Theological Studies

56 (1995)

QUAESTIO DISPUTATA
"IN PERSONA CHRISTI"
A RESPONSE TO DENNIS M. FERRARA

A rather surprising thesis was defended by Dennis Michael Ferrara

in the June 1994 issue of this journal.1 He proposes that when Thomas
Aquinas describes the priest's action in the celebration of the Eucharist with the formula in persona Christi he means that the priest effaces himself before Christ, not that he represents Christ. This "apophatic" interpretation, Ferrara believes, captures the primary meaning of the formula. He allows that Thomas has in mind an indirect
representation of Christ when he uses the same formula to describe the
priest's exercise of hierarchical authority, but, because the priest's
"hierarchical-regitive" role is entirely ordered to and normed by his
"ministerial-eucharistic" role, Ferrara maintains that the applications
of the formula must be similarly ordered. The non-representational,
ministerial, and "apophatic" meaning of in persona Christi, not its
hierarchical meaning, he claims, is primary, original, and normative
for St. Thomas.
In Ferrara's opinion, this insight can be used to counter the chief
theoretical objection to the ordination of women, namely, that women
lack the "natural resemblance" to Christ called for by the fact that the
priest acts in persona Christi.2 While he is aware that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does not advance this argument as
the decisive ground for its judgment in Inter insigniores,3 he nevertheless suggests that overturning it would remove the major obstacle to a
line of reasoning driven by a "subordinationist" theory.
Pope John Paul IFs apostolic letter reaffirming the Church's constant teaching, Ordinatio sacerdotalis,4 was released just as Ferrara's
essay appeared in print. Theological Studies then published a note in
which Ferrara continues to press his point.5 His June article questions
1
"Representation or Self-Effacement? The Axiom In Persona Christi in St. Thomas
and the Magisterium," TS 55 (1994) 195-224; henceforth referred to as "Representation."
2
Ibid. 195 n. 1.
3
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on the Question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood (Washington, D.C.: USCC, 1977); AAS
69 (1977) 89-116; hereafter, Inter Insigniores. I will cite page numbers (in parentheses)
for the Declaration and the Commentary from the USCC edition.
4
For the English text, see "Apostolic Letter on Ordination and Women," Origins 24
(1994) 49-52.
5
"The Ordination of Women: Tradition and Meaning," TS 55 (1994) 706-19; henceforth referred to as "Ordination." Ferrara asserts that his intention is "to combat the

61

62

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

the reading of Thomas's theology of priesthood found in Inter insigniores. His December note questions the magisterium's use of the distinction between (1) the "fundamental reason" why the Church can
admit only men to ministerial priesthood (viz., the fact of a constant
tradition which the Church traces back to the will of Christ) and (2) the
theological explanations which have been developed to illustrate the
fittingness of this tradition. Ferrara characterizes the first as the "extrinsic" and the second as the "intrinsic" basis of the argument, and
then proceeds to object that the magisterium's "studied separation" of
the two arguments leads to a new fideism. In his view, the magisterium has abandoned the traditional and faulty intrinsic argument (its
appeal to the subordinate status of women) without supplying a theological rationale rooted in a more adequate Christian anthropology. As
a consequence, the extrinsic argument is left hanging in mid-air, unintelligible because no explanation is supplied as to why Christ willed
to restrict the apostolic ministry to men. In his note, Ferrara restates
his earlier thesis, making its application to women's ordination more
explicit.
It seems to me most worthwhile to engage Dennis Michael Ferrara
in debate. Serious theological dialogue within the Church cannot be
advanced without the careful consideration of the teaching of the contemporary magisterium. Some years have passed since the initial responses to Inter insigniores were published, and the magisterium has
addressed the question again since then. There are questions here that
deserve further examination, and I welcome the occasion to reopen
them.
My response is addressed to both of Ferrara's pieces, but I will begin
with the note since it provides the frame of reference for the article. I
intend to dispute at length Ferrara's interpretation of St. Thomas and
his reading of the argumentation drawn from Thomas in the Declaration Inter insigniores.
Value of Identifying the "Fundamental Reason"
The distinction which the magisterium draws between the fundamental reason for reserving ministerial priesthood to men and the
theological arguments from fittingness serves the purpose of clarifying
its dominical foundation, rejecting an argument now seen to be faulty,
and retrieving the elements of a more adequate argument. In my view,
it need not and does not lead to fideism.
Pope John Paul IFs Ordinaux) sacerdotalis reinforces the distinction
between the statement of the normative tradition, proposed with authority by the magisterium, and the theological reasons brought forward to clarify it by means of the analogy of faith, which do not engage
hierarchical interpretation of in persona Christi that dominates recent magisterial
teaching" (706).
6
Ibid. 716.

