both are Catholic doctrines, based on the assertion that they are “basic Christian ethics” and “not particularly Catholic”.

Let me put it another way.

The statement “A contains almost nothing that B contains” is the equivalent (no matter how much you’d like to deny it) of saying that “Most of what is in A is not contained in B”. Thus, the only intellectually defensible support for this argument is to demonstrate that the things that are contained in A do not appear in B.

To argue anything else is to argue a different position – which you have done and continue to deny.

LOL, Dante.

I think I would know my own claim. I have repeated it numerous times now.

I do understand, however, that only the position I have never held can be controverted, so that may be the temptation here.

I would think you’d know your own claim, too, but you have repeatedly argued a different one, and even directly contradicted yourself (see my previous response to you).

And thanks for condescending.

It is possible all you guys would simply like to argue against a position I do not hold because it may make you feel better and all. I will just leave you all to have a bash-a-position-Atemi-does-not-hold party.

Emotional appeals don’t make an argument, my friend. If you wish to make an assertion, you should provide backing for it in the first place. Having failed to do so, you should at least provide backing for your responses to the evidence others provide that disproves your assertion.

You can insist until you’re blue in the face that you haven’t changed your position, but the responses you’ve given clearly indicate otherwise.

And, true to form, it appears that you are going to leave the debate rather than a) accept correction or b) actually do any work to cite either of the sources in question in a way that might back your original claim, after (again, true to form) switching arguments in midstream and (once again, true to form) throwing out strawmen and snide comments and (yes, true to form) accusing others of doing the same in order to derail their attempts to respond.

I noticed, Atemi, that you have started exactly zero threads here. Why is that? The impression I get is that you have a bone to pick and a chip on your shoulder – you’re a fallen-away Catholic, as I recall, so you wouldn’t be the first – and you seem more interested in attacking Catholic doctrine and foundations than in charitable debate borne of curiosity or even a desire to “bring us to the truth”.

Peace,
Dante

 

[savedsinner]

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.

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?

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.

…

The didache is a primitive church document. The church has evolved in its practices, and its doctrines have developed as the church has better understood what Jesus passed onto the Apostles.

Because the catechism is different from the didache doesn’t meant it is false, it is just different.
think of the church as an acorn, which then becomes a large oak tree. It is the same object, just the tree has grown large from the acorn.

Both the agape meal and the eucharist are of the same apostolic origin, but because of the abuses, they were seperated by the church, this happened around the time 1 corinithians was written.

To say that later church writings are in error is a wrong conclusion, because St. Ignatius was personally taught by St. John who wrote the Gospel of John, in particular, John 6, the bread of life discourse. When we see Ignatius speaking of the real presense, then we know how to interpret the bread of life discourse, again because Ignatius was personally taught by John, and we don’t have 1,200 to 2,000 years of seperation from the writing to misinterpret the bread of life discourse.

I got that conclusion from reading "the early christian writings"by Maxwell Staniforth. I believe that he was (or is) an Orthodox Christian priest. So of course he would believe in things like the real presense, but he is not roman catholic.

So I would say that my conclusion is an acceptable one, since it is what happened in church history, the agape meal and the eucharist were at first combine, and then seperated. Even when they were combine, there was the real presense in the Eucharist.

 

[Hellisreal]

Maybe. But- maybe Atemi is secretly facinated with the Catholic Church.
Most of her critics are.

False logic.

To demonstrate that the Didache teaches almost nothing that is found in the Catechism, you must show that the vast majority of the things that appear in the Didache do not appear in the Catechism – it’s pretty simple. All you have done so far is deny that the things that are in both are Catholic doctrines, based on the assertion that they are “basic Christian ethics” and “not particularly Catholic”.

Let me put it another way.

The statement “A contains almost nothing that B contains” is the equivalent (no matter how much you’d like to deny it) of saying that “Most of what is in A is not contained in B”. Thus, the only intellectually defensible support for this argument is to demonstrate that the things that are contained in A do not appear in B.

To argue anything else is to argue a different position – which you have done and continue to deny.

I would think you’d know your own claim, too, but you have repeatedly argued a different one, and even directly contradicted yourself (see my previous response to you).

And thanks for condescending.

Emotional appeals don’t make an argument, my friend. If you wish to make an assertion, you should provide backing for it in the first place. Having failed to do so, you should at least provide backing for your responses to the evidence others provide that disproves your assertion.

