Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/57

 DISCIPLINE

33

DISCIPLINE

cence applied to all the sacraments, and no catechu- men was ever allowed to be present at their celebra- tion. St. Basil (De Spir. S. ad Amphilochium, xxvii) speaking of the sacraments says: "One must not cir- culate in writing the doctrine of mysteries which none but the initiated are allowed to see." For baptism reference may be made to Theodoret (Epitom. De- cret., xviii), St. Cyril of Alexandria (Contr. Julian., i), and St. Gregoiy Nazianzen (Orat. xl, de bapt.).

The discipline with respect to the Holy Eucharist of course requires no proof. It is involved in the very name of the Missa 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 quoted (De Spir. S., xxv, 11), says that no one has ever ventured to speak openly in writing of the holy oil of unction, and Innocent I, writing to the Bishop of Gubbio on the sacramental "form" of this ordinance answers: "I dare not speak the words, lest 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 of Laodicea forbade it definitely in its fifth canon. St. Chrysostom (Horn, xvii in II Cor.), in speaking of the practice of begging the prayers of the faithful for those who are to be ordained, says that those who understand co-operate with and assent to what is done. "For it is not lawful to reveal every- thing to those who are yet uninitiated." So also St. Augustine (Tract xi, in Joann.) : " If you say to a cate- chumen. Dost thou believe in Christ? he will answer, I do, and will sign himself with the Cross. . . . Let us ask him, Dost thou eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink the Blood of the Son of Man? He will not know what we mean, for Jesus has not trusted himself to him."

(2) The Heathen. — The evidence for the reserve of Christian writers when dealing with religious ques- tions in books which might be accessible to the heathen is, naturally, to a large extent of a negative character, and therefore difficult to produce. Theo- doret (QuaBst. XV in Num.) lays down the general principle in terms which are quite clear and unmis- takable: "We speak in obscure tenns concerning the Divine Mysteries, on account of the uninitiated, but when these have withdrawn we teach the initiated plainly." That passage alone would suffice to refute the allegation not unfrequently made that the Discip- line of the Secret was a confinement of the knowledge of the mysteries of the Faith to a chosen few, and was introduced in imitation of the heathen "mysteries". On the contrary all Christians were taught the whole truth, there was no esoteric doctrine, but they were brought to full knowledge slowly, and precautions were taken, as was very necessary, to prevent heathens from learning anjrthing of which they might make an evil use. A very striking example of the way in which the discipline worked may be found in the writ- ings of St. Chi-ysostom. He writes to Pope Innocent I to say that in the course of a disturbance at Con- stantinople an act of irreverence had been committed, and "the blood of Christ had been spilt upon the ground ". In a letter to the pope there was no reason for not speaking plainly. But Palladius, his bio- grapher, speaking of the same incident in a book for general reading, says only, "They overturned the sym- bols" (Chrys. ad Inn., i, 3 in P. G., LII, 534; cf. Dollinger, " Lehre der Eucharistie", 15). It is, no doubt, on this account that almost all the early apolo- gists, as Minueius Felix, Athenagoras, Arnobius, Ta- tian, and Theophilus, are absolutely silent on the Holy Eucharist. Justin Martyr and to a less degree Ter- tullian are more outspoken; the frankness of the former has been unduly urged to prove the non-exist- eace of this institution in the first half of the second v.— 3.

century. So again, as Cardinal Newman has ob- served (Development, 27), both Minueius Felix and Arnobius in controversy with heathens deny abso- lutely that Christians used altars in their churches. The obvious meaning was that they did not use altars in the heathen sense, and they must not be taken as denying the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that, in a Christian sense, "we have an altar".

The controversial importance of this subject in more recent times is, of course, obvious. The Catho- lics answered the accusation of Protestant writers, that their special doctrines could not be foimd in the writings of the early Fathers, by showing the e.xist- ence 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 countenance Protestant teaching — as for instance by speaking of the Holy Eucharist as symbols — it became necessary always to examine whether these terms were not used intentionally to conceal the true doctrine from the uninitiated, and whether the same writers did not, under other circumstances, use much more definite language. Protestant controversialists, there- fore, 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 earliest Christians, as shown by the freedom with which Justin Martyr speaks on the subject of the Holy Eucharist, and that it was the result of persecution. They alleged therefore that Catholics could not use it to account for the silence of any writer before the latter part of the second century at the earliest. To this Catholics responded that, although no doubt the practice may have been intensi- fied through persecution, it goes back to the very be- ginnings of Christianity, and to Christ's own words. Moreover it can be shown to have been in force before St. Justin's time, and his action must be regarded as an exception, rendered necessary by the need for put- ting before the emperor an account of the Christian religion which should be true and full.

The monuments of the earliest centuries afford in- teresting 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 the catacombs there is scarcely any instance of a painting the subject of which is di- rectly Christian, although all spoke of Christian truth to those who were instructed in their meaning. Jew- ish subjects typical of Christian truths were commonly chosen, while the representation of Christ under the name and form of a fish (see Fish) made the allusion to the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist possible and plain. There is, for example, the famous Autun inscription (see Pectorius) : " Take the food, honey-sweet, of the redeemer of the saints, eat and drink holding the Fish in thy hands"; words which every Christian would understand at once, but which conveyed nothing to the uninitiated. The inscription of Abercius (q. v.) offers another notable instance.

The need for this reticence became less pressing after the fifth century, as Europe became Christian- ized and the discipline gradually passed away. We may, however, still trace its effects in the seventh cen- tury in the absurd misstatements contained in the Koran on the subject of the Blessed Trinity and the Holy Eucharist. This, perhaps, is almost the last instance which could be brought forward. Once the doctrines of the Church 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 primitive Christians borrowed this practice from the mysteries of Mithra, see Cumont, "The Mysteries of Mithra" (London, 1903), 196-99.

ScHKLSTRATE. Di; lUscipUnd arrOTii (Antwerp, 1678); Meier,