Presidency at the Eucharist in the context of the theology of icons: Questions about the ecclesial representation of Christ by the Priesthood

ProQuest Information and Learning: Greek characters omitted.

Among the churches that have safeguarded the faith and order of the old, undivided church, and to a certain extent also within the ecumenical movement,1 there is a consensus that the bishop or priest when presiding at the eucharist symbolically refers to Christ who is invisibly present and effective at the celebration. In the East this has found expression in the idea that the priest is the icon of Christ. In the West this form of expression is not usual. But if we understand the term "icon" theologically, this formula corresponds to the Old Catholic position.

In the subheading to this paper I use the expression "representation of Christ." The significance of the term "representation" that is often used in this connection in the West, especially in Roman Catholic theology, is not fundamentally clear. In the context of the theology of icons, "representation" means "making visibly present." But the same word is used differently in Roman Catholic theology. Recent Roman Catholic thought, for example, which has accepted insights from the early church tradition, emphasizes that the priest is representative both of Christ and the church.2 In the second case, that of the church, we are clearly dealing not with a visible making present because the congregation is visibly there, unlike the invisible presence of Christ. Because of this failure in clarity of the term "representation," I prefer here to speak of "icon" and "iconic presentation."

Before I begin properly on the theme before us, I must also indicate that the idea of "representation of Christ by the priest" at the eucharist in any case means something quite different here from the usual way of thinking that developed in Western Europe since the High Middle Ages. According to that way of thinking, the representation of Christ takes place in the so-called "words of institution" spoken by the priest in persona Christi. This understanding is not in keeping with the common understanding of the early church in both East and West, in which the words of institution stand in the context of the entire eucharistic prayer and are said by the priest in the we-form, in other words in the name of the church.3 The iconic nature of the priest consists for us therefore not in the recitation of the words of institution, but in the eucharistic presidency. Even so, we must add that the iconic nature of priesthood is not limited to the eucharist, but applies also to the other sacraments and even to pastoral efficacy. In this paper we can discuss it, however, only in reference to the eucharist.

If we say that the priest is an icon of Christ, we have to raise the question of course as to how this type of icon relates to the painted icon of Christ. Common to both is the fact that they are both copies of the original prototype (...), that is, of Christ, and that they make visible this invisibly present prototype. On the other hand it is not to be forgotten that the way in which the prototype is represented is different, depending on whether it is conveyed by a person--the priest--or by a painted picture. Because in the West the term "icon" has normally been used only in the traditional sense for a painted picture or in the context of iconography, we in the West can only speak of the priest as an icon of Christ if we say what we mean by this.

It seems at first self-evident that the way in which Christ is represented by a person occurs differently from the way he is represented by a painted picture. But before we can attempt to make the difference clear, we have to state emphatically that there are some quite decisive common characteristics. I refer to three that seem to be the most important.

Neither the painted icon of Christ nor the representation of Christ in a person constitutes a natural presentation, like a photograph or the truest possible performance of an actor. In both cases it has far more to do with a representation that makes visible the characteristics of the person represented. In the case of a painted icon this occurs above all through symbolic elements and qualities. We could think, for example, of the very widespread image of Christ in the earliest times, as a youthful shepherd. This image can be understood only in terms of its symbolic character. The representation of Christ as the pantokrator, which is connected in terms of the history of art with the portraits of the Roman emperors, lends itself also, however, properly only to a symbolic, non-naturalistic interpretation.

The second common characteristic of the representation of Christ by a picture and by a priest consists in the fact that both refer to the risen one, who now sits at the right hand of the Father and will come again. In other words, both refer to the eschatological Christ and not simply to the earthly Christ of the past. Certainly the eschatological Christ should not be separated from the historical. The risen one, who will come again, is the one who lived on earth and was crucified. But it is also important to be aware that with every sort of icon it is the presence of the risen and exalted one that is made visible.