You can insist until you’re blue in the face that you haven’t changed your position, but the responses you’ve given clearly indicate otherwise.

And, true to form, it appears that you are going to leave the debate rather than a) accept correction or b) actually do any work to cite either of the sources in question in a way that might back your original claim, after (again, true to form) switching arguments in midstream and (once again, true to form) throwing out strawmen and snide comments and (yes, true to form) accusing others of doing the same in order to derail their attempts to respond.

I noticed, Atemi, that you have started exactly zero threads here. Why is that? The impression I get is that you have a bone to pick and a chip on your shoulder – you’re a fallen-away Catholic, as I recall, so you wouldn’t be the first – and you seem more interested in attacking Catholic doctrine and foundations than in charitable debate borne of curiosity or even a desire to “bring us to the truth”.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Teflon93]

I don’t know about you all, but I would like to know where in whatever catechism Atemi uses it teaches that to put something in bold print is to make it true.

 

[Hellisreal]

I don’t know about you all, but I would like to know where in whatever catechism Atemi uses it teaches that to put something in bold print is to make it true.

The large print version used for those who need it to see it.

?

 

[Atemi]

The didache is a primitive church document.

That comment only serves to belittle the faith the early Christians practiced and received from the Apostles. I am not compelled to denigrate the faith of early Christians to explain my own. I am sad that anyone would do so.

You would laugh or maybe be offended if anyone called your faith “primitive,” but you have no problem doing that to the faith of those who may have received it from the Apostles themselves.

The church has evolved in its practices, and its doctrines have developed as the church has better understood what Jesus passed onto the Apostles.

Do you really believe that you understand Christianity better than the Apostles who learned directly from the Master?

No, you do not.

Because the catechism is different from the didache doesn’t meant it is false, it is just different.

It means that those that wrote the Didache did not believe or teach 90% of what we find in the RC Catechism today.

We all can choose to ignore that fact.

think of the church as an acorn, which then becomes a large oak tree. It is the same object, just the tree has grown large from the acorn.

I am sorry, but the Deposit of Faith handed over to the saints was no “acorn.”

They did not believe nor did they teach they were passing on a little “acorn” that you, 2000 years later, will finally truly understand.

That is a great offense to what the Apostles died doing, IMV.

Both the agape meal and the eucharist are of the same apostolic origin, but because of the abuses, they were seperated by the church, this happened around the time 1 corinithians was written.

This is only your conjecture and not relevant to the topic.

To say that later church writings are in error is a wrong conclusion, because St. Ignatius was personally taught by St. John who wrote the Gospel of John, in particular, John 6, the bread of life discourse.

Yes. The only Gospel writer that never even thought to mention the Eucharist or its institution.

When we see Ignatius speaking of the real presense, then we know how to interpret the bread of life discourse, again because Ignatius was personally taught by John, and we don’t have 1,200 to 2,000 years of seperation from the writing to misinterpret the bread of life discourse.

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

Of course, the Didache never mentions anything even resembling any “Real Presence.”

…

 

[Atemi]

That is simply not so. I have your uniquely Catholic doctrine. The Didachist is not a Sola Scriptura Christian. He alludes to several, several ideas that are simply NOT FOUND in scripture. Here’s an uncomplete list:

(1) Didache 2:2 - Abortion is forbidden. This idea may be implicitly found throughout Scripture, but it is never found explicitly in Scripure, as it is here.
(2) Didache 4:6 - Almsgiving pays a “ransom” for sins. Why would the author even mention this if Jesus paid the full price for sins on the cross? The answer can only point to Purgatory.
(3) Didache 7:1 - The idea that baptism should take place preferably in living (running) water.
(4) Didache 7:3 - We can baptize by pouring water instead of full immersion.
(5) Didache 7:4 - Those baptizing and being baptized should fast before the baptism itself
(6) Didache 8:2 - The Our Father contains the phrase, “For yours is the power and the glory forever,” even though Jesus never taught us to pray that.
(7) Didache 9-10 - The prayers for Communion are not found anywhere in Scripture.
(8) Didache 9:5 - The idea that only baptized Christians can partake of holy communion.
(9) Didache 14:3 The author links the prophecy about sacrifice from Malachi 1:11, 14 with holy communion, asking that Christians reconcile so that their “sacrifice” may be pure.

There you have it friends. The Didachist was no Sola Scriptura Protestant.

They surely were “Protestant” in the sense that if they lived today, they would be heretics according to modern Catholicism.

I guess they would just join the club.

…