RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Catechumenato Catenae
Bibliography: The sources are to be found in the works of Justin Martyr, Origen's Contra Celsum, the " Catechetical Lectures " of Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine's De catechizandis rudibus, and the Didache, all of which are accessible in Eng. transl. The history of the institution is traced in: G. von Zezschwitz, System der christlichen Katechetik, 2 vols., Leipsic, 1863-72; J. Mayer, Geschichte des Katechumenats . . in den ersten sechs Jahrhunderten, Kempten, 1866 (Roman Catholic); A. Weiss, Die altkirchliche Paedagogik . der ersten seclis Jahrhunderte, Freiburg, 1869; F. X. Funk, in Tubinger Theologische Quartalschrift, 1883, pp. 41-77, 1886, pp. 353 sqq., 1899, pp. 434 sqq.; E. Hatch, Organization of the Early Churches, London, 1888; J. Heron, Church of Sub-Apostolic Age; its Life, Worship, and Organization, London, 1S8S; E. Sachsse, Evangelische Katechetik; die Lehre von der kirchlichen Erziehung, Berlin, 1897; F. Wiegand, Die Stellung des apostolischen Symbols im kirchlichen Leben des Mittelalters, i. Symbol und Katechumenat, Leipsic, 1899; Neander, Christian Church, vols. i. and ii. contain much valuable matter, consult the Index; Schaff, Christian Church, ii. 255-257; Bingham, Origines, books x., xi., xiv. ; DC A, i. 317-319; the literature on the Didache (q.v.) usually discusses the catechetics of the early Church.
CATENA.
Origin (§ 1). Form (§ 6). Meaning of the Term (§ 2). Catenae Previous to the Four- Sources (§ 3). teenth Century (§ 7). Value (§ 4). Medieval Catenas (§ 8). Method (§ 5). Post-Reformation Catenae (§9).
The term catena, " a chain " (plural, catenae), designates a commentary on Holy Scripture made up by piecing together short extracts from the Fathers and older writers. This plan of construction was suggested by the accumulation of exegetical materials made both by Origen and his school and by the theologians of Antioch in the third and fourth centuries.
The principal motive which impelled later scholars
to collect and examine the early utterances was a
dogmatic one. After the conversion of Constan-
tine, the Church was anxious to put together in
a clear and systematic form the results
i. Origin, of previous theological work, and to emphasize the connection of the past with the present. For this purpose in regard to doctrine the decrees of the ecumenical councils answered admirably; but it was not so easy to attain the same result in the exposition of Scripture. The problem was to represent the results arrived at by the recognized commentators in propositions that had a unity of scheme and an admitted authority. The principles of its solution are laid down in the nineteenth canon of the Quinisext (Second Trullan) Council : that Holy Scripture is the standard of truth, that the limits of doctrine already fixed and the traditions of the Fathers are not to be transgressed, and that if any question concerning the Scripture comes up, it is to be expounded in no other way than as the great teachers of the past have given it in their works. The exposition of the Scripture was thus firmly attached to the recognized orthodox doctrine. The second canon of the same council had named some of the " lights and doctors " who were to be followed, and the first canon had given warning against all heretics, not merely against Arius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, and Nestorius, but also against Theodore of Mopsuestia, Origen, Didymus, Evagrius, and Theodoret. It was, however, found impossible to carry out these principles strictly.
The writings of the authors suspected of heresy offered material too valuable to be neglected; and it was found impossible to arrive at a unity of results in an anthology of this kind without doing violence to the individuality of the authors and damaging their authority, so that nothing could be done but to put together what was selected.
In this manner arose the collections of extracts which are so characteristic of Byzantine theology., covering all the books of the Bible (especially Genesis, Job, the Psalms, Canticles, Isaiah, Matthew, and John) by extracts from patristic commentators, and setting an example of method which was widely followed in Western and medieval commentaries. These collections are usually known as Catena (Seirai). The origin of the name is. obscure, but its meaning is plain. It refers tocollections of material put together
2. Meaning in a purely external but visible conof the nection, and strung upon the thread Term. of the text. There may have been>
originally a mystical significance attached to it. As the hermetic chain of the later Neoplatonists symbolized the harmonious conjunction of the bearers of wisdom to the world, hand joined in hand from the earliest to later timesr so the line of the Fathers was to hand down the approved expositions of the one true Church.
The first compilers have no fixed phrases to describe their process; but their lengthy titles. give an idea of the plan they set before them. They collected their material according to the maxim of Seneca, Quod verum est, meum est (" What is true is mine ")• The manner in which literary property was handled in the ancient world permitted not only straightforward appropriation of other people's work, but the utmost freedom in adaptation to the borrower's special purpose. The retention of the original authors' names here is an evidence of the weight attached to their testimony as authoritative expositors; where the compiler adds comments of his own, he is usually careful to distinguish his additions. Great variety is found in the manner of reproduction and in the extent of the material included. In the Catena of Possinus on Matthew we have one constructed on the exact lines laid down by the Quinisext Council— a mosaic of verbal citations from
3. Sources, commentaries or other writings of
orthodox Fathers. Where the compiler, like Nicetas of Seme, added reflections of his own, he generally put them at the head of the group of quotations following a fresh section of the text. Where he adapted and condensed, he either kept to the serial order, or worked over all the material he had accumulated without making, divisions for the separate authors. This is the manner adopted by Procopius, (Ecumenius, and Theophylact, who emphasize at the same time the fact that they are not originators but transmitters. There is no sharp dividing line between this kind of Catena and the Byzantine commentary; for the latter also patristic tradition is the standard, though the sources are not indicated in the margin r. as is usually the case in the Catena?, and the exposition proceeds without a break.
Catenae Catharine