"IN PERSONA CHRISTI"

63

the authority of the magisterium. In this document he reasserts the

"fundamental reasons": the example of Christ, attested in Scripture, in
choosing only men as his Apostles, and the constant practice of the
Church in fidelity to his example. Because this new intervention of the
magisterium does not repeat the theological argumentation proposed
in section 5 of Inter insigniores, some speculated that it was being
discarded. The appearance of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's Commentary has corrected this impression: the purpose of the apostolic letter is
to address the formal and gnoseological structure of the doctrine. Ordinatio sacerdotalis intends to make explicit the grounds for the
Church's certitude that it does not have the authority to admit women
to ministerial priesthood.8 It does not repudiate the argumentation of
Inter insigniores, but presupposes it. The further development of arguments from fittingness based on a renewed theological anthropology, Ratzinger writes, is the task not of the magisterium but of theologians.9
In response to Ordinatio sacerdotalis, Ferrara sets out to contribute
to the discussion "with specific reference to the distinction, and the
importance thereof, between the external fact of the Church's traditional ban on the ordination of women and the inner theological meaning of the tradition."10 In his earlier article he takes explicit note of
this distinction, describing the use of arguments ex convenientia in
sections 5 and 6 of Inter insigniores. He also expresses his conviction
that the doctrinal statement and its explanation are in a certain sense
inseparable, even though the binding force of doctrinal affirmations
cannot be said to depend on the cogency of the arguments used to
defend them.11
Ferrara appreciates the fact that this distinction allows Inter insigniores to reject arguments in the traditional teaching that are
"scarcely defensible today."12 He believes, and I agree, that the intrinsic argument ultimately turns on the question of theological anthro7
This distinction is found in Inter insigniores, section 5 (11) and in the Commentary
(30).
8
Joseph Ratzinger, "La Lettre Ordinatio sacerdotalis confirme ce que l'glise a toujours vcu dans la foi/' La Documentation Catholique no. 2097 (3 Juillet 1994) 611-15.
9
Ferrara insists that the magisterium must "explain its position, and the mind of
Christ himself, with reasons other than have appeared in the tradition of the Church
thus far" ("Ordination" 718). He holds that the burden of proof rests on those who defend
the tradition rather than those who promote change. This raises the deeper question of
the role of tradition. I believe the burden of proof lies on those who argue for change.
10
Ibid. 706.
11
Ferrara, "Representation" 195, n. 1. The Commentary (31) agrees that "it is impossible to be content with making statements, with appealing to the intellectual docility of
Christians; faith seeks understanding, and tries to distinguish the grounds for and the
coherence of what is taught."
12
The Commentary (22) makes it clear that St. Thomas's "most famous" argument,
quia mulier est in statu subjectionis, is the one being rejected, even as it indicates the
difficulty of disentangling the philosophical concept from its traditional biblical sources
(Gen 1-3; 1 Tim 2:12-14).

