Disciplina Arcani
Discipline of the Secret
“The Synod of
The Clowns
of God by Morris West ISBN
0-688-0049
“… a fine parable for our times, gripping as
all West’s novels are, and filled with theological insights.”
Father
Theodore M. Hesburgh President,
__________________________________________________________________
HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH [1]
by
PHILIP SCHAFF
Christianus
sum.
Christiani nihil a me alienum puto
VOLUME II
ANTE-NICENE CHRISTIAINITY
a.d. 100-325.
__________________________________________________________________
[1] Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, (
Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997. This material has been carefully compared,
corrected, and emended (according to the 1910 edition of Charles Scribner's
Sons) by The Electronic Bible Society,
See also the
edition of the Didache, Prolegg. p. 32 ff.; Rothe, “De disciplina arcani
origine,” 1841. S: 67. Division of Divine Service. The Disciplina
Arcani.
Richard Rothe:
De Disciplinae Arcani, quae dicitur, in Ecclesia Christ. Origine. Heidelb.
1841; and his art. on the subject in the first ed. Of Herzog (vol. I. 469-477).
C. A. Gerh.
Von Zezschwitz: System der christl. kirchlichen Katechetik. Leipz. 1863, vol.
I. p. 154-227. See also his art. in the second ed. of Herzog,
G. Nath.
Bonwetsch (of Dorpat): Wesen, Entstehunq und Fortgang der Arkandisciplin, in
Kahnis' "Zeitschrift fuer Hist. Theol." 1873, pp. 203 sqq.
J. P. Lundy:
Monumental Christianity.
Comp. also A.
W. Haddan in Smith & Cheetham,
The public
service was divided from the middle of the second century down to the close of
the fifth, into the worship of the catechumens, and the worship of the
faithful. The former consisted of scripture reading, preaching, prayer, and
song, and was open to the unbaptized and persons under penance. The latter
consisted of the holy communion, with its liturgical appendages; none but the
proper members of the church could attend it; and before it began, all
catechumens and unbelievers left the assembly at the order of the deacon, and
the doors were closed or guarded.
The earliest
witness for this strict separation is Tertullian, who reproaches the heretics
with allowing the baptized and the unbaptized to attend the same prayers, and
casting the holy even before the heathens. He demands, that believers,
catechumens, and heathens should occupy separate places in public worship. The
Alexandrian divines furnished a theoretical ground for this practice by their
doctrine of a secret tradition for the esoteric. Besides the communion, the
sacrament of baptism, with its accompanying confession, was likewise treated as
a mystery for the initiated and withdrawn from the view of Jews and heathens.
We have here
the beginnings of the Christian mystery-worship, or what has been called since
1679 "the Secret Discipline," (Disciplina Arcani), which is presented
in its full development in the liturgies of the fourth century, but disappeared
from the Latin church after the sixth century, with the dissolution of heathenism
and the universal introduction of infant baptism.
The Secret
Discipline had reference chiefly to the celebration of the sacraments of
baptism and the eucharist, but included also the baptismal symbol, the Lord's
Prayer, and the doctrine of the Trinity. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyril
of Jerusalem, and other fathers make a distinction between lower or elementary
(esoteric) and higher or deeper (esoteric) doctrines, and state that the latter
are withheld from the uninitiated out of reverence and to avoid giving offence
to the weak and the heathen. This mysterious reticence, however, does not
justify the inference that the Secret Discipline included transubstantiation,
purgatory, and other Roman dogmas which are not expressly taught in the writings
of the fathers. The argument from silence is set aside by positive proof to the
contrary. Modern Roman archaeologists have pressed the whole symbolism of the
Catacombs into the service of the Secret Discipline, but without due regard to
the age of those symbolical representations.
The origin of
the Secret Discipline has been traced by some to the apostolic age, on the
ground of the distinction made between "milk for babes" and
"strong meat" for those "of full age," and between speaking
to "carnal" and to "spiritual" hearers. But this
distinction has no reference to public worship, and Justin Martyr, in his first
Apology, addressed to a heathen emperor, describes the celebration of baptism
and the eucharist without the least reserve. Others derive the institution from
the sacerdotal and hierarchical spirit which appeared in the latter part of the
second century, and which no doubt favored and strengthened it; still others,
from the Greek and Roman mystery worship, which would best explain many
expressions and formulas, together with all sorts of unscriptural pedantries
connected with these mysteries. Yet the first motive must be sought rather in
an opposition to heathenism; to wit, in the feeling of the necessity of
guarding the sacred transactions of Christianity, the embodiment of its deepest
truths, against profanation in the midst of a hostile world, according to Matt.
7:6; especially when after Hadrian, perhaps even from the time of Nero, those
transactions came to be so shamefully misunderstood and slandered. To this must
be added a proper regard for modesty and decency in the administration of adult
baptism by immersion. Finally--and this is the chief cause--the institution of
the order of catechumens led to a distinction of half-Christians and full-Christians,
exoteric and esoteric, and this distinction gradually became established in the
liturgy. The secret discipline was therefore a temporary, educational and
liturgical expedient of the ante-Nicene age. The catechumenate and the division
of the acts of worship grew together and declined to, together. With the
disappearance of adult catechumens, or with the general use of infant baptism
and the union of church and state, disappeared also the secret discipline in
the sixth century: "cessante causa cessat effectus."
The Eastern
church, however, has retained in her liturgies to this day the ancient form for
the dismission of catechumens, the special prayers for them, the designation of
the sacraments as "mysteries," and the partial celebration of the mass
behind the veil; though she also has for centuries had no catechumens in the
old sense of the word, that is, adult heathen or Jewish disciples preparing for
baptism, except in rare cases of exception, or on missionary ground.
New
Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge,
Vol. I:
Aachen-Basilians; Schaff, Philip (1819-1893)
Arcani
Disciplina (“Instruction in the Sacred Secret,” i.e, initiation into the
mystery): A term first applied by Dallaeus and G. T. Meier to the practice of
maintaining a studied reticence (fides silentii) concerning the form and
character of introduction into the Church, as if this were something analogous
to initiation into the mysteries of the heathen world. The practice is
especially observed in the fourth and fifth centuries. Baptism and the Lord’s
Supper, with the baptismal formula and the Lord’s Prayer, in so far as these
had an essential part in the introduction, were made the center of the supposed
mysteries. In accordance with this idea, after the sermon, to which all could
listen, at the beginning of the so called missa fidelium, the deacon warned all
unititated away from the divine service with the words: “Let no one of the
catechumens, let no one of the hearers, let no one of the unbelievers, let no
one of the heterodox, be present” Apostolic Constitutions viii. 12).
The arcani disciplina became the subject of confessional
polemics through the attempt of the Jesuit Emanuel von Schelestrate to prove
that it was instituted by Jesus and followed by the apostles; and that for this
reason the Roman doctrine of the sacraments [especially transubstantiation],
the veneration of images and saints, and other teachings of the Roman Catholic
Church do not appear in the early Church. In reply Tentzel proved conclusively
that until toward the year 200 the Church knew of no mysteries to be kept
secret. Nevertheless, Roman Catholic scholars with few exceptions (e.g.,
Batiffol) have endeavored to defend Schelstrate’s position. Justin’s detailed
exposition of the act of baptism and the celebration of the eucharist, however
(Apol., i. 61, 66, 67), is decisive. The exclusion of the unbaptized was an
inner necessity (cf Didache, ix. 5) and does not imply a mysterious character
of the cult; the secrecy also concerned not the dogma directly, but the symbols
and performance.
Thus far Protestants are agreed, but not concerning the nature
and origin of the disciplina. Casaubon assigned its beginnings to the influence
of the heathen mysteries and a borrowing of their forms for purposes of instruction,
and scholars immediately following him accepted his views. Frommann sought out
the root in an imitation of the Jewish practice with regard to proselytes.
Rothe called attention to the connection with the catechemate of the early
Church, and Credner to a relation with the twofold division of the cult
resulting from the dogmatic-mystic conception of the Lord’s Supper. T. Harnack
recognized in the discipline a systematic transformation of the divine service
into a form of mystery – a phenomenon which has a parallel in the fact that the
Roman Catholic Church to-day finds the secret of its power in the
mystic-theurgic act of its priests (cf. Bonwetsch). Zezachwitz maintained, more
in accord with the views of Rothe, that the cult acquired an exclusive character
and fides silentii arose in the Church from prudential motives because of
persecution; when persecution ceased, the sermon sufficed for the needs of the
catechumens (audientes) and full knowledge of the higher Christian secrets, as
well as participation in the vital part of the service, was reserved for the
final grade of maturity (attained only by the competentes); references to these
matters naturally ceased. It may confidently be asserted, however, that the
arcani disciplina was not founded in the external condition of the Church or in
pedagogic considerations, but was real, though unconscious, assimilation to the
ruling ideas of the mysteries. The notion that communion with God was possible
only by assimilation to God in a future state of incorruption through the
medium of sacred acts, led as naturally to the formation of a hierarchy,
differing from the laity and bringing divine essence into it by sacred acts, as
to transformation of the divine service into a celebration of mysteries which
were supposed to include the divine in symbols and symbolic acts. Anrich is
correct, therefore, in designating the disciplina as an analogy within the
Church of the system of efficacious initiations among the Gnostics and the
natural outcome of the theology of a Clement and an Origen, influenced by the
Greek mysteries (against this view, however, cf. Batiffol).
