Here I will discuss the relationship between the priest’s actions in persona Christi and in persona Ecclesiae. Far from opposing each other, both aspects complement each other mutually; nonetheless, they must not be confused with each other.
A. In Persona Christi
There are many synonyms used to express the configuration with Christ that comes with the sacramental character that the priest receives at ordination; consequently, we have vicem Dei, vicem Christi, in persona Dei, gerit personam Christi, in nomine Christi, representing Christ, personifying Christ, sacramental representation of Christ the Head, and many more.
The actions that the priest performs in persona Christi are something quite singular. We can see it particularly during the Consecration at Mass. We have already said that the Eucharist differs from the rest of the sacraments in two aspects:
– The sacrament of the Eucharist is carried out by consecrating the matter of bread and wine, whereas the other sacraments make use of matter that is already consecrated: water, oil, imposition of hands, and so on.
– The consecration of the matter in the rest of the sacraments is a blessing, whereas the consecration of the bread and wine is a miraculous change of substance that only God can carry out. For this reason, in confecting the sacrament of the Eucharist, the priest has no other action than to say the words.
As we have seen, just as the forms of all of the sacraments must conform to reality, so too the form of the Eucharist differs from the forms of the other sacraments in two aspects:
– First, because the form of the other sacraments implies the use of the matter, as for instance, baptism or confirmation; but the form of this sacrament implies the consecration of the matter, which consists in transubstantiation, as when it is said, “This is My body,” or, “This is the chalice of My blood.”[1]
– Secondly, because the forms of all the other sacraments are pronounced in the person of the minister (ex persona ministri) either by way of exercising an act, as when it is said, “I baptize you,” or “I absolve you,” and so on; or, as in Confirmation or in the anointing of the sick, in the form of entreaty, “N.N., receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,” “By this anointing and our intercession,” and the like. However, the form of the sacrament of the Eucharist is pronounced as if Christ were speaking in person, ex persona ipsius Christi loquentis, so that it is understood that the minister does nothing in confecting this sacrament except to pronounce the words of Christ.[2] For this reason Saint Ambrose said, “The consecration is accomplished by the words and expressions of the Lord Jesus. Because, by all the other words spoken, praise is rendered to God, prayer is put up for the people, for kings, and others; but when the time comes for perfecting the sacrament, the priest uses no longer his own words, but the words of Christ. Therefore, it is Christ’s words that perfect this sacrament.”[3]
We must clarify the position of those who say that the priest acts in persona Christi in all of the sacraments, as they are all actions of Christ; however, this can only be said in a broad sense. In fact, the minister of a valid and licit baptism can be a lay person, a woman, or even a non-baptized person, and the ministers of the sacrament of a valid and licit matrimony are the spouses them-selves, and none of the ministers in the aforementioned sacraments has the character that gives them the power to act in persona Christi. On the other hand, Eucharistic con-celebration is justified by the actions of the con-celebrants in persona Christi. With respect to this, Saint Thomas, responding to the objection that it would be superfluous to have many do what one can do alone, says: “If each individual priest were acting in his own power, then other celebrants would be superfluous, since one would be sufficient. But whereas the priest does not consecrate except as in Christ’s stead, and since many are one in Christ (Gal 3:28), consequently it does not matter whether this sacrament be consecrated by one or by many.”[4] Properly speaking, there is not con-celebration in the other sacraments.
Furthermore, referring to the sacrificial sacrament, the Eucharist, Saint Thomas adds, “Such is the dignity of this sacrament that it is performed only as in the person of Christ. Now whoever per-forms any act in another’s stead must do so by the power be-stowed by such a one. . . . The power of consecrating this sacrament on Christ’s behalf is bestowed upon the priest at his ordination: for thereby he is put upon a level with them to whom the Lord said (Lk 22:19): Do this in memory of Me.[5] Therefore, it must be said that it belongs to priests to accomplish this sacrament.”[6] This is absolutely necessary in order for the sacrifice of the Mass to be the sacrifice of the cross: it is not only necessary to have the same Victim, but also the same priest and numerically the same interior act of oblation. Only in this way will it be substantially the same sacrifice.
It is in this way, then, that only the ministerial priest can act in persona Christi, given that Christ is the true and principal priest of the Mass. As Pius XII said, “The proper and principal office of the priest has always been and is ‘to sacrifice.’ . . . For this reason, the celebrating priest, acting in the person of Christ, sacrifices, and him alone; not the people, nor the clerics, not even the priests who piously and religiously serve at the liturgy.”[7]
A contemporary theologian opposes a consequence that Saint Thomas gets from this doctrine. This theologian says: “Thomas Aquinas sustained that a priest who pronounces only the words ‘This is My Body’ would consecrate the bread on the condition of having the intention to carry out the sacrament. This thesis we reject without the slightest ambiguity. . . . It cannot be denied that the priest has received, by means of his ordination, a ‘power,’ the power to celebrate the Eucharist and, as a consequence, the pow-er to consecrate. Only he can do it, stress the Eastern and Latin traditions. However, this does not mean that he can do it (remain-ing) alone. He consecrates not so much in virtue of a power inherent in him and of which he would be the owner, but rather in virtue of the grace that is implored and that is made, even assured, to the Church by means of him.”[8]
It is astonishing to discover that this celebrated Dominican theologian did not realize that his brother in religion had refuted this seven centuries before: “Some have contended that this sacrament cannot be accomplished by uttering the aforesaid words, while leaving out the rest, especially the words in the Canon of the Mass. But that this is false (sed hoc patet esse falsum) can be seen both from Ambrose’s words quoted above, as well as from the fact that the Canon of the Mass is not the same in all places or times, but various portions have been introduced by various peo-ple. Accordingly, it must be held that if the priest were to pronounce only the aforesaid words with the intention of consecrating this sacrament, this sacrament would be valid because the intention would cause these words to be understood as spoken in the person of Christ, even though the words were pronounced without those that precede. The priest, however, would sin grave-ly in consecrating the sacrament thus, as he would not be observing the rite of the Church.”[9]
Incorrectly valuing the reality of the priestly character that authorizes him to act in persona Christi weakens that sense of priestly identity, and thus people cannot see how those ordained ministers who turn into heretics, schismatics, or are excommunicated can consecrate validly–although illicitly[10]–just as they cannot under-stand why a sinful priest can validly consecrate, given that the foundation of the power to act in persona Ecclesiae has been taken away by the priest’s sins.
B. In Persona Ecclesiae
The Second Vatican Council teaches us that “through the min-istry of the priests, the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is made perfect in union with the sacrifice of Christ. He is the only mediator who in the name of the whole Church is offered sacramentally in the Eucharist and in an unbloody manner until the Lord him-self comes. The ministry of priests is directed to this goal and is perfected in it. Their ministry, which begins with the evangelical proclamation, derives its power and force from the sacrifice of Christ. Its aim is that ‘the entire commonwealth of the redeemed and the society of the saints be offered to God through the High Priest who offered himself also for us in his passion that we might be the body of so great a Head’ (Saint Augustine, The City of God, 10, 6).”[11] Later on, when referring to the praying of the Liturgy of the Hours that the priest offers in the name of all humanity, the same document declares: “In the recitation of the Divine Office, they [priests] offer the voice of the Church which perseveres in prayer in the name of the whole human race (nomine totius generis humani), together with Christ who lives on still to make intercession on our behalf (Heb 7:25).” This is because all men are members of Christ and of the Church, either in act or in potency.[12]
By undervaluing this doctrine, some appear to combine and confuse the personification of Christ and the personification of the Church. These are not univocal realities. The priest acts in persona Ecclesiae throughout the entire Mass. In the strictest sense, however, he acts in persona Christi only and exclusively at the con-secration. The priest acts in persona Ecclesiae in praying the Liturgy of the Hours, as do non-ordained religious. On certain occasions, the laity also pray in persona Ecclesiae.
It is clear that in no way do these two notions oppose each other; on the contrary, they complement each other admirably. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “the ministerial priesthood has the task not only of representing Christ–Head of the Church–before the assembly of the faithful, but also of acting in the name of the whole Church when presenting to God the prayer of the Church, and above all when offering the Eucharistic sacrifice.
