 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
by Edward J. Kilmartin
from Women Priests, Arlene Swidler & Leonard
Swidler (eds.), Paulist Press 1977, pp. 295-302.
Republished on our website
with the necessary permissions
Edward J. Kilmartin, SJ, was at the time Professor of Liturgical Theology at
the University of Notre Dame. He was Executive Secretary of the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee for Dialogue with Orthodox and
Other Eastern Churches. He has contributed regularly to such journals as
Theological Studiesand is the author of The Eucharist in the Primitive
Church.
The
Declaration affirms this principle: “In actions which demand the character
of ordination and in which Christ himself . . . is represented, exercising his
ministry of salvation . . . his role must be taken by a male.(1) Why? Because
sacramental signs ”must be perceptible" to the senses. They must
“represent what they signify by natural resemblance.” Hence if the
minister is not male the natural resemblance is lacking. The minister would not
be “image of Christ.”(2)
What
are the ministerial functions which have these characteristics? The text refers
to actions which the priest performs as “image and symbol of Christ
himself who calls, forgives and accomplishes the sacrifice of the
Covenant.”(3) Nevertheless only the role of the priest in the Eucharist is
developed: The priest “alone has the power to perform” the sacrifice
of Christ. In this activity the celebrant is said to act “not only through
the effective power conferred on him by Christ, but in persona Christi,
taking the role of Christ to the point of being his very image, when he
pronounces the words of consecration.”(4)
How
is the function of the priest as representing the Church related to the role of
representing Christ? It is stated that the priest, in his official acts,
represents the Church: he “acts in persona Ecclesiae, that is to
say, in the name of the whole Church and in order to represent her.”(5)
Furthermore this role is situated in a relationship of dependence on the
priest’s ability to represent Christ: “It is true that the priest
represents the Church . . . But . . . because he first represents Christ
himself who is the Head . . . of the Church.”(6) The Commentary on the
Declaration explains this ordering by reasoning that otherwise the priest would
be a delegate of the community; the Church would be source of official
authority: “When the priest presides over the assembly, it is not the
assembly that has chosen or delegated him for his role . . . It is Christ who
calls it together . . . and the priest presides ‘in the power of Christ
the Head.’(7)
The
Declaration thus explicitly names one ritual act in which the priest directly
represents Christ: the proclamation of the account of institution during the
eucharistic prayer. It states that in other rites which call for the character
of ordination the priest is “image and symbol of Christ.” These are
described from the viewpoint of Christ's activity in calling, forgiving and
offering sacrifice. Moreover the Declaration assumes that if the priest first
represents the Church in the sphere of sacramental activity for which
ordination qualifies, it must be concluded that the Church, not Christ, is the
source of this ministry.
Elsewhere in this volume the question of the signification of the account of
institution in the eucharistic prayer is discussed. However some observations
on the position taken by the Declaration will be made since they are integral
to the argument of this essay. This will be done within the scope of a more
general consideration of the role of the priest as representing the Church and
Christ in the sacramental activity for which ordination qualifies a baptized
member of the Church.
The
Declaration's assertion that the priest first represents Christ and then the
Church in activity for which the character of ordination qualifies based on a
consideration of the ultimate source of the priest's activity: Christ the Head
of the Church. On the other hand the affirmation that the priest directly
represents Christ when he pronounces the “words of consecration” is
founded on an interpretation of the signification of the account of institution
in the sacramental rite itself. Still the text does not treat the implications
of these two points of view. In fact by insisting on the priest's being
“image and symbol” in other sacramental activities, it gives the
impression that in all sacramental rites the celebrant directly represents
Christ the Head in the symbolic action itself. The seeming lack of awareness of
two different processes which are involved in the analysis of sacramental rites
is surprising. It is our purpose to speculate on why the two processes are
confused. However, as a result an important consideration is passed over which,
to say the least, renders the reasoning of the Declaration neutral on the
question of ordination of women.
The
two different processes involved in the analysis of sacramental rites, alluded
to in the text, are traditionally used in scholastic theology. The first begins
with what is more accessible and progresses toward what is ultimate signified;
the second analyzes the actual process in which what is ultimately signified
directs the whole process of symbolization.
Since
sacramental rites have various levels of signification a simple affirmation
that a sacrament signifies something, or “first signifies” something,
is not sufficient. One must pay attention to the level of significance at which
statement may be true.(8) Thus beginning with what is most accessible in the
case of Baptism it will be seen that the profession of faith, water bath, and
unction of confirmation symbolize, respectively, an engagement, purification
and consecration. Taken together they constitute the rite of initiation. This
rite signifies, first of all, something social and interpersonal, perceptible
at the level of human experience: incorporation into the community of believers
in Christ. That which is thus symbolized, in its turn, functions to symbolize a
spiritual reality: integration into the Body of Christ by the gift of the
Spirt. Thus what is denoted by the sensible rite also connotes a
spiritual reality.
The
foregoing analysis proceeds from what is immediately accessible and moves to
what is ultimately signified within the sacramental rite. But, of course, the
actual process of symbolization is reversed: What is ultimately signified
directs the whole process. So from the latter point of view one might say that
Baptism primarily signifies the gift of the Spirit of regeneration. But from
the former point of view it would be correct to say that Baptism first
signifies incorporation into the community of believers.
It is
also possible to refer to levels of signification which lie above and below the
internal structure of a sacramental rite. St. Thomas says that sacraments
signify the cause (passion of Christ), the form (grace) and the goal (eternal
life) of our sanctification.(9) But both the cause and goal lie above
sacramental symbolism. On the other hand the ancient symbolism attached to the
many grains of wheat forming one loaf and so signifying the unity of the Church
falls below the sacramental level. For if the element of bread directly
signified the unity of the Church in the sacramental rite it would have to be
considered the cause of this effect - at least from the viewpoint of scholastic
theology which understands that sacraments cause by signifying.
These
general considerations bring us to the question: On what level of signification
which is sacramental can the priest be said to signify Christ “in the
exercise of his ministry” and to signify the Church in its activity?
Beginning with what is most accessible it must be said that priests in their
liturgical activity directly represent the faith of the Church of which they
are leaders. Moreover, participating in the collegial office of the whole
Church, priests directly represent the unity of concrete liturgical communities
through their communion with one another, and so the common faith of the
Church. Thus in their persons and activities they serve in a special way to
connote the source of the unity of the whole Church: Christ and the Holy
Spirit.
From
this standpoint it is necessary to say that the priest first represents
(denotes) the Church in its sacramental activity and secondly represents
(connotes) Christ the Head of the Church. But this analysis also affirms that
from the perspective of what is ultimately signified the priest first
represents (connotes) Christ the Head of the Church and secondly represents
(denotes) the Church united in faith and love.
The
leadership function of the priest in the Church is carried out in various ways
to which correspond various modes of the presence of Christ: governing,
teaching and liturgical leadership. All these activities are carried out by
priests expressing the faith of the Church as members of the collegial body of
the pastoral office. As ministers and representatives of the whole Church their
activity connotes the pneumatic grounds of the unity of the Church. Hence they
act in a special way in persona Christi. But they do thisf since they represent
the one Church united in faith and love. So functioning they act in the name of
but not merely on the basis of the commission of the local Church. Consequently
their commission and authority, as the Commentary states, are not derived
merely from the local Church.
This
structure holds also for the Eucharist. Presiding over the community priests
represent the whole church and so connote Christ's activity. They act in the
name of the whole Church and so serve as transparency for the grounds of unity
and activity of the whole Church: Christ and the Holy spirit.
Since
priests, in their official activity, connote the Headship of Christ it is not
immediately clear why maleness is required in this ministry in order to
preserve the proper symbolic correspondence. Could not a female equally fulfill
the symbolic function of connoting the Headship of Christ over the Church in
those activities for which the character of ordination is required? An
affirmative answer to this question may seem inevitable because women do
connote the Headship of Christ in administering Baptism, and they do this by
first representing (denoting) the faith of the Church. However according to
traditional Catholic theology an exception to the general structure of levels
of signification of sacramental rites is claimed for the Eucharist: The priest,
denotes Christ when pronouncing the account of institution.
A
priori such an exception cannot be ruled out because sacramental rites relate
to one another analogously, not univocally. Thus, for example, in the unique
case of the sacrament of Matrimony the couple are the ministers. What, then, is
the theological value of this theology of the “moment of
consecration”? Does the priest's activity in this case bypass the first
level of signification and so immediately denote Christ's activity?
Since
the thirteenth century the account of institution is said to be spoken in
persona Christi in the Latin Church. The usage is influenced by the Latin
patristic writers who employ this phrase in order to attribute words of
Scripture to another than the one concretely speaking. They also use it to
ground ecclesiastical pardon on Christ. In continuity with this patristic usage
theologians of the thirteenth century qualify the account of institution by
this phrase to stress its consecratory function in the Eucharist.(10) St.
Thomas brings out the implications of this theology of consecration by
stressing that the celebrant thus fulfills a ministerial function as instrument
of the act of christ himself.(11)
For St.Thomas in persona Christi gives stature to
the account of institution and indicates that the priest has a ministerial role
in the act of christ. moreover St.Thomas understands that in the act of
pronouncing the words of institution the priest denotes the action of Christ.
He distinguishes this act from other ministerial sacerdotal activity in
persona Christi.(12) For speaking of the difference between the form of the
sacrament of the Eucharist and those of other sacraments, he states that the
other forms are spoken ex persona Christi ipsius loquentis.(13) This
activity of the priest is distinguished from his activity in reciting the rest
of the canon of the Mass which he sees as a rite of the Church and so not
necessary for the realization of the sacrament.(14) In reciting the rest of the
canon the priest acts in persona Ecclesiae. This term is used by St.
Thomas to describe the role of the priest presiding over the liturgical prayer
of the Church and so acting as organ of the profession of faith of the whole
Church.(15)
The
teaching that the priest denotes Christ's activity in the Mass at the
“moment of consecration” is common in scholastic theology. In its
methodological approach to reflection on the Lord's Supper it emphasizes the
activity of Christ through the ordained minister. At the same time it totally
neglects the structure of the eucharistic prayers of the East and West as well
as the epicletic character of these prayers. The defects of this method have
been pointed out frequently by modern Catholic scholars.(16)
In
the structure of the eucharistic prayer itself the account of institution
functions to relate the sacred meal to the event “Jesus Christ” as
part of the prayer which includes thanksgiving, liturgical prayer of offering
of bread and wine and the epiclesis. The whole prayer is a sacramental word: a
word of faith of the Church and form of the ritual action. As a whole,
therefore, it denotes the action of the Church which, in turn, connotes the
activity of Christ. This is stressed in the epiclesis: the invocation of the
Spirit (explicit or implicit) made by the community through the priest with a
view to the accomplishment of the mystery signified in the eucharistic
celebration.
Another important influence on the development of the concept of the priest
denoting Christ in the eucharistic celebration can be traced to the conceptual
separation and isolation of the power of orders from the power of jurisdiction.
Scholastic theology conceived the power of orders as existing and operating
without immediate relation to its ecclesiological grounding. Within this
mindset the priest is understood to exercise a power of consecration which is
independent of the ecclesiastical context even to the extent of being
actualizable outside the liturgy. Only recently in the twentieth century has
the possibility of a priest consecrating bread and wine outside the context of
the liturgy been generally rejected.
The
development of this theology coincides with the concept of the priest
functioning as index(17) of Christ in the Eucharist in complete isolation from
his index function as confessing believer and representative of pastoral office
of the apostolic Church.(18)
Within the eucharistic rite there are certain indexes which connote a real
relation to the event “Jesus Christ.” Through the account of
institution and the sharing of bread and wine the sacred meal of the history of
religions assumes a real relation to the Last Supper and the redemptive work of
Christ. Furthermore the community of believers itself is the indispensable
index: united in the name of Christ with the priest in apostolic succession and
so constituting the Church which celebrates the Eucharist.
Within this context the priest is an index: This ministry is linked through the
bishop to that of the apostles so that the Eucharist appears as apostolic.
Priests provide a historical referent for the celebration as members of the
apostolic college of liturgical leaders. Ordination to the pastoral office
directly signifies the designation of a person to serve the community in
apostolic ministry: Something which can be lived is denoted. It does not
directly represent but connotes a relationship to Christ the Head of the
Church. The latter relationship could be dramatized independently of the first
level of signification, but it would not be a sacramental rite which belongs to
the order of praxis. Consequently priests function on the level of denotation
as representatives of the faith of the Church and on the level of connotation
as representatives of Christ the Head of the Church.
Liturgical actions do not belong to the order of pure praxis, i.e., they are
not destined simply to produce something. Nor do they simply depict a spiritual
reality. Rather the praxis connotes a spiritual reality. In our case
incorporation into the college of liturgical leaders connotes a sharing in the
ministry of Christ the Head of the Church. Corresponding to this the priest in
his activity does not dramatize Christ's activity in the Church. Rather through
his ecclesial activity, representing the faith of the Church, he connotes
Christ's activity.
If
one does not pay attention to the various levels of signification of
sacramental rites when interpreting the dynamics of liturgical actions, there
is a danger that the Christian liturgy will be presented as a sacred drama.
This danger is apparent in theological explanations of the Eucharist which
describe the priest as directly representing Christ in an activity to which the
community then relates itself. A curious statement of the Commentary on
the Declaration could be interpreted to favor this view of the Mass as a sacred
drama. Alluding to the classical usage of persona, which means an
actor's mask and so by way of metonymy stands for a role, it states that this
original meaning describes the activity of the priest in the Mass: “The
priest takes the part of Christ, lending him his voice and
gestures.”(19)
In
this presentation it is difficult to avoid the impression that liturgical
actions are really sacred dramas with the goal of merely communicating
something to the audience. The conceptual separation of the central action of
the Mass from the participation of the faithful leads logically to the
conclusion that the laity are an audience invited to identify with the drama
vicariously in a way analogous to “live theatre.”
This
presentation might possibly find a home in a typically Reformation theology
which sees the Eucharist merely from the viewpoint of Christ's gift of himself
to the believer, but it is not consistent with a Catholic theology which
teaches that the Eucharist is a sacramental coaccomplishment of the sacrifice
of the cross in and by the Church. Christian liturgy differs from sacred drama
not merely because of the mystery content but also because the presence of
Christ and his saving work take place through the rites which are a form of
expression of the faith of the Church. The dynamics of liturgical actions must
be presented in such a way that they are clearly seen as social actions in
which there is no complete disjunction between the representation of the
mystery of salvation and the lives of those involved in the action as
“actors,” both minister and faithful. This can only be done, from the
perspective of the role of apostolic office in the liturgy, by affirming that
this office represents Christ by representing the faith of the Church of which
Christ is the sharing source along with the Spirit.(20)
Summary and Conclusion
1.
The Declaration's explanation of the role of the priest with respect to the
Church and Christ is based on Thomistic theology. Logically it leads to the
exclusion of women from the priesthood.
2. In
this essay an attempt has been made to show that, beginning with the theology
of sacramental signification and taking into account the christological and
pneumatological-ecclesiological dimensions of pastoral office, the
representative functions of the priest are consistent with the ordination of
women.
3.
The eucharistic theology used by the Declaration to support its position
represents a partial tradition which is recognized by most Catholic liturgical
scholars as at variance with the authentic whole liturgical tradition of the
East and West of the first millenium.
4.
The Declaration shows why it is premature, at the level of the official
theology of the Roman Catholic Church, to make a decision regarding the
ordination of women.
Before any decision based on theological grounds can be taken on the question
of ordination of women, a new evaluation by the magisterium of the Roman
Catholic Church of the christological and pneumatological-ecclesiological
dimensions of the pastoral office is required. It is also imperative that a
serious investigation be undertaken in the area of the theology of sacramental
signification and the dynamics of the eucharistic celebration.
Notes
1.
Declaration, par. 30.
2.
Ibid., par. 27.
3.
Ibid., par. 33.
4.
Ibid., gars. 26-27.
5.
Ibid., par. 32.
6.
Ibid.
7.
Commentary, par. 44.
8. M.
Amaladoss, “Sémiologie et sacrement,” La Maison Dieu,
Vol. 97, No. 114 (1973), p. 31.
9.
Summa Theologiae, III, q. 60, a. 3, c.
10.
B.-D. Marliangeas, “ ‘In Persona Christi,’ ‘In Persona
Ecclesiae’: Note sur les origines et le developpement de (usage de ces
expressions dans la théologie latine,” La Liturgie après
Vatican II, Y. Congar et al. (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1967), pp.
283-286.
11.
Summa, III, q. 83, a.l, ad 3.
12.
Ibid., q. 22, a.4, c.
13. Ibid., q. 78, a.l, c.
14.
Ibid., q. 78, a.l, ad 4.
15. Ibid., q. 64, a.8, ad 2.
16.
For example: H.-J. Schulz, “Die Grundstruktur des kirchlichen Amtes im
Spiegel der Eucharistiefeier und der Ordinationsliturgie des römischen und
des byzantinischen Ritus," Catholica, Vol. 29, No. 4 (October, 1975),
pp. 325-340 (especially, pp. 331-334).
17.
An index indicates something not present but with which it is linked
causally or by association. Christian rites must have indexes which relate them
to the historical event “Jesus Christ.” Because of their connotative
structure indexes are sometimes confused with symbols. But symbols as such do
not signify a historical referent: The relation between the thing signified and
the signifying is one of reason. The relation between the index and the thing
indicated is real.
18.
This view results in an overdrawn identification between Christ and the priest
in which basic sacramental categories such as icon (image), anti-type and type
are misunderstood.
Traditional scholastic theology shows an inclination either to completely
divorce or completely confuse symbol or image with the reality signified. This
is reflected in its explanation of the attitude Christians should adopt toward
images of Christ. The VII Ecumenical Council, II Nicaea, explained that icons
should not be adored but venerated since they elevate the faithful to the one
represented and lead to imitation (H. Denzinger & A. Schonmetzer,
Enchiridion Symbolorum: Definitionum et Declarationum de rebus fidei et
morum, 32 ed., Barcelona: Herder, 1963, p. 201, no. 601). St. Thomas, however,
approves the adoration of images of Christ not ‘insofar as a thing’
but “insofar as image” (Summa, III, q. 25, a.3, c.).
19.
Commentary, par. 41.
20.
E. J. Kilmartin, “Apostolic Office: Sacrament of Christ,”
Theological Studies, Vol. 36, No. 2 (June, 1975), pp. 257ff.
Contents of “Women
Priests” book
Support our
campaign
Sitemap
Contemporary
theologians
Join Campaign
activities
Go back to home
page
Join our Women Priests' Mailing List
for occasional newsletters:
An email will be immediately sent to you
requesting your confirmation.
Please, credit this document
as published by www.womenpriests.org!