Disciplina Arcani / The Discipline of the Secret

"Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast your pearls before swine; lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you"
Matthew 7:6

"I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for solid food. Even now you are still not ready"
1 Corinthians 3:2

"I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles or the hinds of the field, that you stir not up nor awaken love until it please."
Song of Songs 2:7

We now live in an age where not only do we have physical libraries filled with books on a vast array of subjects, but one in which the internet is a definitive asset. It's aptly called "the information age." We can google almost any subject and find all sorts of facts and opinions from any given source. As a Christian, if you don't happen to have access to a physical bible, you can have an app for it, and find any verse you want. We have catechisms, commentaries, and readily available to us at that. So available, in fact, that you need not even have faith to have a working (albeit, only intellectual) knowledge of what concerns Christianity.

In the early days of the church, however, the content of revelation was much more out of reach and more scantily accessed. There existed what was posthumously referred to as a disciplina arcani -- a "discipline of the secret." You had to be a catechumen (an inquirer and student preparing to be received into the Church through holy baptism) to know such things as the standard prayer of Christians (the Lord's Prayer.) and other excerpts from Scripture. Further, you had to actually be a member of the Church to not only partake of the Eucharist, but to even know what the Eucharist is and how it is celebrated. Only the baptized were present for the holy sacrifice of the Mass, and outsiders normally had no working knowledge of the faith. It was very exclusivist, to say the least, and borderline cultish, to say the most.

The first direct witness to a closed and discrete worship within Christian orthodoxy is Tertullian in approximately A.D. 200. In  his Apology, where he is addressing falsehoods and misunderstandings of which Christians are accused, he rhetorically asks: "And whence have they their knowledge, when it is also a universal custom in religious initiations to keep the profane aloof, and to beware of witnesses[?]" (Apology vii) He calls is a universal custom, indicating that all the churches did this. It was a catholic practice.

A considerably later but much more elaborate reference to the disciplina arcana is provided by St. Basil the Great, from his AD 375 treatise de Spiritu Sancto (On the Holy Spirit)

"Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us "in a mystery" by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force... Dogma and Kerugma are two distinct things; the former is observed in silence; the latter is proclaimed to all the world."

The practice was taken with utmost seriousness; there was a conviction held by the early church that there were some portions of the holy faith that were so high and so lofty that it would render them a disservice to be shared and made public to the outside world. St. Cyril of Jerusalem's catechetical lectures (c. 350), which in its opening discourse charges those about to be baptized into the Church:

"When, therefore, the Lecture is delivered, if a Catechumen ask you what the teachers have said, tell nothing to him that is without. For we deliver to you a mystery, and a hope of the life to come. Guard the mystery for Him who gives the reward... You were once yourself a Catechumen, and I described not what lay before you. When by experience you have learned how high are the matters of our teaching, then you will know that the Catechumens are not worthy to hear them." (Catechical Lectures prologue, par 12) 

For what reasons could this discipline of the secret been employed? It's good to remember that early Christianity was surrounded by a vastly pagan culture, and such an environment presents all sorts of problems. John Henry Newman, in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, gives two reasons and states them as such:

[1] On account of the pagan culture's rampant superstition, there was a desire to see that Christian beliefs and practices were not misunderstood on its account. The sacrifices offered by Christians were not offered to some choice deity in order to ward off divine wrath or bad luck. If this was the function of sacrifices as pagans understood it, it would be simply easier to say that the Christians had no sacrifices --- though undoubtedly, the holy sacrifice was the central aspect of their Christian worship.

[2] There is a great amount of mystery and depth to the holy faith, and to whom much is given, much is required. It makes sense to keep much of the Christian religion on the down-low, so that those who do receive it are not overwhelmed through learning it in its entirety. Obviously, portions of the faith (most especially, the Gospel) are readily announced to outsiders. Nevertheless, it is important that those who first come to the faith be fed with milk before they can eat solid food.

According to this elaboration, the practice was thus instituted with two groups of people in mind: the gentiles, and the catechumens. Concerning the former, people were so immersed in the pagan culture that Christians did not openly share many of their doctrines because they would rife with potential misunderstanding.

The reason for implementing the practice among the latter group, the catechumens was still partially informed by this same concern, but there was also the concern that they ought to be given the basics of the faith, so that they might start their progress in the Christian life from there and transcend to the more.

In both cases, the early church saw as its duty to guard the more intimate inner workings of its orthodoxy and orthopraxis. For another quote from St. Basil's treatise,

"Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learned the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. ... In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity."

