Thoughts on the Didache? Catholic and Non

[Kliska]

Yes, I understand, but we are not the Eucharist. We do not eat and drink each other.

Yes…and nobody is denying that. But you are equating, and I am not sure why, the Eucharist or the Real Presence for the Church which is the body of Christ…as opposed to the Body of Christ in the Eucharist.

I’m just finding it fascinating that both Paul and the Didache draw the direct link to the Body of Christ as Eucharist and the Body of Christ as us, so much so that it is in direct reference to taking communion and breaking bread together and eating together, as it was when Jesus proclaimed it at the Last Supper. It’s not just the joining of wheat into bread, but people into the Body of Christ. Part of our communion actually centers on that fact. That’s also connected in to the idea of Reconciliation, which is also displayed in the NT as well as the Didache. The Reconciliation isn’t just between us and God, but also between ourselves. If I’m a thief, liar, etc… it hurts the whole Body of Christ. If I don’t recognize my brothers and sisters as brothers and sisters, it hurts the whole Body.

Yes…this is describing or prescribing how to do the consecration during the Mass or Divine Liturgy.

Perhaps, but I certainly don’t see the direct connection to modern practices in detail.

But you have to understand the Didache from a Catholic viewpoint on the Eucharist in that particular section, and not through a protestant understanding or viewpoint.

That’s assuming the Didache was Catholic and not just catholic.

For a person to receive Communion in a Catholic Church it is essential that they believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist.

I understand that, and all the RCC’s teaching on who could receive, but that was not contained in the Didache. Instead, it was baptism that decided it. I understand the arguments as to why that is, but it still is Baptism that decided it at the time of the Didache.

I don’t think the didache helps us much in this regard, but certainty Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, Iraneaus and a few others help. They envision the church visible, not just invisible.

In this round of study, I’m taking the oldest writings first, hence the Didache was number one, and hence the thread. I understand what you are saying and that is what struck me; neither modern protestant nor modern Catholic (or Orthodox) match what we find in the Didache in such a way that it can be construed to be backing a particular horse in the race.

People think “division” is incompatible with Christianity. But they do accept some clear distinctions. Married are distinct from single; men are distinct from women; pastors are distinct from laity; teachers are distinct from students; even though all baptized, in the Body of Christ. In a way, the distinctions all Christians accept between “married” and “single” is far more restrictive, or “divisive”, than closed communion.

I don’t see this the same at all, as no one is denying distinctions, but a body cannot be divided. One can be a lung, a hand, a foot, a pinkie finger, etc… but all members of one body.

You might say Communion is where there should be no distinctions. But Christ identified Himself as the Truth (singular). It’s not just a question of having “different ideas”. What a person believes is important, including what they believe about the nature of the Eucharist itself (or I would say, “Himself”). If Christ regarded “Truth” as important, it seems hard to set it aside at Communion time, even though there are better overall Christians than I who can’t come up to Communion here. So closed communion doesn’t divide Christendom, communion is one of the times when our division is noticed. Is it better not to notice things?

I’m contending that the “differences” we pick apart now perhaps should not be a division amongst us who all agree on the triune God. Somethings have been defined and argued to death, and I have no problem with obeying a command without having it ran through thousands of years of philosophy. There’s a place for that, but not as an excuse to divide the body… and that goes for just as many protestants and Orthodox as Catholics. Christ is The Truth. We all agree on Who Christ is, His life, sacrifice, and physical resurrection. We all also agree on Who the Father and the Spirit are. We see in the Didache that a short primer on the Command to love God and Love our neighbor are outlined as well as baptism, and it was baptism that was the deciding factor on whether to not to let someone receive the Eucharist. Yes, times are different now, but just perhaps it shouldn’t be.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

In terms of what we find in the didache how does it contradict the essence of Orthodox Christianity? That is the Orthodox church? While there is a primitive Christian element here, certain practices and rituals are not as defined or explained in as much detail as we like (I have no doubt there was a liturgical tradition at this time), I don’t think it’s right to say that the didache doesn’t resemble the church.

But my main objection to a point of yours has not been addressed. Does the Didache entail a belief in the invisible church to exclusion of inter-communal visible church? That is wherein one simply reads the scripture, comes to faith and if necessary start your own church without the approval or support of anyone else as we find in modern protestantism? I don’t think such a thing existed back then. That is a result of protestantism and has flourished in our own times.

 

[Kliska]

In terms of what we find in the didache how does it contradict the essence of Orthodox Christianity? That is the Orthodox church? While there is a primitive Christian element here, certain practices and rituals are not as defined or explained in as much detail as we like (I have no doubt there was a liturgical tradition at this time), I don’t think it’s right to say that the didache doesn’t resemble the church.

