ARCANO, DISCIPLINA dell'. — By the expression disciplina arcani, first used by the Protestant theologian Jean Daille (Dallaeus, in the work De scriptis... Dionysii Areopagitae, I, Geneva 1666, p. 142), there has traditionally been designated, from the seventeenth century onward, a practice in force in the ancient Church, especially from the third to the fifth century, of not speaking to outsiders about the sacred rites and dogmas of religion.
1. Under the influence of controversies and the impetus of the growing historical research into the doctrine and worship of the earliest Christian times, it had been observed since the sixteenth century that, for various dogmas, sacred rites, and so forth, ancient testimonies were lacking or extremely scarce. Some Catholic writers explained this fact by the oral tradition that in the Church, especially with regard to the sacred rites, has always coexisted alongside written tradition. Others, in order to explain it, appealed to an explicit law of silence, already declared by St. Basil (De Spiritu Sancto, 66) to be an «apostolic tradition», by which the faithful would have been compelled to refrain from speaking, above all, of the Eucharist and transubstantiation (cf. DThC, I, col. 1738-43). According to Melchior Cano (De locis theologiae, Salamanca 1563, book III, 3), the Apostles would have given what was holy to dogs, «si quibus formis sacramenta essent conficienda, quibusve ritibus administranda aliaque id genus religionis secreta, passim vulgo tradidissent». According to St. Roberto Bellarmino (De controversis christianae fidei, Lyon 1599, I, 8 and II, 29), the Holy Fathers «non loquebantur de eo [sacramento dell'Eucaristia] coram ethnieis et catechumenis nisi tecta, ut illis verbis: Norunt fideles» and he refers to Tertullian, Origen, St. Giovanni Crisostomo, St. Agostino, and Teodoreto. G. Estius (In lib. IV Sententiarum, Paris 1680, dist. 1 and 19) extended the law of silence to the whole of sacramental theology. Others exaggerated it, as commonly happens, so that the Anglican J. Bingham (Originium sive antiquitatum ecclesiast., IV, Halle 1727, p. 121) could write ironically: «Hoc novo et admirabili instrumento, quod disciplinam arcani vocitant... omnis dissimilituo et repugnantia, quae inter antiquae Ecclesiae catholicae doctrinas consuetudinesque, et novellas praesentis Ecclesiae Romanae corruptiones apparet, illico evanescit et in ventos abit». The Protestants reacted: I. Casaubonus (De rebus sacris et ecclesiasticis exercitationes XVI, London 1614, 4th ed., Geneva 1663) saw in it the influence of the law of silence in force in the ancient pagan cults; Jean Daille (De usu Patrum, etc., Geneva 1686) accurately indicated the relatively late date (fourth-fifth centuries) of the alleged institution. Thus there arose a violent controversy between the canon E. de Schelstrate (Antiquitas illustrata circa concilia generalia et provincialia..., Antwerp 1678; Commentatio de s. Antiochene concilio, there 1681) and the Protestant W. Ern. Tentzel (Exercitationes selectae in duas partes distributae, quarum... posteriori disciplina arcani in apricum productum, Leipzig-Frankfurt 1692, containing: Tentzel, Dissert. de discipl. arcani, Wittenberg 1683; Schelstrate, Dissert. apologetica: De disc. arc. contra disput. E. Tentzel, 1685, and Tentzel’s reply: Animadversiones...), a controversy that has not yet died down (cf. DThC, I, col. 1741 with the bibliography; H. Gravel, V. sotto).
