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

[Atemi]

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.

This is putting me to sleep. If you actually employed sound logic above, I could say differently.

I thought some of you guys might be more interested in arguing what I did not say as opposed to what I clearly did. You did not let me down, Dante.

I will not repeat what I have repeatedly told you because it would only be a waste of time. Instead of staying on topic and keeping this thread about the Didache, you insist on talking about "A"s and "B"s with two fingers plugging your ears.

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.

Since I have clarified my assertion time and again, I will leave you to your private argument. My assertion remains unrefuted as it cannot be refuted anyway. It is just a fact.

If you feel, however, that you’re strongest against strawmen, then wack away, my friend.

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.

Would you ever possibly think, in your wildest imagination, to actually talk about the topic of this thread, the Didache.

Your fascination with me personally is sweet and all, but I have this crazy idea that actually talking about the topic is much more suited for this board.

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”.

Drop your personal obsession with me, Atemi, and come back to the topic. If not, encouraging you to continue to derail it is not in my plan, that is for sure.

…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

I take that they meant primitive, in the sense of “at the first stage, embryonic.”

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

No, you do not.

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.

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.

The Orthodox do not accept “doctrinal development” either, but what you advocate here is that it doesn’t develop/change at all, which is like saying you still look like your baby picture. Do you?

The Orthodox Church is the 1st century Church in the 21st century, showing the effects of the past 20 centuries.

As for the CCC, I think saying that 90% of what writer of the Didache is in the CCC. Actually, it might be more accurate to say that 100% of what the Didache teaches is in the CCC. The CCC only has certain accretions (e.g. papal infallibility).

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

No, he just talks a lot about the Bread of Life. What (actually, Who) is that.

…

 

[Church_Militant]

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.

Please feel free to substantiate that assertion with facts from the Didache in particular.

I don’t think you can and that will prove to be just one more example of your wishful thinking.

But please…knock yourself out before you doze off…

You have yet to even substantiate your original assertion that the things in the Didache do not align with the teachings in the current catechism.

 

[savedsinner]

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.
Primitive as in it is talking about apostles (not just the ‘twelve’) and prophets in the early chapters, and then bishops and deacons in the later chapters which would eventually replace the apostles and prophets. And some of its teachings seem to predate the New Testament itself. I didn’t mean to make it sound derogatory.

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

No, you do not.

It took the church a few hundred years to fully define the trinity.
I am not saying that I know better, I am saying that doctrine develops as the church fully understands what has been passed down to it. Does the New Testament teach the Trinity in the details in which we understand it today?

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

You keep inserting the words “did not believe”, this is your conjecture, even if something is not taught in the didache, that doesn’t meant they didn’t believe it, no more that it means that they didn’t believe in the trinity because the didache didn’t define it the way they did at the council of Nicea.

We all can choose to ignore that fact.
I hope you have read introductions on the didache, if not I would recommend you might want to read more of what the didache was.The didache was not a comprehensive catechism.

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.

Everything the catholic church teaches today was passed on through the deposit of faith Jesus likened the kingdom of God to a mustard seed, which was the smallest of seeds will grow into the tallest of bushes, in which the birds of the air nest in. He is talking about the church which is part of the kingdom of God. Was Jesus also giving offense to what the Apostles died for?

That is a great offense to what the Apostles died doing, IMV.
I don’t think you are grasping what I am trying to say here then.

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

this is not just my conjecture, it is taught by many biblical scholars, both Catholic and non-Catholic.

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

John 6, the bread of life discourse if a deep theological teaching on the meaning of the Eucharist.

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.”
I didn’t say it did teach about the real presence,but it does give the Eucharistic prayers which are very similar to the ones we have today.

…

 

[savedsinner]

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.

…

I am sorry, I just couldn’t control myself. You can’t be serious.
How can you read the didache or any of the church fathers and come up with that conclusion? It is wishful thinking at best.
The early church did not teach sola scriptura, or sola fide, or that baptism was only symbolic, or that the eucharist was only symbolic, or any of the other doctrines unique to Protestantism.
About the only things Protestants have in common with early Christianity is that they believed that Jesus was God incarnate, that he was born of the Virgin Mary, That Jesus will come again, and that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

This is putting me to sleep. If you actually employed sound logic above, I could say differently.

I thought some of you guys might be more interested in arguing what I did not say as opposed to what I clearly did. You did not let me down, Dante.

I will not repeat what I have repeatedly told you because it would only be a waste of time. Instead of staying on topic and keeping this thread about the Didache, you insist on talking about "A"s and "B"s with two fingers plugging your ears.

Since I have clarified my assertion time and again, I will leave you to your private argument. My assertion remains unrefuted as it cannot be refuted anyway. It is just a fact.

If you feel, however, that you’re strongest against strawmen, then wack away, my friend.

Would you ever possibly think, in your wildest imagination, to actually talk about the topic of this thread, the Didache.

Your fascination with me personally is sweet and all, but I have this crazy idea that actually talking about the topic is much more suited for this board.

Drop your personal obsession with me, Atemi, and come back to the topic. If not, encouraging you to continue to derail it is not in my plan, that is for sure.

…

I stand corrected; you did come back – albeit to do more of the same.

Talk about putting one to sleep.