Basil's answer for the practice's existence was the understanding that many of the truths of Christianity were so sacred, they could not be adequately appreciated, honored, revered if just anybody knew about them. Secrecy was a method of esteeming what is worthy of esteem.

A third reason can potentially be deduced, which is only applicable before the final legalization of Christianity within the Roman empire: persecution. Uniquely and overtly Christian teaching would have betrayed the identity to those forces who would have done the Christians harm. For example, St. Irenaeus of Lyon (d. 200) records in one of his writings that the servants of two Christians told pagan authorities of a conversation they heard their masters speaking which involved "eating flesh and blood", and this led to the arrest of the said Christians and their torture. Normally, the Eucharist was of a very secretive character.


The Eucharist & the other Sacraments:

This disciplina arcani was especially pertinent to the Sacramental mysteries, such as Chrismation and the Eucharist (as evidenced from the epitaph above, which Eucharistically speaks of "feasting on the sweet foodof the fish" and "holding the fish in your hands.")

This is evident in what potentially the very earliest of extra-Biblical texts, the Didache (c. A.D. 50-130), where it expresses quite clearly, connecting the reception of the Lord's supper with the Lord's admonition against "casting pearls before swine."

Do not let anyone eat or drink of your eucharist except those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord. For the statement of the Lord applies here also: Do not give to dogs what is holy.

Further, the Didache (and other early Christian writings after it) is actually paraphrasing a verse from the book of Exodus "no foreigner shall eat of [the Passover] but any slave who has been purchased may eat of it after he has been circumcised." (Ex. 12:43-44) Just as only the circumcised could eat of the Passover, so too, only the baptized may partake in the Eucharist. Also inferred from the book of Exodus "It shall be eaten in one house" (Ex. 12:46) was the understanding that there was only one rightful assembly in which to celebrate the Eucharist -- there was only one true Church where it could be held, and the communions of heretics and schismatics were unlawful.

Justin Martyr (100-165) says likewise: "And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined." (First Apology 66)

The exclusivity set of the Passover set forth in the book of Exodus informed the early Christians of the Eucharist's exclusivity. Yet, that of the Christians also exceeded and went beyond; for them, it was not only a matter of who partook of the Eucharist, but also of who really knew of what the Eucharist truly was.

For example, St. Ambrose of Milan (337-397) says in his sacramental treatise, On the Mysteries (1:2), "if we had thought it well to teach before baptism to those who were not yet initiated, we should be considered rather to have betrayed than to have portrayed the Mysteries." He thus illustrates their revered stance of secrecy, in believing that having revealed them before the proper time would be scandalous. It would betray this new spiritual Passover meal to have it explained to those who have not received the new spiritual circumcision of baptism.

St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) also touches on the ignorance of the catechumens concerning the sacramental grace awaiting them. As can be inferred, the mystery of the Lord's supper was kept a secret from those not yet baptized:

Give good heed, my beloved, and understand. If we say to a catechumen, "Do you believe in Christ?" he answers, "I believe", and signs himself; already he bears the cross of Christ on his forehead, and is not ashamed of the cross of his Lord. Behold, he has believed in His name. Let us ask him, "Do you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink the blood of the Son of man?" He knows not what we say, because Jesus has not trusted Himself to him.
(Tractates on John 11:3)

A very dynamic example can be utilized as well. There was scandal which occured in Constantinople during the episcopate of St. John Chrysostom (early 5th century) in which a row of irreverence took place during liturgy, and an accident surrounding the consecrated elements had occurred. Chrysostom's biographer Palladius speaks of the affair with some ambiguity, saying "They overturned the symbols." Contrast this language with how bluntly John Chrysostom himself described the occurrence in his letter to Pope St. Innocent I: "They spilled the blood of Christ."

What happened to the disciplina arcani?

As Roman society became more and more Christianized, the practice gradually fell out of use, as the population of heathens within its borders decreased, and thus less and less within the empire became susceptible to misunderstanding.

However, certain remnants of the practice are still in existence within the Apostolic churches (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and the Church of the East.) To this day, the original practice of the discipline is implicitly reflected in the Divine Liturgies of the Church. One very obvious fact is that these churches, for the most part, practice closed communion -- that is, members of other churches cannot partake of the Eucharist.

Proskomidia. In the Byzantine Rite, the Eucharist is still
consecrated behind a wall with doors and  aveil, known as an
iconostasis.

The Mass is divided into two sections: the Liturgy of the Word, and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The former names of these two respective halves were originally referred to as the Liturgy of the Catechumens and the Liturgy of the Faithful. The Catechumens were originally allowed to attend the reading of Sacred Scripture and hear their exposition by the pastor, but they were not allowed to attend and partake in the Eucharistic sacrifice, which was reserved only to the baptized.

In the Byzantine Rite, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom still includes the function where, after the sermon is given, the catechumens step forward to receive a blessing from the presbyter. And after their blessing is received, still uttered are these words:

"Depart, you catechumens!

All catechumens, depart!

Let no catechumen remain!"

So, with the discipline having long since been relaxed, it makes sense that some peculiarities to the beliefs and practices of the Apostolic churches (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East) aren't explicitly in Scripture (even though they are there implicitly, veiled in the language itself), as it all dates back to a formerly guarded portion of the Revelation, which contained things so sacred that it was deemed to be an injustice for the whole of an unevangelized world to have familiarity of them.

The Ichthys. Ancient Christians would make half of this
symbol on the ground, for another to complete
the other half and thus reveal that they were of the same faith.
This symbol itself is a relic of the disciplina arcani.

This secrecy of the faith also shows forth in a symbol which is very common today: the ICHYTHUS. Aside from having the biblical connections, the early Christians' use of the fish also had an involvement with this practice.

According to one ancient story, when a Christian met a stranger in the road, the Christian sometimes drew one arc of the simple fish outline in the dirt. If the stranger drew the other arc, both believers knew they were in good company. Current bumper-sticker and business-card uses of the fish hearken back to this practice.
— Christianity Today, Elesha Coffman, "Ask The Expert

While Christians were being persecuted, rather than speaking openly about their sometimes ill-tolerated religion, they would refer to the Savior and his teachings as "the fish." As one epitaph by a certain Pectorius of Autun reads:

"Divine race of the heavenly fish preserve a pure heart having received among mortals the immortal source of Divine waters. Refresh, O friend, thy soul with the everflowing waters of treasure-bestowing wisdom. Receive the sweet food of the Saviour of the Saints, eat with delight holding the fish in thy hands. Nourish (thine) with the fish, I pray, Master and Saviour; Sweetly may mother slumber, I beseech thee, Light of the Dead. Ascandios father, beloved of my heart with sweet mother and my brothers in the peace of the fish, remember Pectorius"

What can we learn from the practice today?

The core value, virtue and principle behind the disciplina arcani was the notion of stewardship, practiced with reverence and modesty. "To whom much is given, much is expected." (Lk. 12:48) For the sake of handling such sacred things as carefully as is able, ancient Christians approached catechesis very incrementally, so as not to rise up love before its time. (cf. Songs 2:7)

Being aware that we are stewards of what is holy is always a good thing to keep in mind, and this should inform us to truly contemplate and think about how we share the faith. This doesn't mean we shouldn't share the Gospel with our neighbors, or that we should practice our faith with a spirit of elitism. It is not like we should bury our talent, or hide our light under a bushel. But what it does mean is this: when we do share our faith, we should be reverent of what we're sharing, and that we should practice discretion informed by the circumstances in which we share it (who, where, when, how). This can be oriented in two ways:

Firstly, we should be conscientious of how we live our lives, cautious not to give scandal. We should not seek to make these words of judgment our own: God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you. (Rm 2:24) Dr. Taylor Marshall's own advice to Catholic apologists is to "not have spiritual bad breath" -- be firmly rooted spiritually yourself before admonishing your brother, be humble and not triumphalistic. Don't pick fights, especially not on deaf ears.

Secondly, for ourselves: not speaking frivolously of sacred truths helps reinforce our understanding of the fact that they are just that: sacred. They are in our possession, yet simultaneously they are above and beyond us. Practicing that modesty concerning the holy faith can help dignify it for ourselves. It's called veiling what is sacred, meaning it should be exposed and shared only when it's called for and is beneficial. A few examples:

Sometimes, the Ark of the Covenant was processed on special occasions (such as going to war, and at the dedication of the temple.) But most of the time, it was hidden behind the curtains in the Holy of holies. Only the high-priest, with all of his sins atoned for, could be entrusted with ministering before it. It wasn't hidden out of shame, but out of reverence.

Likewise, in marriage, the marital act where "the two shall become one", is performed behind closed doors -- not out of shame or embarrassment, but out of respect, and in recognition of its significance. (This is one reason why pornography is such a sin; it tears away the veil.)

Or take the relationship between a therapist and their client (or a confessor and a penitent, for that matter): that information isn't divulged to others except in cases of grave concern (and is NEVER divulged outside of confession) because the trust is so precious. Intimacy, physical or emotional, is, by its very nature, discreet, and that discretion exists not because trust is profane, but because it is sacred.