‘In the name of the whole Church’ does not mean that priests are the delegates of the community. The prayer and offering of the Church are inseparable from the prayer and offering of Christ, her head; it is always the case that Christ worships in and through His Church. The whole Church, the Body of Christ, prays and offers herself per Ipsum et cum Ipso et in Ipso (through Him, and with Him, and in Him) in the unity of the Holy Spirit, to God the Father. The whole Body, caput et membra (head and members), prays and offers itself, and therefore those who in the Body are especially his ministers are called ministers not only of Christ, but also of the Church. It is because the ministerial priesthood represents Christ that it can represent the Church.”[13]
In some respect, then, it seems a little too simplistic to me to speak in the following manner: “The priest is the representative according to this organic reality with its two aspects. He is the representative of Christ, the sovereign priest, and he acts in persona Christi; he is the representative of the Church, that is, of the community of Christians, and acts in persona Ecclesiae. One aspect cannot be isolated from another; one is in the other. If the Christological element is insisted upon, as has been done in the West, in persona Ecclesiae will be situated in persona Christi, which will be its foundation and the reason for it. This is what is done in Mediator Dei.[14] If this is valued in its pneumatological aspect, as the Eastern tradition does, the insertion of in persona Christi into the aspect of in persona Ecclesiae is better perceived.”[15]
Nor do we share the opinion of theologian B. D. Marliangeas, who criticizes Saint Thomas by saying that the role of the priest is emphasized too much in his works, and that the status of lay people, with their baptism and their baptismal character, remains in the shadows.[16] It would appear that Marliangeas is unaware of the six questions of the Treatise on Baptism in the third part of the Summa Theologica, and, in particular, that he forgot the six articles of question 73, question 79 with its 10 articles, and the 189 questions of the secunda secundae. Attempting to weaken the central in-tuitions of Saint Thomas only leads to a weakening of the faith, and it is one of the causes of the crisis of vocations and of vocational crisis.
When facing the marvel of the sacramental order, how could someone not realize that only the infinite intelligence of God could conceive of such perfection? How could someone not realize that only His all-powerful will could give efficacy when “accedit verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum?”[17]
Can it be possible to think that acting in persona Christi and in persona Ecclesiae would not be enough to completely fill a lifetime?
[1] Roman Missal, Eucharistic Prayer (all forms). All citations from the Roman Missal use the Third Edition.
[2] Cfr. Saint Thomas Aquinas, S. Th., III, q. 78, a. 1.
[3] Saint Ambrose, De Sacramentis, 4, 4.
[4] Saint Thomas Aquinas, S. Th., III, q. 82, a. 2, ad 2.
[5] Saint Thomas Aquinas, S. Th., III, q. 82, a. 2, adds: “When a priest is ordained he is placed on a level with those who received consecrating power from our Lord at the Supper.”
[6] Saint Thomas Aquinas, S. Th., III, q. 82, a. 1.
[7] “Address of November 2nd, 1954”; cited by M. Nicolau, Ministros de Cristo (Madrid 1971) 323.
[8] Y. Congar, El Espíritu Santo (Barcelona 1991) 667-668.
[9] Saint Thomas Aquinas, S. Th., III, q. 78, a. 1, ad 4.
[10] Cfr. First Council of Nicea, DS 55; Saint Athanasius II, DS 169; Saint Gregory the Great, DS 249; cfr. DS 358, 1087.
[11] Ecumenical Second Vatican Council, Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, Presbytero-rum Ordinis, 2.
[12] Cfr. Saint Thomas Aquinas, S. Th., III, q. 8,a. 3.
[13] Catechism of the Catholic Church, nn. 1552, 1553.
[14] Cfr. Pius XII, Encyclical Mediator Dei, On the Sacred Liturgy, 12.
[15] Cfr. Roman Missal, Eucharistic Prayer (all).
[16] B.D. Marliangeas, Clés pour une Théologie du Ministere (Paris 1978). 228-229.
[17] Saint Augustine, Super Io.,13: “The element is united to the word, and a sacrament is produced.”