I’ve been trying to get you back on topic by getting you to support your own claim, which you have conveniently avoided doing. Did you not notice the many times I referred to the Didache in my attempts to get you to demonstrate how almost nothing in it appears in the Catechism (which, I repeat, is the only intellectually defensible way to prove the point that you have abandoned)?

So be it.

Since you’ve obviously conceded the argument by obstinately refusing to answer for your wavering from one stance to another, I suppose we’re done here.

Until next time, Atemi.

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Please feel free to substantiate that assertion with facts from the Didache in particular.

I don’t think you can and that will prove to be just one more example of your wishful thinking.

But please…knock yourself out before you doze off…

You have yet to even substantiate your original assertion that the things in the Didache do not align with the teachings in the current catechism.

Atemi has conceded the argument, as far as I’m concerned. He insists on defending (albeit with mere conjecture) a different position from the one he originally espoused, and then mystifyingly persists in claiming a) that he has not done so, b) that we are off topic in claiming he has done so, and c) that his original claim is pure fact and can’t be refuted.

Atemi has repeatedly, in this thread and others, shown a total unwillingness to substantiate any of his bald assertions and a complete disregard for the principles of honest debate – not to mention, a consistently dismissive and passive-aggressively antagonistic tone.

Why do we bother with this guy? I’m praying for him, but I see no point in continuing to argue with him.

Peace,
Dante

 

[maurin]

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.

…

This is absolutely no answer to Penitus’ very good post. Your silence on the points he brings up is quite telling.

Admitting that you have no case, Atemi?

 

[maurin]

Atemi,

here is a repost of Penitus’ post. Maybe you’d like to make an actual response to his points?

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.

 

[Atemi]

Atemi has conceded the argument, as far as I’m concerned. He insists on defending (albeit with mere conjecture) a different position from the one he originally espoused, and then mystifyingly persists in claiming a) that he has not done so, b) that we are off topic in claiming he has done so, and c) that his original claim is pure fact and can’t be refuted.

Atemi has repeatedly, in this thread and others, shown a total unwillingness to substantiate any of his bald assertions and a complete disregard for the principles of honest debate – not to mention, a consistently dismissive and passive-aggressively antagonistic tone.

Why do we bother with this guy? I’m praying for him, but I see no point in continuing to argue with him.

Peace,
Dante

Still obsessed with me, Dante?

Do I need to get a restraining order?

This thread is not about Atemi, but about what the Didache does or does not teach.

…

 

[Atemi]

Atemi,

here is a repost of Penitus’ post. Maybe you’d like to make an actual response to his points?

And what response is he looking for?

He made a comment. A speech.

What do I care about the extra-biblical teachings in the Didache?

…

 

[Hellisreal]

And what response is he looking for?

He made a comment. A speech.

What do I care about the extra-biblical teachings in the Didache?

…

You care enough to start a thread on the topic in relation to the Catholic Church…

 

[Church_Militant]

What do I care about the extra-biblical teachings in the Didache?

Then why did you make an unsupportable assertion concerning it to begin with? An assertion which, as virtually everyone posting on this thread has pointed out, has resulted in nothing more than your unsupported opinions that it contains little that is also taught in the modern catechism.

I’ll gladly let you off the hook, if you will retract your assertion in the face of the evidence that shows you are wrong.

If not, well, that’s on your conscience.

 

[Atemi]

Please feel free to substantiate that assertion with facts from the Didache in particular.

• No priesthood.
• No infant baptism.
• No re-presentation of Christ to the Father again and again.
• No Real Presence.
• No Eucharist being the actual flesh and blood of Christ.
• Etc., etc., etc…

That is a “heretic” in modern Catholicism today. Sorry. That is not my teaching, so don’t blame me.

I know that many would just love to declare that the writer of the Didache really, really believed in all those things, but somehow never thought to mention any of them in a specific list of supposedly Apostolic teachings.

I do not feel so compelled to pretend such things.

You have yet to even substantiate your original assertion that the things in the Didache do not align with the teachings in the current catechism.

I said that the the Didache teaches almost nothing the modern CCC teaches.

We all know this is fact.

Interesting how the writer mysteriously left out all the controversial RC doctrines that are so vital to the Catholic faith today. We see the same in the early Creeds.

It is a disturbing pattern for any who honestly study the early church.

…

 

[Atemi]

Then why did you make an unsupportable assertion concerning it to begin with?

Please post where I made any assertion mentioning any extra-biblical teachings in the Didache.

Don’t bother, you cannot.

It is better to attack what I do not propose than what I do.

…

 

[Atemi]

You care enough to start a thread on the topic in relation to the Catholic Church…

Please take better care in actually reading the thread before posting responses.

I did not start this thread.

…

 

[Hellisreal]

And what response is he looking for?

He made a comment. A speech.

What do I care about the extra-biblical teachings in the Didache?

…

Atemi?

Did you write this?

 

[Hellisreal]

Please take better care in actually reading the thread before posting responses.

I did not start this thread.

…

You are correct, I retract- I meant to say this RE DIRECTION of the thread.
You instigated.

 

[Atemi]

You are correct, I retract- I meant to say this RE DIRECTION of the thread.
You instigated.

LOL!

I am even accused of derailing this thread as well, and all I have been discussing is the Didache.

Can’t win for losing.

…

 

[Atemi]

Atemi?

Did you write this?

No.