So, while not adopting the ancient and nigh-cultish approach, there might be a certain principle of virtue embedded within the old custom of the disciplina arcani that could behoove us to carry as we practice our faith. We should be conscious that what we're sharing is a great gift which we have first been given, which guides our conduct both within and outside of the conversations we have with non-Christians.

[ FOR FURTHER READING: "Discipline of the Secret" at CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA ]

Guest post at "Quelpart"

Fellow blogger and friend Sarah Carey initially requested through Twitter for people to submit testimonies to how Marian devotion has bettered their spiritual lives. I ended up submitting to her quite a long account and she was gracious enough to share the whole thing on her blog. You can read it here:

Marian Devotion: A Testimony

Sarah writes on the practical living of Catholic faith. She is a convert from the Church of Christ denomination. She is of reputable character, and totally worth giving a follow on Twitter!

Thanks, Sarah!

Catholic Prayers & Matthew 6:7: Vain Repetition?

"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Matthew 6:7 (KJV)

This verse is often utilized by critics of Catholicism to condemn Catholic devotional practices and methods of prayer. They deem devotions like the Rosary, which employs the repetition of such prayers as the "Hail Mary" and the "Our Father", to be in direct opposition to the message of this verse. (Some will even go so far as to condemn formulaic, recited prayer of any sort.) Is the Rosary, as well as the Divine Mercy Chaplet or the Jesus Prayer, in violation of Christ's command?

1. KNOWING REPETITION IN ITSELF IS NOT BEING CONDEMNED

The argument will sometimes proceed along the following lines. "Jesus teaches us to call God our Father. What kind of child talks to their father with formulaic repetition? That's not a real relationship!" (This example comes from personal experience in a conversation I had, as a non-denominational Christian said something basically to this effect in describing his criticism of the Catholic faith.)

Aside from the fact that this is not even Jesus' immediate concern in his admonition (explained in the following section), a fine question might be asked to those with such scruples: "If it's improper to speak to our Heavenly Father, whom we were merely adopted by, with repetitious prayers, why is it that Jesus, His only Begotten, prayed to Him in such a manner?" Consider the following passage from Matthew's Gospel (26:36-46):

Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” He took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be grieved and agitated. Then he said to them, “I am deeply grieved, even to death; remain here, and stay awake with me.” And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want.” Then he came to the disciples and found them sleeping; and he said to Peter, “So, could you not stay awake with me one hour? Stay awake and pray that you may not come into the time of trial; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” Again he went away for the second time and prayed, “My Father, who if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done.” Again he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. So leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words. Then he came to the disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? See, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Get up, let us be going. See, my betrayer is at hand.”

If Christ came back the first time to his disciples to find them sleeping and asked "could you not keep watch with me an hour?", that would certainly seem to indicate that he himself was praying for an hour. Yet, an hour's worth of text is not recorded from his prayer. "Father, if it is at all possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not my will, but thy will be done." His next prayer follows this same structure -- it's formulaic. Then, finally, in verse 44, it says Jesus went back again a third time, "saying the same thing." Some translations that aren't even Catholic (such as the ESV) render it as "saying the same words." Not only is there a formulaic pattern to his prayer, but the Lord Christ is repeating himself in his prayer to the Father. This is repetitious prayer.

There's really no way around it; Christ himself used repetitious prayer in preparation for his Passion. Obviously, this is not the only way He ever addressed His Heavenly Father (and it's not the only way Catholics approach God in prayer, either!), but the fact He used this method at all should inform any honest reader that such form of prayer is not in itself bad, else the Savior would never have made use of it.

Christ not only used it himself, but the righteous figure in one of his parables is also seen using repetitious prayer. In Luke 18-9-14, in the parable of Pharisee and the Publican, whereas the former figure thanks God for his being more righteous than sinners (presuming himself to be righteous at all in the first place), the latter strikes his breast and says "Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner." Some translations render the phrase as "he kept beating his breast, saying 'Lord,...'" It's the word "kept" -- he kept making the same action, while saying the same thing. This is repetitious prayer.

Also, if repetitious prayer is truly unpleasing to God, let's just throw Psalm 136 out of the Bible. 

Some will even condemn reciting any prayers at all. Furthermore, we know from early Christian texts such as the Didache (1st century) and the treatises of Tertullian (2nd century) and Cyprian (3rd Century) that the Lord's Prayer was in fact recited in Early Christian communities. The style of repeating a set of phrases as a means of prayer is evident even in first century Christianity, indicating that these early Christians did not understand Christ's words of condemnation the same way many critics of Catholicism interpret them. Evidently, there's no offense in using a formulaic prayer and reciting it, and even repeating it.

