The Didache, Didascalia and the Apostolic Constitutions

[LtTony]

I posted this question on Ask An Apologist and haven’t received an answer.
In my walk and study of my Catholic faith I have just come across these documents. I’m a confused by them somewhat, and I’m not sure how much time I should spend worrying about them.
What is their significance and how do they affect what the Catholic Church teaches?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

LtTony:

I posted this question on Ask An Apologist and haven’t received an answer.
In my walk and study of my Catholic faith I have just come across these documents. I’m a confused by them somewhat, and I’m not sure how much time I should spend worrying about them.
What is their significance and how do they affect what the Catholic Church teaches?

What confuses you? I used the Didache and Apostolic Constitution in my presentation on early liturgical practice.

 

[FrRobSST]

First, one needs to understand the context in which each document was written and the type of document it is.

The Didache is a very semitic document, showing very strong Jewish influences. This is most evident in the portions concerning the Eucharist. The Apostolic Constitutions, on the other hand, are a collection of materials somewhat akin to Church Canons.

Each was written at a different time in the life of the Church. The Didache represents what I sometimes call Christianity Raw while the Apostolic Constitutions represents the practice of a Church that had finally come out of the shadows, out of the margins, and into mainstream life.

How do they affect the teaching of the Church?

I guess the best way to describe their affects on the Churches in Communion with Rome and those in Communion with the various Eastern Orthodox bodies is that they serve as witnesses to practices, but have been subsequently developed upon.

Rob+

 

[LtTony]

I guess my head was swimming the evening I went over all of them. There seemed to be a lot of overlap (esp. the Didache and Didascalia). There seemed to be some question on their authenticity (or at least some versions of them). I seemed that at least one of them may have been written around the time of Nicea or Trent, so why were they not included in the Bible (which led me into my whole field of questions that I must address on non-canonical writings)?
And then I wanted to know how they affect the dogma, doctrine and truths taught by the church. I was asking myself, ‘Just how much of this practice of __________ is based on these ducuments?’

Thanks,
Jim

 

[Genesis315]

LtTony:

I guess my head was swimming the evening I went over all of them. There seemed to be a lot of overlap (esp. the Didache and Didascalia). There seemed to be some question on their authenticity (or at least some versions of them). I seemed that at least one of them may have been written around the time of Nicea or Trent, so why were they not included in the Bible (which led me into my whole field of questions that I must address on non-canonical writings)?
And then I wanted to know how they affect the dogma, doctrine and truths taught by the church. I was asking myself, ‘Just how much of this practice of __________ is based on these ducuments?’

Thanks,
Jim

The documents are based on the practices, not the other way around. Trent was in the 1500s so I think you might be mistaken there. They were not included in the canon because they were not divinely inspired. The Church did not deem it necessary to include everything that supported her position in the list of inspired works (that would be deceptive anyway). I mean, 3000 years from now someone might look at our current catechism and see that Catholics in the past believed the same things as they do. Does that mean the current catechism is divinely inspired and should be part of the canon? Of course not. Is it it strong evidence of Catholic belief and practices? Definitely.

 

[LtTony]

Genesis315:

The documents are based on the practices, not the other way around. Trent was in the 1500s so I think you might be mistaken there. They were not included in the canon because they were not divinely inspired…QUOTE]

Yes, I was winging it regarding Trent. I was trying to somehow verbalize my confusion. That is, the practices may have been established after sacred scripture was formalized. The practices themselves must have been divinely inspired, not just creations of men, right? So what is the measure that the practices were valid? I guess I’m asking what is what determines what is Sacred Tradition.

Thanks

 

[dcdurel]

LtTony:

Genesis315:

Yes, I was winging it regarding Trent. I was trying to somehow verbalize my confusion. That is, the practices may have been established after sacred scripture was formalized. The practices themselves must have been divinely inspired, not just creations of men, right? So what is the measure that the practices were valid? I guess I’m asking what is what determines what is Sacred Tradition.
Thanks

Sacred Tradition, is any teaching, information, beliefs, practices, etc. that originated with God and was handed down through the apostles to the Church which was not written as scripture.

In other words, when Jesus taught the apostles about the sacraments, about observing the Commandments, about the articles of the apostles creed, etc, then this teaching is the word of God, since it comes from Jesus, who is God, and it is part of the Gospel, part of Divine Revelation, apostolic Tradition or Sacred Tradition. Since it is the word of God it is without error. Scripture is only the word of God that God wrote. Sacred Tradition is the word of God handed down outside of scripture. Thus Jesus taught the Gospel to the apostles under the form of Sacred Tradition, since Jesus did not write scripture. The Gospel Jesus taught is a form of Sacred Tradition. When the apostles taught and preached the Gospel all over the world, since it was taught and thus not written, the Gospel they taught was in the form of Sacred Tradition. Thus, every Christian in the New Testament learned the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the form of Sacred Tradition. In other words, they did not learn the Gospel by reading scripture, but by being taught the Gospel. This Gospel the apostles taught was organized in the form of the creed, the sacraments, the commandments and prayer. So when we teach the faith by explaining the creed, sacraments, commandments and prayer, we are teaching the Gospel the exact same way the apostles taught the Gospel. Then we should also use scripture in enlighten the teachings, as a witness to the teachings, and to nourish the teachings. The Catechisms of the Catholic Church present this living Sacred Tradition, (the word of God, the Gospel of Jesus Christ) today.

 

[LtTony]

Thanks. You provided a pretty concise view on my offshoot question of sacred tradition. But back to the topic of my initial post… I’ve only had a few minutes to let it sink in, but I believe you are saying is we had/have these practices instituted by Christ. It just so happens that we have the D, D and AC as records of that.
Ahhhhhh. Now I fully understand what genesis315 was saying when he wrote, “The documents are based on the practices, not the other way around.”
Thanks guys.
PS – What we are doing here – you helping me…is this Scriptural?? Do you have a verse that relates to what just went on here (or at least in my mind)??

Jim