ARCANO, Discipline of the. - With the expression disciplina arcani, used for the first time by the Protestant theologian Jean Daillé (Dallaeus, in the work De scriptis... Dionysii Areopagitae, I, Geneva 1666, p. 142), it is customary to designate, from the 17th century onward, a practice in force in the early Church, especially from the 3rd to the 5th century, of not speaking to outsiders about the sacred rites and the dogmas of religion.
1. Under the influence of the controversies and the impulse of the growing historical research on the doctrine and worship of the earliest Christian times, already from the 16th century it had been noticed that for various dogmas, sacred rites, etc., ancient testimonies were lacking or very scarce. Some Catholic writers explained this fact by the oral tradition which in the Church, especially for the sacred rites, has always coexisted alongside the written tradition. Others had recourse, to explain this fact, 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 constrained to abstain from speaking, above all of the Eucharist and of transubstantiation (cf. DThC, I, col. 1738-43). According to Melchor Cano (De locis theologiae, Salamanca 1563, book III, 3) the Apostles would have given what is holy to the dogs, "si quibus formis sacramenta essent conficienda, quibusve ritibus administranda aliaque id genus religionis secreta, passim vulgo tradidissent." According to St. Robert Bellarmine (De controversiis christianae fidei, Lyon 1599, I, 8 and II, 29) the Holy Fathers "non loquebantur de eo [sacramento dell'Eucaristia] coram ethnicis et catechumenis nisi tecta, ut illis verbis: Norunt fideles" and he refers to Tertullian, Origen, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, Theodoret. G. Estius (In lib. IV Sententiarum, Paris 1680, dist. 1 and 19) extended the law of silence to the whole of sacramental theology. By others it was exaggerated, as usually happens, to such an extent that the Anglican J. Bingham (Originum sive antiquitatum ecclesiast., IV, Halle 1727, p. 121) could ironically write: "Hoc novo et admirabili instrumento, quod disciplinam arcani vocitant... omnis dissimilitudo 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. Casaubon (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 Daillé (De usu Patrum, etc., Geneva 1686) pointed out with accuracy the relatively late age (4th-5th centuries) of the supposed institution. Thus arose a violent polemic between the canon E. de Schelstrate (Antiquitas illustrata circa concilia generalia et provincialia..., Antwerp 1678; Commentatio de s. Antiochene concilio, ibid. 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...), not yet settled even today (cf. DThC, I, col. 1741 with the bibliography; H. Gravel, v. below).
In the course of the 19th century it was thought that a disciplina arcani really existed, but was something similar to the secrecy with which the pagan cults of the "mysteries" surrounded themselves, to which only the initiated could have access, and of 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, Göttingen 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 happened in parallel with the attempts to situate Christianity historically among the religious currents contemporary with its origins. These are, however, only external similarities: a direct and immediate acceptance of the pagan practice cannot be documented nor even supposed, given the aversion of the early Christians for pagan practices. Frommann (De disciplina arcani quae in vetere Ecclesia christiana obtinuisse fertur, Jena 1833) thought of an imitation of the Jewish practices toward proselytes and of the secrecy observed by Alexandrian Gnosis.
2. The discipline of the a., which at a certain time did in fact exist, developed 1st) from a natural tendency to reserve which prevented revealing in any way the most sublime and noble rites and beliefs of the religion; 2nd) 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 the desire to know what was kept secret. Although Christians, especially during the persecutions, did not generally like to proclaim themselves openly as such before anyone, up to now no document has been found in the first two centuries that proves the existence of the disciplina arcani: the confessions of the Christians interrogated by Pliny (Epist., 10, 96) and the frankness with which St. Justin and certain other apologists speak, in their works addressed to the emperor and the senate, of Christian worship, demonstrate its non-existence. The pagan Celsus, who wrote against the Christians, knew their sacred books very well. The Didaché, a little manual of catechetical instruction and the earliest ritual, has not in the least the character of a secret book. The same symbols, used in paleochristian 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, etc. Indeed, orthodox writers reproached, and sometimes bitterly, the silence and the mystery of the heretical groups. It may be concluded that the Church, in the first two centuries, did not know the disciplina arcani, although, because of the persecutions, it sometimes lived clandestinely.