During the nineteenth century it was thought that a disciplina arcani really existed, but that it was something resembling the secrecy with which the pagan cults of the «mysteries» surrounded themselves, to which only initiates could gain access, and concerning which it was forbidden to reveal either the rite or the myth (cf. N. Bonwetsch, Wesen, Entstehung und Fortgang der Arkandisciplin, in Zeitschr. für histor. Theologie, 43 (1873), pp. 203-99; E. Hatch, Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, London 1890; G. Anrich, Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf das Christentum, Gottling 1894; G. Wobbermin, Religionsgeschichtliche Studien zur Frage der Beeinflussung des Urchristentums durch das Mysterienwesen, Berlin 1896; O. Casel, Antike und christliche Mysterien, in Bayr. Blätter für das Gymnasialschulwesen, 63 [1927], pp. 329-40; and Altchristlicher Kult und Antike, in Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft, 3 [1923], p. 1 ff.). This occurred in parallel with attempts to place Christianity historically among the religious currents contemporary with its origins. These, however, are merely external similarities: a direct and immediate acceptance of pagan practice can neither be documented nor even presumed, given the aversion of the ancient Christians to pagan customs. Frommam (De disciplina arcani quae in vetere Ecclesia christiana obtinuisse fertur, Jena 1833) thought of an imitation of Jewish practices toward proselytes and of the secrecy observed by Alexandrian Gnosticism.
2. The discipline of the a., which in a certain period did in fact exist, developed 1º) from a natural tendency toward reserve that prevented the sublime and noble rites and beliefs of religion from being disclosed in any way; 2°) from the institution of the catechumenate: catechumens had to be initiated, for pedagogical reasons, gradually into the truths of Christian revelation, arousing their curiosity and desire to know what was being kept secret. Although Christians, especially during the persecutions, generally did not like to proclaim themselves openly as such before just anyone, no document has so far been found from the first two centuries proving the existence of the discipline of the a.: the confessions of the Christians questioned by Pliny (Epist., 10, 96) and the frankness with which St. Giustino and certain other apologists speak, in their works addressed to the emperor and the senate, about Christian worship demonstrate its nonexistence. The pagan Celsus, who wrote against the Christians, knew their sacred books very well. The Didaché, a manual of catechetical instruction and the first ritual, in no way has the character of a secret book. The symbols themselves used in early Christian art had no other function than to represent graphically, that is, concretely, abstract concepts such as the sacraments, the immortality of the soul, eternal life, and so forth. Indeed, orthodox writers reproached heretical groups, at times bitterly, for their silence and secrecy. It may be concluded that the Church, during the first two centuries, did not know the discipline of the a., even though, because of the persecutions, it sometimes lived clandestinely.
There was, however, a period, between the third and the fifth century, in which this discipline flourished, prompted by the needs of the catechumenate, established to prepare and better instruct catechumens for Baptism. A distinction then appeared in preaching and in participation in the Mass between catechumens and the baptized: the former were taught only about baptism and the principal dogmas, while complete instruction, especially concerning the Eucharist, was reserved until after they had received Baptism. Thus there was the Missa catechumenorum, that is, the first part of the Mass up to the Offertory, and the Missa fidelium, in which the unbaptized did not participate. The Fathers of this period often repeat that the sacred mysteries must not be explained to catechumens; but it seems that this was more a matter of prudential caution than the force of a law. The earliest testimonies date from the end of the second century and the beginning of the third, with the inscription of Abercius (v.) and Tertullian (Ad uxorem, 2, 5): «non sciet maritus [paganus] quid secreto ante omnem cibum gustes [sc. s. Eucharistiam]». At the same time, at Rome, another clear piece of evidence is provided by s. Hippolytus (Traditio Apostolica, 16, 28-31), on the assumption, however, that these words are not a later addition: «ne sinas vero infideles scire, nisi prius baptismum acceperint»; less clear is the testimony of the Didascalia (3, 10, 7) for Syria. Origen, in several of his homilies (In Lev. hom., 9, 10; cf. In Num. hom., 5, 3; In Lev. hom., 13, 3; In Iud. hom., 5, 6; In Gen. hom., 17, 8: PG, 12, 523. 505. 547. 973. 260), speaks of the blood of the Lord as the means of our redemption and adds: «Novit qui mysteriis imbutus est et carnem et sanguinem Verbi Dei: non immoremur in his quae scientibus nota sunt et ignorantibus patere non possunt».