Zahn (p. 326) has demonstrated that the beginning of the arcani
disciplina can not be traced earlier than the third century. When Irenaeus (On
Heresy, III. Iv. 102) demands that the baptismal confession be transmitted
orally it is only to the end that, being written in the memory, it may become
an inner possession. Tertullian (Apol.; vii.; Ad nat., i. 7) speaks of a fides
silentii with reference to the Christian mysteries, but from the standpoint of
an opponent. Hippolytus (Ad Dan., 1. 16, 18) speaks of baptism without pointing
out the duty of silence. Phrases like “the initiated know” in Origen do not
establish the existence of the disciplina, since it can not be proven that
Origen represented general usage. In Contra Celsum, iii. 59-61, he has no
cultic acts in view; when he remarks (Levit. Hom., 9, 10; ix. 364, ed
Lommateach), “He who is imbued with the mysteries knows the flesh and the blood
of the Word of God,” he is thinking of the mysteries of the gnosis (Anrich,
129, n. 2). His reference to the anxiety lest some of the consecrated bread
should be dropped (Exod. Hom., xiii. 3; ix. 156) is a warning against the
inattentive hearing of the Word; and his reference (Lev. Homl, xiii. 3; ix.
403) to ecclesiastica mysteria proves nothing. Methodius does not apply Matt.
Vii. 6 to sacred acts (Photius, Bibl., cod. 235), nor are such acts “the orgies
of our mysteries, the mystic rites of those who are initiated” (Sympos., vi.
6).
In the fourth and fifth centuries the arcani disciplina was in
its bloom; the frequent occurrence in the sermon of “the initiated know,” “the
initiated,” is characteristic, and the transference of the phraseology of the
mysteries into the Church is evident. “To initiate (Gk. Myseisthai) and “to
instruct” (katecheisthai) become interchangeable terms. Baptism is called “the
seal of the mystic perfection” and “a mystic purification (katharmos) and
lustration (katharsion)”; the Lord’s Supper is “the mystery”; its elements are
“symbols.” “To be initiated” (mystagogeisthai) signifies to be competent to
partake of the sacraments, and to betray the mysteries is expressed by the
corresponding exorcheisthai.
It is characteristic of the disciplina that the immediate object
of the mystery was not the dogma and sacramental gift, but the elements and the
ritual performance. In Theodoret’s dialogue Inconfusus (iv. 125, ed. Schultze),
the orthodox shrinks from openly naming bread and cup lest “some one uninitiated
be present,” and vaguely calls the body and blood of the Lord a gift. The
desire was, of course, to withhold even from the eyes of the initiated the act
and the “mystic symbols”; hence the exclusion of the unbaptized from the missa
fidelium and the watch at the door by the ossuaries. Baptism and the Lord’s
Supper were the real object of the disciplina. To keep people in actual
ignorance was, of course, impossible, but the silence observed produced the
impression of a mystery. The Lord’s Prayer at the Supper held the same position
as the confession in baptism; the character of secret objects was given to both
(cf. Sozomen, Hist. eccl., i. 20; Ambrose, De Cain et Abel,
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
I. Casaubon, De rebus sacris et ecclesiasticis, Geneva, 1854; G. T. Meier, De
recondita veteris ecclesiæ theologia, Helmstedt, 1670; E. von Schelstrate,
Antiquitas illustrata circa concilia generalia et provincialia and Commentatio
de s. Antiocheno concilio, Antwerp, 1678, 1681; W. E. Tentzel, Exercitationes
selectæ, ii., Leipsic, 1692, contains Tentzel’s Dissertatio de disciplina
arcani, 1683; Schelstrate’s Dissertatio apologetica de disciplina arcani contra
disputationem E. Tentzelii, 1685; and Tentzel’e reply, Animadversiones; G. C.
L. T. Frommann, De disciplina arcani, Jena, 1833; R. Rothe, De disciplinæ
arcani origine, Heidelberg, 1841; K. A. Credner, in the Jenaer allgemeine
Litteraturzeitung, 653 sqq., 1844; T. Harnack, Der christliche
Gemeindegottesdienst im apostolischen und altkatholischen Zeitalter, pp. 1-66,
Erlangen, 1854; G. von Zezschwitz, System der Katechetik, i. 154-209, Leipsic,
1863; N. Bonwetsch, Wesen, Entstehung, und Fortgang der Arkan-disciplin, in
ZHT, xliii. (1873) 203-299; T. Zahn, Glaubensregel und Taufbekenntnis in der
alten Kirche, in ZKW, i. (1880) 315 sqq.; E. Bratke, Die Stellung des Clemens
Alexandrinus zum antiken Mysterienwesen, in TSK, lx. (1887) 647-708; E. Hatch,
The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, chap. x.,
London, 1890; H. Holtzmann, Die Katechese der alten Kirche, in Theologische
Abhandlungen Weizsäcker gewidmet, pp. 66-76, Freiburg, 1892; 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 antike Mysterienwesen, Berlin, 1896; P. Batiffol,
Études d’histoire et de théologie positive, Paris, 1902; H. Gravel, Die
Arkandisciplin, part i., Münster, 1902.
A history
of the Christian Church. Fourth Edition Williston
Walker, and Richard A. Norris, David W. Lotz, Robert T. Handy
Since
publication of the first edition in 1918, A History of the Christian Church
by Williston Walker has enjoyed outstanding success and recognition as a
classic in the field. Written by an eminent theologian, it combines in its
narrative a rare blend of clarity, unity, and balance. In light of significant
advances in scholarship in recent years, extensive revisions have been made to
this fourth edition.
Chapter 13
Worship and Piety
pg. 187-189.
The Fourth and Fifth Centuries saw a
significant flowering of Christian worship and, with it, of Christian art. Set
free to figure as public institutions and to own and dispose of property, the
churches expanded and elaborated their use of times, spaces, and ceremonies.
This is apparent first of all in the
development and articulation of the calendar of worship. The temporal rhythm of
Christian life continued to revolve around the week, with its regular
celebration of Sunday, [Sunday worship was instituted by James the Just the
brother of Jesus. James the Just is the first Patriarch of the Christian Church
for the Apostles, the Disciples and those who came to accept Jesus
as the Anointed, during that time. The beginning Christian Church was given
permission to hold services in the Temple at Jerusalem by the Council of the
Chief Priests, Pharisees and Sadducees upon the advice given by Gamaliel in
Acts chapter 5. These Eucharist celebrations first took place there on the
Sunday following the Saturday services of the Jews. Notation inserted by
Editor.] and around the annual cycle, whose focus was the celebration of the
Christian Passover during the fifty-day period from Easter to Pentecost. It was
this latter celebration which received the earliest celebration, as we learn
from the accounts given by the pilgrim Egeria of the celebration of Easter at
These elaborations of the yearly cycle
determined by Easter and Pentecost went hand in hand with the appearance of a
new annual cycle of celebration associated with the Incarnation and focused on
the feasts of Christmas (December 25th) and Epiphany (January 6th). Each of
these dates was also associated with pagan celebrations of the winter solstice.
In
These developments in the Christian year grew
up in roughly the same era during which the initiatory rites of the church
underwent their greatest elaboration. These rites included not only the act of
baptism itself and the numerous ceremonies connected with it (which differed
somewhat in character and order from place to place), but also the associated
actions by which persons were first admitted to the catechumenate and then
enrolled as actual candidates for baptism. The development of these distinct
stages in the initiatory process owed a great deal to the fact that in the
fourth century-as contrasted, it seems, with the late second and the
third-adult baptism had become the norm. Whether out of respect for the need of
mature commitment in full members of the church, or out of a desire to postpone
wholehearted dedication to the demands of the Christian way, large numbers of
Christians lived a substantial part of their lives as catechumen or
“hearers”-some, indeed, delaying baptism until they were near death. Such
persons were understood to belong to the Christian movement, almost as a class
of “fellow travelers”; but at the Sunday assemblies of the church, they were
dismissed after the liturgy of the Word, having not yet been qualified through
baptism for participation in the mystery of the Eucharist.
With this prolongation of the initiatory
process, there developed, in the fourth and fifth centuries, a strict
observance of the disciplina arcani (“discipline of secrecy”), according to
which not merely non-Christians but also catechumens were kept in ignorance of
the central symbols of Christian life and faith: the ceremonies of baptism and
the eucharist and their meaning, as well as the creed and the Lord’s Prayer.
This practice in part reflects the assimilation of the central Christian rites
and their interpretations to the awe-inspiring secret mysteries of the pagan
cults. Catechumens were kept aware that they lived in the shadow of a holy
reality, which they could approach only with reverence and complete commitment.
When catechumen had determined upon baptism,
they presented themselves for enrollment as candidates, normally at the
beginning of the season of Lent (in some places in the fourth century baptisms
were performed at the Epiphany as well as at Easter). If accepted as
candidates, they underwent a preliminary exorcism and spent the forty days
before Easter being instructed in the meaning of the faith. During this time,
they were given their church’s creed to memorize and heard its meaning
expounded. At the vigil conducted during the hours of darkness before Easter, the
candidates came to baptism itself. They renounced Satan and his works. They
were stripped of their clothes and brought naked into the waters of rebirth.
There they were washed as (in the West) they confessed their faith in the
triune God, or the bishop (as in