There was, however, a period, between the 3rd and 5th centuries, in which this discipline flourished, demanded by the needs of the catechumenate, instituted to prepare and better instruct the catechumens for Baptism. A distinction then appeared in preaching and in participation in the Mass between the catechumens and the baptized: to the former only baptism and the principal dogmas were spoken of, reserving complete instruction, especially concerning the Eucharist, until after they had received Baptism. There thus arose 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 the catechumens; but it seems that this was more a measure of prudence than by force of law. The first testimonies go back to the end of the 2nd century and the beginning of the 3rd, 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, in Rome, another clear argument is offered us by St. Hippolytus (Traditio Apostolica, 16, 28-31), supposing 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 culminating point of the discipline of the a. was reached during the 4th century and the first part of the 5th. Thus for Egypt it is attested by St. Athanasius (Apol. sec., 11, 2; 44, 4; 72, 6: he reproaches the Arians and the Meletians for having brought to court the case concerning a profanation that had occurred in church during the Mass, for which the priests had had to give to the unbaptized lay judge explanations recorded afterwards in the minutes) and, though less clearly, by the Euchologion of Serapion (3, 3; 4, 2; 20, 1); for Palestine by St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Procatechesis, 4-6, 12; Catech., 6, 29; 18, 32 ff.; 19-23), Egeria (Peregrinatio, 26 ff.); for Syria by St. John Chrysostom (In I Cor. hom., 40, 1: «I would speak clearly, 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 St. Epiphanius (Ancor., 57, 3-6); for Cappadocia by St. Basil (De Spiritu Sancto, 66), St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Oratio, 45, 16), St. Gregory of Nyssa (De bapt.: PG 46, 421 C); for Constantinople by St. 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 are the Constitutiones Apostolorum (VII, 25, 5-7; VIII, 6, 2-12).
In the West it is attested by St. Zeno of Verona (Tract., 1, 1, 4; 11, 32), St. Ambrose (De mysteriis, 1, 2; 9, 55; Expositio in Evang. Luc., 7, 43; De excessu fratris sui Satyr., 1, 43), St. Peter Chrysologus (Sermo 161 fin.) and others. The caution of Pope Innocent I is paramount (Epist. ad Decentium, 25, 3, 12): he alludes to considerations and reticences concerning the Eucharist, speaks of «those things which I must not manifest» and ends «the other things it is not lawful to write, nor will I explain them, when you come to Rome». St. Augustine likewise observes the law of silence several times (Serm. 4, 28; 31; 5, 7; 132, 1; 232, 7; 234, 2; 272; In Io. tract., 22, 5; 45, 9, etc.); in other places he manifests a greater freedom, which already indicates a weakening of the discipline that would soon disappear.
The discipline of the a. comprised in particular these objects: a) the rites and formulas relating to Baptism and Confirmation or connected with them, such as the text of the baptismal symbol which contained the profession of faith in the Most Holy Trinity, of the Pater noster, the prayer of the Christian family, 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 symbol: Cyril, Catech., 1-18; 6, 29; Egeria, Peregr., 46, 2-6; Ambrose, De Cain et Abel, 1, 9; Augustine, Serm. 212-15; 228, 3; Sacramentarium gelasianum, 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 dominica, 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 cognitione 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; better Ambrose, De excessu fr. Sat., 1, 43).
c) the books containing the sacred mysteries (Cyril, Procatech. fin.).
d) The place: during the explanation of the symbol, during the administration of Baptism and 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 guarded (Didascalia, II, 57, 6; Const. Apost., VIII, 11, 11).
e) The time: the solemn initiation took place, as often 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 Nazianzus, Oratio 39, 4).
It was forbidden to the initiated to speak of these things, even in judicial inquiries (Athanasius, Apol. sec., 11, 44, 72) and to the uninitiated 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 most grave necessity one could even speak of them (John Chrysostom, In I Cor. hom., 27, 3; 28, 1; Athanasius, Apol. sec., 11, 2; Trad. apost., 16, 31); often the authors, in order not to treat of them, in-
ARCANO : ARCHEOLOGIA BIBLICA
terrupt the subject 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 differently, as is shown, for example, with regard to the Eucharist, by Epiphanius (Ancor., 57, 3-6), contra Theodoret (Eranistes, 2: PG 83, 165-68); with regard to the symbol, by Sozomen (Hist. eccl., I, 20); contra Socrates (Hist. eccl., I, 8, 21 ff.). Access to the sacred mysteries and merely seeing them was also forbidden (Basil, De Spir. Sancto, 66; Zeno, Tract., 1, 5, 8; Ambrose, De excessu fratr. Satyri, 1, 43); likewise the handing over of the sacred and liturgical books (Cyril of Jerusalem, Procatech., fin. ad lectorem); Basil (loc. cit.) forbids any description of them (cf. Sacramentarium gelasianum, 1, 35).
No author, however, reports that there was a special law imposing such silence on the neophytes; no one binds them by oath and sworn promise to the observance of the law of the a. St. Ambrose (De mysteriis, 9, 55) imposes it together with the preservation of the faith and purity of morals («silenti integritas»); according to Zeno of Verona (Tract., 1, 5, 8), the violation of the secret is a sacrilege; according to the Constitutiones Apostolorum (VII, 25, 6) it is a crime deserving punishment.
The initiation took place gradually: it began with the explanation of the creed, then came the true initiation, and finally, during the octave of Baptism, the explanation of the rites (cf. Egeria, Peregr., 46 ff.; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses; Ambrose, De mysteriis; De sacramentis; Zeno, Tract., 2, 30-77; Augustine, Serm. 212-60).
After the 5th century, only brief allusions to the secret or to silence concerning the dogmas are found in the Fathers. Some traces of it, however, remained in the various liturgies; thus among the Easterners there is the deacon's admonition to the catechumens to depart before the Offertory, and to veil the altar during the Canon of the Mass; in the Latin liturgy, for example, 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, which lasted until our own days.