I was under the impression that if I entered the Orthodox church, meaning came in the doors, that I would not be able to receive when the bread and wine are offered. That is the same for me at the Catholic church, but in the Didache, baptism was the deciding factor of communion. Again, things have changed, but I have a suspicion perhaps we are not all as separated as some make it seem. Plus, that is still one of the things I dwell on; all my brothers and sisters in Christ can commune with me, but not me with them… of course they wouldn’t because their churches teach against that. I understand it all, but I’m not sure I agree that it is proper given what I see in scripture and now in the Didache.

But my main objection to a point of yours has not been addressed. Does the Didache entail a belief in the invisible church to exclusion of inter-communal visible church? That is wherein one simply reads the scripture, comes to faith and if necessary start your own church without the approval or support of anyone else as we find in modern protestantism? I don’t think such a thing existed back then. That is a result of protestantism and has flourished in our own times.

There always is both; visible and invisible. Further, we didn’t have the gospel in written form in the earliest days after the resurrection as we all agree on. It was preached, and the churches sprouted up in the different locales. Do I think the Bible contains enough info for someone to come to a saving knowledge of Christ? Yes, and they would be in the number of “out-called” ones as well. Even if on a desert island alone I believe a person can repent… and if a true conversion, then they are a part of The Church. I’m not even really delving into all of that, but what is contained in the Didache itself.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

By baptism what does the didache mean? What was baptism? Was it baptism into the local community or the whole church community? We must then ask, what was the didache’s conception of church? Was it as you interpret it a non-inter-communual group of people whom were loosely known by each other but not in a deep sense in communion with one another? Or was it as we see in the other ante Nicene fathers, a real communion, one which does not limit authority to the local church but also one which is able to correct other churches if in error? You’re assuming a Protestantism on part of the didache which I do not think is warranted. So to say it was just baptism was all that counted I think is the wrong way to interpret it. Anyone might say they were baptised but what was the content of their faith? Would they ask no questions? Where are you from? Who was your Bishop? What do you believe? Given this was the century of Gnostics and judaizers still roaming about we might expect that the didache does not encompass the entire reality of the situation in its teaching. Baptism was entering into the church and it was not an easy process in the second century to become a Christian. It was not a time like our own where there were just churches down the street and its expected we go church shopping, people were more or less tied down to their communities. Where questions might not necessarily be asked depending on the type of church you go to.
Look at this part of the didache.

Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.

Does the didache envision primarily the invisible church or the church visible? I for one can only read the didache in light of the New testament and the other apostolic fathers. A mere baptism seems to me the minimum, not the maximum requirement for participation in the feast of the lord.

 

[Kliska]

By baptism what does the didache mean? What was baptism? Was it baptism into the local community or the whole church community? We must then ask, what was the didache’s conception of church? Was it as you interpret it a non-inter-communual group of people whom were loosely known by each other but not in a deep sense in communion with one another? Or was it as we see in the other ante Nicene fathers, a real communion, one which does not limit authority to the local church but also one which is able to correct other churches if in error? You’re assuming a Protestantism on part of the didache which I do not think is warranted. So to say it was just baptism was all that counted I think is the wrong way to interpret it. Anyone might say they were baptised but what was the content of their faith? Would they ask no questions? Where are you from? Who was your Bishop? What do you believe? Given this was the century of Gnostics and judaizers still roaming about we might expect that the didache does not encompass the entire reality of the situation in its teaching. Baptism was entering into the church and it was not an easy process in the second century to become a Christian. It was not a time like our own where there were just churches down the street and its expected we go church shopping, people were more or less tied down to their communities. Where questions might not necessarily be asked depending on the type of church you go to.
Look at this part of the didache.

Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.

Does the didache envision primarily the invisible church or the church visible? I for one can only read the didache in light of the New testament and the other apostolic fathers. A mere baptism seems to me the minimum, not the maximum requirement for participation in the feast of the lord.

I’m asking opinions on the Didache, and am not making a claim that it supports one side over any other side. It is not purely protestant nor Catholic nor Orthodox. The situation and scene it paints is far different than from today, and it is those things that I, personally, am interested in.

If you feel it supports The Orthodox Church, that’s fine, I just don’t see it. I see a much simpler meaning of church and communion and what needs to be believed and confessed in order to be a part of The Church. I do sometimes feel in this day and age we live in, people are actually fond of the divisions, as it gives an in group and an out group while still letting us be Christian. I see this in every denomination and church, though not in every brother and sister, and of course Jesus doesn’t want us to be this way.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I’m asking opinions on the Didache, and am not making a claim that it supports one side over any other side. It is not purely protestant nor Catholic nor Orthodox. The situation and scene it paints is far different than from today, and it is those things that I, personally, am interested in.