The high point of the discipline of the a. was reached during the fourth century and the first part of the fifth. For Egypt, this is attested by s. Athanasius (Apol. sec., 11, 2; 44, 4; 72, 6: he reproaches the Arians and Meletians for having brought before a court the case concerning a profanation that had occurred in a church during Mass, as a result of which the priests had had to give the unbaptized lay judge explanations that were subsequently recorded in the proceedings) and, though less clearly, by the Euchologion of Serapion (3, 3; 4, 2; 20, 1); for Palestine, by s. Cyril of Jerusalem (Procatechesis, 4-6, 12; Catech., 6, 29; 18, 32 ff.; 19-23), Egeria (Peregrinatio, 26 ff.); for Syria, by s. John Chrysostom (In I Cor. hom., 40, 1: «I would like to speak plainly, but I do not dare because of the uninitiated»; cf. ibid., 27, 3; 28, 1; In Matth. hom., 23, 3), Theodoret (Eranistes, 2: PG 83, 165-68; Haer. fab. compendium, 5, 18); for Cyprus, by s. Epiphanius (Ancor., 57, 3-6); for Cappadocia, by s. Basil (De Spiritu Sancto, 66), s. Gregory Nazianzen (Oratio, 45, 16), s. Gregory of Nyssa (De bapt.: PG 46, 421 C); for Constantinople, by s. John Chrysostom (Epist. ad Innocentium, 1, 3: PG 52, 533), Sozomen (Hist. eccl., I, 20). An excellent source for demonstrating the influence of the discipline of the a. on the liturgy is the Constitutiones Apostolorum (VII, 25, 5-7; VIII, 6, 2-12).
In the West, it is attested by s. Zeno of Verona (Tract., 1, 1, 4; 11, 32), s. Ambrose (De mysteriis, 1, 2; 9, 55; Expositio in Evang. Lucre, 7, 43; De excessu fratris sui Satyr, 1, 43), s. Peter Chrysologus (Sermo 161 fin.) and others. Greatest was the caution of Pope Innocent I (Epist. ad Decentium, 25, 3, 12): he alludes to circumspection and reticence concerning the Eucharist, speaks of «those things which I ought not to disclose», and concludes, «the other things it is not lawful to write, nor will I explain them when you come to Rome». S. Augustine likewise observes the law of silence on several occasions (Serm. 4, 28; 31; 5, 7; 132, 1; 232, 7; 234, 2; 272; In Io. tract., 22, 5; 45, 9, etc.); elsewhere he displays greater freedom, which already indicates a weakening of the discipline that would soon disappear.
The discipline of the a. comprised in particular the following subjects:
a) the rites and formulas relating to Baptism and Confirmation or connected with them, such as the text of the baptismal creed, which contained the profession of faith in the Holy Trinity, the Pater noster, the prayer of the Christian family, and then, in general, the principal dogmas of the faith (cf. Trad. Apost., 16, 23; 28 ff.; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech., 18, 32 ff.; 19-23; Ambrose, De myst., 1, 2; 9, 55; Epiphanius, Ancor., 57, 3-6, etc. For the creed: Cyril, Catech., 1-18; 6, 29; Egeria, Peregr., 46, 2-6; Ambrose, De Cuiu et Abel, 1, 9; Augustine, Serm. 212-15; 228, 3; Gelasian Sacramentary, 1, 35, etc.; cf. F. Kattenbusch, Das Apostolische Symbol, etc., I, Leipzig 1894, pp. 39-55. For the Pater noster: Tertullian, De baptismo, 20; Cyprian, De oratione dominico, 10; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech., 23, 11-18; Const. Apost., VII, 44, 45; John Chrysostom, In Col. hom., 6, 4; Augustine, Serm. 56-59; Ildefonsus of Toledo, De coguitione Baptismi, 132; cf. F. J. Dölger, Das erste Gebet der Gläubigen in der Gemeinschaft der Gläubigen, in Antike und Christentum, 2 [1930], pp. 142-55).
b) the rites and formulas relating to the Eucharist (Tertullian, Ad uxorem, 2, 5; Cyprian, De lapsis, 26; especially Ambrose, De excessu fr. Sat., 1, 43).
c) books containing the sacred mysteries (Cyril, Procatech. fin.).
d) The place: during the explanation of the creed, during the administration of Baptism, and during the eucharistic celebration, the doors had to be closed to the uninitiated (John Chrysostom, In Matth. hom., 23, 3; Egeria, Peregr., 47, 2; cf. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 2, 5), indeed, they had to be guarded (Didascalia, II, 57, 6; Const. Apost., VIII, 11, 11).
e) The time: solemn initiation took place, as was often the case among the pagans, in the silence of the night (cf. Clement of Alexandria, Protrept., 2, 22, 1; Cyril of Jerusalem, Procatech., 15; Firmicus Maternus, De errore profanarum religionum, 22; Gregory of Nazianzen, Oratio 39, 4).
The initiated were forbidden to speak of these things, even in judicial investigations (Athanasius, Apol. sec., 11, 44, 72), and the uninitiated were forbidden to hear them (Sozomen, Hist. eccl., I, 20); only obscure allusions were permitted, which «are a kind of silence» (Basil, De Spir. Sancto, 66; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech., 6, 29; John Chrysostom, In I Cor. hom., 40, 1); in cases of the gravest necessity, it was also possible to speak of them (John Chrysostom, In I Cor. hom., 27, 3; 28, 1; Athanasius, Apol. sec., 11, 2; Trad. apost., 16, 31); often, in order not to treat the subject, authors break off the discussion with a: «norunt fideles» and similar expressions (Origen, In Lev. hom. 9, 10; 13, 3; Augustine, In Io. tract., 22, 5; 45, 9; Serm. 4, 28.31; 5, 7; 132, 1; 232, 7; 234, 2, etc.). The law of silence, however, was observed in different ways, as is shown, for example, with regard to the Eucharist, by Epiphanius (Ancor., 57, 3-6), against Theodoret (Eranistes, 2: PG 83, 165-68); with regard to the creed, by Sozomen (Hist. eccl., I, 20); against Socrates (Hist. eccl., I, 8, 21 ff.). Access to the sacred mysteries, and even merely seeing them, was likewise forbidden (Basil, De Spir. Sancto, 66; Zeno, Tract., 1, 5, 8; Ambrose, De excessu fratr. Satyri, 1, 43); likewise, the handing over of sacred and liturgical books (Cyril of Jerusalem, Procatech., fin. ad lectorem); Basil (loc. cit.) prohibits any description of them (cf. Gelasian Sacramentary, 1, 35).
ARCANO : BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY
No author, however, reports the existence of a special law imposing such silence upon neophytes; no one binds them by oath or sworn promise to observe the law of the a. S. Ambrose (De mysteriis, 9, 55) imposes it together with the preservation of faith and purity of morals (« silenti integritas »); according to Zeno of Verona (Tract., 1, 5, 8), violation of the secret is sacrilege; according to the Constitutiones Apostolorum (VII, 25, 6), it is a crime deserving punishment.
The initiation took place gradually: it began with an explanation of the creed, followed by the actual initiation, and finally, during the octave of Baptism, the explanation of the rites (cf. Eteria, Peregr., 46 ff.; Cirillo di Gerusalemme, Catecheses; Ambrogio, De mysteriis; De sacramentis; Zenone, Tract., 2, 30–77; Agostino, Serm. 212–60).
After the fifth century, the Fathers contain only brief references to secrecy or silence concerning the dogmas. Some traces of it nevertheless remained in the various liturgies: among the Eastern Christians, for example, the deacon’s admonition to the catechumens to depart before the Offertory, and the veiling of the altar during the Canon of the Mass; in the Latin liturgy, for instance, the practice of reciting the Canon of the Mass in a low voice and of not translating the words of the Eucharistic consecration into the vernacular, a practice that lasted until our own day.