[The Didache, paragraph 8 ; Tertullian, On Prayer, chapter 2 ; Cyprian On the Lord's Prayer, paragraph 3]

2. THE ERROR OF THE PAGANS EXPLAINED

What often gets missed in Jesus' words by anti-Catholic critics is the *signifier* in his sentence. Notice that Our Lord does not say "do not use repetitions", but that he says "do not use vain repetitions." Or, utilizing a different translation, he does not say "do not heap up phrases," but rather says, "do not heap up empty phrases." These qualifiers suggest a meaninglessness within the petitions being made -- an insincerity, a lack of engagement. This is actually akin to taking God's name in vain -- invoking it when you don't really mean it.

Christ continues, "for they think they will be heard on account of their many words." He contrasts this with how God hears our prayers, saying "Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him." (Mt. 6:8)

What's the logical inference out of Christ's words? He's condemning using meaningless prayers over and over again, as if they can somehow win God's ear over and thus make known our request to Him. "[Y]our Father knows what you need before you ask him" is something for the Christian to know that the pagan doesn't know, because the pagan believes he has to sequentially spew out prayers in order to get God's attention. But God doesn't work that way.

If you believe that you can "introduce" yourself and your concerns to God through your many prayers, you do not believe God to be omniscient and deny the fact that He knows you better than you know yourself.

If you believe that you can "win God over" through your many prayers, you rob God of His sovereignty and omnipotence, and ultimately set yourself higher than the Divinity you're addressing.

And to think that you have to do any of these things in order for Him to answer you, it follows that you do not believe He loves and cares for you personally, and it means you lack true faith. You act as if God owes you something, and this mentality is strictly condemned in Romans 3 &4.

Compare this mentality with that of the prayer that Christ introduces immediately after condemning the pagans, the Our Father: this prayer affirms God's sovereignty ("Lead us not into temptation"). The prayer expresses a humility towards God ("Thy will be done; forgive us our trespasses"), and the essence of its formula is one that simply demands trust in God's faithfulness, and not trust in one's own self. ("Give us this day our daily bread.") The Lord's prayer is one rooted in filial trust and humility; elements which the heathens' prayers did not contain.

This humility is also what made the Publican's prayer pleasing to God, and not the prayer of the Pharisee. The Pharisee, even though his prayer was more "conversational," ultimately trusted in himself, in his own righteousness. The Publican was in touch with his own depravity, and knew his only hope was in the mercy of God, and his simple utterance of "God, be merciful to me, a sinner" led to his justification.

The state of the heart is ultimately what is at the heart of Christ's teaching. Repetitions in and of themselves are not the issue. No Catholic should pray the Rosary, the Divine Mercy Chaplet, the Jesus Prayer, or a Novena with the attitude that God won't grant them their requests until they say the proper amount of words and prayers. God's interested in quality, not necessarily quantity.  They can commit themselves to a certain amount of prayers as an act of faith, obedience and/or self-giving, but not as if they can somehow exert control over God and bend His will to their needs. The Rosary in particular is, primarily, a meditation -- which means that it doesn't even come close to violating Christ's intended instruction. 

If one wants to see an illustration of what Christ is actually condemning, one should turn to 1 Kings 18:20-40, which describes the contest between the Lord's prophet Elijah and 450 of Baal's prophets. The prophets repeat their cry "O Baal, answer us!", danced around and even bled themselves, all trying to get their false god's attention. This lead's Elijah to mock them, and his mockery itself implies that their god truly isn't all-knowing, all-present and all-powerful. "... perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened." And, when the children of Israel recognize once again who the one true God really is, they acknowledge Him with a repetition: "The Lord is indeed God; the Lord is indeed God." (v. 39)

So there's nothing wrong with formulaic prayer, repetitive prayer or any sort of sincere act of faith -- the signifier is the word "sincere." Christ condemns prayer that just exhibits a mere babbling on, that flows from a detached heart, and that wishes to just get something out of God rather than honor Him and God and as Father. The issue, again, isn't quantity, but quality. God never sleeps, and He is faithful to remember those who love Him. If Catholic devotions that utilize repetitious, formulaic prayers are conscious of and reverent of God and produce good fruit in one's walk with Him, no violation of Christ's command has occurred. It isn't what you ask, or how many times you ask, or in what way you ask, it's the heart in which you ask.