If you feel it supports The Orthodox Church, that’s fine, I just don’t see it. I see a much simpler meaning of church and communion and what needs to be believed and confessed in order to be a part of The Church. I do sometimes feel in this day and age we live in, people are actually fond of the divisions, as it gives an in group and an out group while still letting us be Christian. I see this in every denomination and church, though not in every brother and sister, and of course Jesus doesn’t want us to be this way.

Actually I don’t think it particularly supports the orthodox church. There are differences from the modern practice as well as some similarities. Its much more complex I feel. My only concern is with the idea that for the community behind the didache all that mattered was baptism so as to receive eurcharist and I do not think that is likely.

 

[Kliska]

Actually I don’t think it particularly supports the orthodox church. There are differences from the modern practice as well as some similarities. Its much more complex I feel. My only concern is with the idea that for the community behind the didache all that mattered was baptism so as to receive eurcharist and I do not think that is likely.

I think one important thing to them was the lead up to baptism as well, just as it is with us too. I have no doubt there was the teaching of the gospel, and as with the Ethiopian there had to be an acknowledgment of Christ prior to baptism. So, I do agree with you, but it seems earlier on in the church, baptism was the marker they were looking for in order for the person to partake.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

I’m interested in reading everyone’s perspective of the Didache; does your denomination or church accept the Didache as an accurate description of early church procedure? If not why not? If you/your church does, which bits of it do you feel supports your particular church’s dogma and teachings? Which bits do you feel disprove or do not support other teachings other denominations hold to?

Why am I asking? Because I’m reading it again and am just truly interested in individual and collective thoughts on its meaning and implication of the Didache in general. (Mods if this is too similar to past threads, please do merge.)

I only had limited exposure to it, and that exposure was somewhat broad and non-specific- mostly, I think, because of a prevailing mindset where the particulars of what’s found in the Didache need not be the exact particulars of what we decide to do in our own church.

First, on the issue of its authorship and validity- without making much of any personal judgment, it was stated that some take it more seriously than others, it may have really been written by the apostles or someone close to them and maybe it really isn’t exactly what it purports itself to be. There isn’t a broad emphatic consensus, so we don’t really know exactly what it is- almost as if we are sideline observers of other people who are really trying to decide what it is. Even more than that, we are slightly disinterested observers.

Second, assuming it is something like what it’s supposed to be (specifically, a non-spurious text with some meaningful connection to the apostolic era), this is what we take from it- it’s a brief treatise, much of which concerns the order of service and the types of things that are done throughout. There are people in charge of deciding how that will go, but we assume that everyone is pretty cool with changing things a bit if they decide to and we don’t believe it sets out a certain way of performing a church service that everyone must do. We see that there are people in charge and they make some decisions. We have people in charge and we make decisions, and guess what, most of those decisions have to do with changing things a little bit so it works out better for us in some way. We assume that the people in charge of this very early church set something in place and then, by virtue of being in charge, part of their function was to make decisions about changing things too.

Third, when it comes to the rituals, we’d tend to put an emphasis on favoring baptism by full immersion if at all possible, and then there might be a story about something cool or funny or unusual that happened during a baptism in running water. I don’t recall much talk about fasting, at least not in any sense that makes the Didache the primary reason for doing it. When it comes to the Eucharist, there’s an emphasis on how much this predates the ideation of transubstantiation, and we’ll also make note of how closely it resembles the way we carry it out. The only major difference I’ve noticed is that we (usually) do the bread first and then the cup, but that’s only because we use tiny little cups and we have to go collect them, and that’s sort of awkward if it’s done in the middle instead of the end. So, in keeping with the idea that the function of church leaders is to change things a little bit so they work better, we usually do the bread first and then the cup so it doesn’t break our flow. Any other minor variations with any of the other rituals fall under the function of people being in charge, and that’s the type of thing they do.

Finally, the phrase “Two Ways” is not at all familiar to me, at least from what limited things I’ve heard about the Didache in a church setting.

That’s basically it. Times when the Didache were ever mentioned at all were very few and quite far between, and I only remember it being mentioned once or twice on a Sunday morning. Almost nobody seemed to know anything about it; in a group of six or seven ordained men from this church, maybe one or two would know anything at all, and it helped if he was a former Catholic. There actually were a lot of ex-Catholics around, a few of them knew a couple of things that they could bring to the table but it always came from a place where it was like “This is some trivial stuff, but just so you know a little something.”