Disciplina arcani Catholic Dictionary

DISCIPLINE OF THE SECRET (disciplina arcani) The term first occurs in a German author, Meier, who made use of it in a treatise “De Recondita Ecclesiae Theologica,” published at Helmstadt in 1677. It has been in common use ever since, as a convenient name for the custom which prevailed in the early Church of concealing from the heathen and catechumens the more sacred and mysterious doctrines and rites of the Catholic religion, either by not mentioning them at all or by mentioning them only in enigmatical language, unintelligible or even misleading except to those who were initiated into its meaning. The reader will see on a moment's consideration the dogmatic and controversial importance of the matter. Little stress can be laid on the infrequent mention of the Real Presence, the mystery of the Trinity and the like in early writers, if the existing discipline restrained them from writing openly on such subjects in books which might fall into the hands of the general public; and the same discipline may help to explain the fact that they sometimes express themselves on the Christian mysteries in language which seems strange and inadequate to us.

There can be no reasonable doubt as to the fact that this discipline of the secret did exist in the early Church. It arose from several causes. In times of persecution the Christians were afraid to speak openly and frankly about their worship and doctrine, from the natural fear that such disclosures would expose them to further injury and interruption. Moreover, they regarded the truth as a sacred deposit, and they were afraid of communicating it to those who would misunderstand it or laugh it to scorn. They were mindful of our Lord's admonition not to cast pearls before swine (Mt. vii. 6) and of the Apostle's declaration that he fed the Corinthians with milk, not with strong meat, because they were not able to bear it (I Cor. iii. 2). A few instances will be enough to prove the point and at the same time illustrate the nature of the discipline in question. “That it existed even as a rule,” says Newman, “with respect to the Sacraments, seems to be confessed on all hands.” It is well known that the heathens and catechumens were not allowed to be present at the whole of the Mass, and that a distinction was made between the Mass of the faithful and the Mass of the catechumens. Again, Minucius Felix, Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus, Arnobius, in their Apologies for the Christian religion, preserve an absolute silence on the holy Eucharist. The famous inscription discovered at Autun in 1839 exemplifies another mode in which this discipline was observed. “Take the food sweet as honey of the saviour of the holy ones, eat and drink holding the fish in thy hands” – words perfectly intelligible to Christians, among whom the “fish” meant ,”Jesus Christ, Son of God, the Saviour” [Ichthus + Iésus Christos Theou hUios Soter] – received first in the hands, then in the mouth of the communicant, but mere jargon to those who were outside the Church. So, again, Origen speaks of the soul on its conversion to the Church as initiated into the “mysteries of the faithful” (Sacramenta fidelium, an expression which must include the sacraments), “which those who are initiated know”; and, again, “of those venerable and sublime mysteries which those, who may be permitted to do so, know.” Even when persecution was over, the secrecy with regard to the sacraments was still maintained. Chrysostom, in a letter to Pope Innocent I., tells him how “the Blood of Christ had been spilt” during a tumult in a church of Constantinople. In such a letter no caution in language was called for. But his biographer Palladius in a published book says “they overturned the symbols.” At a synod held at Antioch in 340 the Catholic bishops indignantly accuse the Arians of letting catechumens, and even heathens, hear the “mysteries” discussed.

That this discipline existed “in other respects is plain from the nature of the case, and from the writings of the Apologists. Minucius Felix and Arnobius, in controversy with pagans, impiy a denial that they, the Christians, used altars; yet Tertultian speaks expressly of the Ara Dei in the church. What can we say but that the Apologists deny altars in the sense in which they ridicule them, or that they deny that altars such as the pagan altars were tolerated by Christians? And in like manner Minucius allows that there were no temples among Christians; yet they are distinctly recognised in the edicts of the Dioclesian era, and are known to have existed at a still earlier date.”

It has been already shown incidentally that the discipline of the secret is based on Scriptural precept, and was in force at least from the close of the second century. Even Ignatius may perhaps have had it in view when he describes the Christians of Ephesus as “initiated along with St. Paul.” It was enforced with different degrees of strictness according to circumstances. Sometimes, to meet the calumnies of heathens and more particularly of heretics, it was necessary to speak out, so that it does not follow, because Justin and Irenaeus express themselves with considerable fullness on the Eucharist, that the discipline of the secret was unknown to them. After the sixth century the need for the old reserve passed away.

{Verbatim from “A Catholic Dictionary”, W. E. Addis & T. Arnold, M.A., Revised with Additions by T. B. Scannell, D.D. Revised Ed. © 1928 Virtue & Co., – but with Greek letters transcribed and footnotes omitted from this re-printing}