64

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

pology.13 Nevertheless, although Ferrara acknowledges the primacy of

the extrinsic argument, he does not seem to appreciate that it forms
the basis of the intrinsic argument. His characterization of the categories as "extrinsic" and "intrinsic" tends, I think, to obscure their
actual relation. We are, after all, confronted not only with the historical fact of the Church's constant tradition, but with the claim that this
tradition is rooted in the will of Christ. The force of Ordinatio sacerdotalis is to call attention to this source of the Church's certitude.
I readily grant that the link between this tradition and the will of
Christ manifested in the choice of the Twelve poses other questions,14
but I believe Ferrara is mistaken in thinking that the extrinsic argument cannot claim our assent unless it can be shown to be reasonable
on some prior grounds, i.e. the meaning of the natural differentiation
of the sexes. As I understand it, the function of theological argumentation from fittingness is to discover, by means of the analogy of faith
and human reasoning, the appropriateness and intrinsic reasonableness of something we receive as God's gift or revelation. The choice of
the Twelve may not belong to the same class as the call of Abraham or
of Mary,15 but that it be naturally intelligible independent of the history of salvation is not the only alternative. Inter insigniores seems to
classify it instead with sacramental signs. Sacraments possess a deep
natural symbolism, but they are correctly interpreted only in light of
their link to the constitutive events of Christianity and to Christ himself.16 Again, if we try to discern why the Word became a man rather
than a woman, we may appeal to arguments drawn from a theory
regarding the natural differentiation of the sexes, but it is entirely
possible that this fact of revelation may, in the end, be the source of a
proper anthropological theory.17
Dominical Foundation of the Tradition
One consequence of distinguishing the norm from theological attempts to illustrate its fittingness has been a clearer identification of
the New Testament source of the Church's constant tradition on this
i3 F e r r a r a > 'Ordination" 718, n. 43. The need for a renewed anthropology was wellestablished by George H. Tavard in the early years of the contemporary debate. See his
Woman in Christian Tradition (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1973). In my
opinion, this inquiry must include further consideration of the theological relevance of
the maleness of Christ.
14
Since Ferrara does not open up this line of reasoning in his essays, I will not attempt
to do so in this response. Still, it is clearly pertinent to Ferrara's argument, and he
admits to being baffled by the way the magisterium appeals to it ("Ordination" 709-10).
15
16
Ibid. 709.
Inter insigniores, section 4 (10).
17
See Joan Gibson, "Could Christ Have Been Born a Woman? A Medieval Debate,"
Journal ofFeminist Studies in Religion 8 (1992) 65-82. The scholastics maintained that
whereas a female incarnation was within God's power, incarnation as a male was more
fitting. They presupposed that whatever God actually did is most excellent.

"IN PERSONA CHRISTI"

65

question in the call of the Twelve. This argument can be traced to the
patristic period. It is neither the invention of late scholasticism nor a
"new tradition" inaugurated by the Vatican.
Ferrara looks upon the appeal to Christ's call of the Twelve as a new
argument. The relation of the scriptural texts cited by the magiste
rium to the question of women's ordination strikes him as "tenuous at
best."18 He supposes that this extrinsic argument first appears in the
late scholastic period in the form of an appeal to Christ's institution of
the priesthood, and then suggests that this appeal may have come
about in response to the anti-intellectualism that followed the condem
nations of 1277. In support of his view, he notes that neither Thomas
nor Bonaventure makes appeal to Christ's institution.19
I propose another explanation. In the first place, a review of the
history of this question reveals that two lines of argumentation dom
inate in the patristic era. When women were admitted to priestly func
tions among the Christian Gnostics, Marcionites, Montanists, and Collyridians, the Church countered these innovations (1) by citing the
Pauline injunctions against public teaching by women, especially 1
Cor 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:12,20 and (2) by appealing to the "command
of the Lord" and the "law of the gospel." This second court of appeal is
found in third and fourth century ecclesiastical constitutions and col
lections of canons. 21 In the Panarion (374-77) of Epiphanius of
Salamis, this appeal begins to take the form that would become clas
sical in the West, viz., since the Lord did not call his Mother to belong
to the Twelve, despite her great dignity and excellence, it is evident
that he did not intend women to assume priestly functions.22 Notice
that admission to priestly and episcopal functions is consistently iden
tified with admission to the office of the Twelve. I believe Ferrara
would have to concede that some of the earliest arguments for restrict
ing the priesthood to men rely precisely on the normativeness of
Christ's call of the Twelve.23
In discerning the value of these two traditional arguments, the con-

18

Ferrara, "Ch-dination" 710.

Ibid 714-15. See Bonaventure, In IV Sent., d. 25, a. 2, q. 1; Thomas Aquinas, In IV
Sent., d. 25, q. 2, a. 1.
20
The Pauline ban was, in turn, supported by appeal to Gen 2:18-24 and 1 Cor 11:7.
21
This other pattern of reasoning came to clear expression in the East, especially in
the Antiochian and Egyptian traditions (Inter insigniores, section 1 [5]) and Commen
tary [30]). For citations of the original sources, see notes 7 and 8 of the Declaration.
22
Epiphanius employs the first line of argument; in addition, he appeals to the
Church's constant tradition. See Manfred Hauke, