Discipline of the Secret

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

(LatinDisciplina Arcani; GermanArcandisciplin).

Atheological term used to express the custom which prevailed in the earliest ages of theChurch, by which theknowledge of the more intimatemysteries of theChristian religion was carefully kept from theheathen and even fromthose who were undergoing instruction in theFaith. The custom itself is beyond dispute, but the name for it is comparatively modern, and does not appear to have been used before the controversies of the seventeenth century, when special dissertations bearing the title "De disciplinâ arcani" were published both on theProtestant and theCatholic side.

The origin of the custom must be looked for in the recorded words of Christ: "Give not that which holy to dogs; neither cast your pearls before swine; lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you" (Matthew 7:6), while the practice in Apostolic times is sufficiently vouched for bySt. Paul's assurance that he fed the Corinthians "as . . . little ones in Christ", giving them "milk to drink, not meat", because they were not yet able to bear it (1 Corinthians 3:1-2). With this passage we may compare alsoHebrews 5:12-14, where the same illustration is used, and it is declared that "solid food is for the perfect; for them who by custom have their senses exercised to the discerning ofgood andevil." Although the origin of the custom is thus to be traced back to the very beginnings ofChristianity, it does not appear to have been so general, or to have been carried out with so much strictness in the earlier centuries as it was immediately after the persecutions had ceased. This may be due in part to the absence of detailed information with regard to the earlier period, but it is probable enough that the discipline was growing more strict all through the second and third centuries on account of the pressure ofpersecution, and that, whenpersecution was at last relaxed, the need for reserve was felt at first, while theChurch was still surrounded by hostilePaganism, to be increased rather than diminished. After the fifth or sixth century, whenChristianity was thoroughly established and secure, the need of such a discipline was no longer felt, and it passed rapidly away. The practice of reserve (oikonomia) was exercised mainly in two directions, in dealing withcatechumens, and with theheathen. It will be convenient to treat of these separately, as the reasons for the practice, and the mode in which it was carried out, differ somewhat in the two cases.

Catechumens

It was desirable to bring learners slowly and by degrees to a fullknowledge of the Faith. A convert fromheathenism could not profitably assimilate the wholeCatholic religion at once, but must be taught gradually. It would benecessary for him to learn first the greattruth of the unity ofGod, and not until this had sunk deep into his heart could he safely be instructed concerning theBlessed Trinity. Otherwisetritheism would have been the inevitable result. So again, in times ofpersecution, it wasnecessary to be very careful about those who offered themselves for instruction, and who might be spies wishing to be instructed only that they might betray. The doctrines to which the reserve was more especially applied were those of theHoly Trinity and theSacrament of the Holy Eucharist. TheLord's Prayer, too, was jealously guarded from theknowledge of all who were not fully instructed. With regard to theHoly Eucharist and theLord's Prayer some relics of the practice still survive in theChurch. The Mass of Catechumens, that earlier portion of the Eucharistic service to which learners andneophytes were admitted, and which consisted ofprayers or readings fromHoly Scripture and sometimes included a sermon, is still quite distinguishable, though the custom no longer survives in the Western Liturgy, as it does in the Eastern, of formally bidding the uninitiated to depart when the more solemn part of the service is about to begin. So also the custom of saying theLord's Prayer in silence in all public services, except the latter part of the Mass, whencatechumens would according to the ancient use no longer have been present, owes its origin to this discipline.

The earliest formal witness for the custom seems to beTertullian (Apol. vii):Omnibus mysteriis silentii fides adhibetur. Again, speaking ofheretics, he complains bitterly that their discipline is lax in this respect, and thatevil results have followed: "Among them it isdoubtful who is acatechumen and who a believer; all can come in alike; they hear side by side andpray together; evenheathens, if any chance to come in. That which is holy they cast to the dogs, and their pearls, although they are not real ones, they fling to the swine" (Praescr. adv. Haer., xii). Other passages from the Fathers which may be cited areSt. Basil (On the Holy Spirit 27): "These things must not be told to the uninitiated";St. Gregory Nazianzen (Oratio xi, in s. bapt.) where he speaks of a difference ofknowledge between those who are without and those who are within, andSt. Cyril of Jerusalem whose "Catechetical Discourses" are entirely built upon this principle, and who in his first discourse cautions his hearers not to tell what they have heard. "Should acatechumen ask what the teachers have said, tell nothing to a stranger; for we deliver to thee a mystery . . . see thou let out nothing, not that what is said is not worth telling, but because the ear that hears does not deserve to receive it. Thou thyself wast once acatechumen, and then I told thee not what was coming. When thou hast come to experience the height of what is taught thee, thou wiltknow that thecatechumens are not worthy to hear them" (Cat., Lect. i, 12).St. Augustine andSt. Chrysostom in like manner stop short in their public addresses, and, after a more or less veiled reference to the mysteries, continue with: "The initiated will understand what I mean".

TheLord's Prayer was inSt. Augustine's time taught eight days beforebaptism (Hom. xlii; cf. "Enchir.", lxxi, and the "Apostolic Constitutions", VII, xliv; St. Chrys. Hom. cc, al. xix, in Matt.). The Creed in like manner was taught just beforebaptism. SoSt. Ambrose, writing to his sister Marcellina (Epist xx, Benedict, ed.) says that on Sunday, after thecatechumens had been dismissed, he was teaching the Creed in thebaptistery of the basilica to those who were sufficiently advanced. (Cf. alsoSt. Jerome, Epist. xxxciii, ad. Pammach.) More detailed teaching about theHoly Trinity and about the othersacraments was only given afterbaptism. Other passages which may be consulted are: Chrys., "Hom. in Matt.", xxiii, "Hom. xviii, in II Cor."; Pseud. Augustine, "Serm. ad Neoph.", i; St. Ambrose, "De his qui mysteriis initiantur"; Gaudentius, "Ser. ii ad Neoph."; Apost. Constit., III, v, and VIII, xi. The rule of reticence applied to all thesacraments, and nocatechumen was ever allowed to be present at their celebration. St. Basil (On the Holy Spirit 27) speaking of thesacraments says: "One must not circulate in writing thedoctrine of mysteries which none but the initiated are allowed to see." Forbaptism reference may be made to Theodoret (Epitom. Decret., xcviii),St. Cyril of Alexandria (Contr. Julian., i), andSt. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. xl, de bapt.).

The discipline with respect to theHoly Eucharist of course requires noproof. It is in involved in the very name of theMissa Catechumenorum, and one can scarcely turn to any passage of the Fathers which deals with the subject in which the reticence to be observed is not expressly stated. Confirmation was never spoken of openly. St. Basil, in the treatise already spoken of (On the Holy Spirit 25.11), says that no one has ever ventured to speak openly in writing of the holy oil of unction, andInnocent I, writing to theBishop ofGubbio on the sacramental "form" of the ordinance answers: "I dare not speak the words, but I should seem rather to betray a trust than to respond to a request for information" (Epist. i, 3).Holy orders in the same way were never given publicly. The Council ofLaodicea forbade it definitely in its speaking of the practice of begging theprayers of the faithful for those who are to beordained, says that those who understand co-operate with and assent to what is done. "For it is not lawful to reveal everything to those who are yet uninitiated." So alsoSt. Augustine (Tract xi. in Joann.): "If you say to acatechumen, Dost thoubelieve in Christ? he will answer, I do, and will sign himself with the Cross . . . Let us ask him, Dost thou eat the Flesh of theSon of Man and drink the Blood of theSon of Man? He will notknow what we mean, forJesus has not trusted himself to him."

The heathen

The evidence for the reserve ofChristian writers when dealing with religious questions in books which might be accessible to theheathen is, naturally, to a large extent of a negative character, and therefore difficult to produce. Theodoret (Quaest. xv in Num.) lays down the general principle in terms which are quote clear and unmistakable: "We speak in obscure terms concerning the Divine Mysteries, on account of the uninitiated, but when they have withdrawn we teach the initiated plainly." That passage alone would suffice to refute the allegation not unfrequently made that the Discipline of the Secret was a confinement of theknowledge introduced in imitation of theheathen "mysteries". On the contrary allChristians were taught the wholetruth, there was no esotericdoctrine, but they were brought to fullknowledge slowly, and precautions were taken, as was verynecessary, to preventheathens from learning anything of which they might make anevil use. A very striking example of the way in which the discipline worked may be found in the writings ofSt. Chrysostom. He writes toPope Innocent I to say that in the course of a disturbance at Constantinople an act of irreverence had been committed, and "the blood of Christ had been spilt upon the ground." In a letter to thepope there was no reason for not speaking plainly. ButPalladius, his biographer, speaking of the same incident in a book for general reading, says only, "They overturned the symbols" (Chrys. ad Inn., i, 3 in P.G., LII, 534; cf.Döllinger, "Lehre der Eucharistie", 15). It is, no doubt, on this account that almost all the early apologists, asMinucius Felix,Athenagoras, Arnobius,Tatian, and Theophilus, are absolutely silent on theHoly Eucharist.Justin Martyr and to a less degreeTertullian are more outspoken; the frankness of the former has been unduly urged to prove the non-existence of this institution in the first half of the second century. So again, asCardinal Newman has observed (Development, 87), bothMinucius Felix and Arnobius in controversy withheathens deny absolutely thatChristians used altars in their churches. The obvious meaning was that they did not use altars in theheathen sense, and they must not be taken as denying the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that, in aChristian sense, "we have an altar".

The controversial importance of this subject in more recent times is, of course, obvious. TheCatholics answered the accusation ofProtestant writers, that their special doctrines could not be found in the writings of the early Fathers, by showing the existence of this practice of reserve. If it was forbidden to speak or write publicly of these doctrines, silence was completely accounted for. So again, if here and there in early writings terms were used which seemed to countenanceProtestant teaching — as for instance by speaking of theHoly Eucharist as symbols — it becamenecessary always to examine whether these terms were not used intentionally to conceal thetruedoctrine from the uninitiated, and whether the same writers did not, under other circumstances, use much more definite language.Protestant controversialists, therefore, endeavoured first of all to deny that the practice had ever really existed, and then when they were driven from this position, they asserted that it was unknown to the earliestChristians, as shown by the freedom with whichJustin Martyr speaks on the subject of theHoly Eucharist, and that it was the result ofpersecution. They alleged therefore thatCatholics could not use it to account for the silence of any writer before the latter part of the second century at the earliest. To thisCatholics responded that, although nodoubt the practice may have been intensified throughpersecution, it goes back to the very beginnings ofChristianity, and toChrist's own words. Moreover it can be shown to have been in force beforeSt. Justin's time, and his action must be regarded as an exception, renderednecessary by the need for putting before the emperor an account of theChristian religion which should betrue and full.

The monuments of the earliest centuries afford interesting examples of the principle of the Discipline of the Secret. Monuments which could be seen by all could only speak of the mysteries of religion under veiled symbols. So in thecatacombs there is scarcely any instance of apainting the subject of which is directlyChristian, although all spoke ofChristiantruth to those who were instructed in their meaning. Jewish subjects typical ofChristiantruths were commonly chosen, while the representation of Christ under the name and form of afish made the allusion to thedoctrine of theHoly Eucharist possible and plain. There is, for example, the famous Autun inscription (seePECTORIUS): "Take the food, honey-sweet, of the redeemer of thesaints, eat and drink holding the Fish in they hands"; words which everyChristian would understand at once, but which conveyed nothing to the uninitiated. Theinscription of Abercius offers another notable instance.

The need for this reticence became less pressing after the fifth century, asEurope becameChristianized and the discipline gradually passed away. We may, however, still trace its effects in the seventh century in the absurd understatements contained in theKoran on the subject of theBlessed Trinity and theHoly Eucharist. This, perhaps, is almost the last instance which could be brought forward. Once the doctrines of theChurch had been publicly set forth, any such discipline became impossible and no return to it was practicable. For a refutation of the theory of G. Anrich (Das Antike Mysterienwesen, 1894), that the primitiveChristians borrowed this practice from the mysteries ofMithra, see Cumont, "The Mysteries of Mithra" (London, 1903), 196-99.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT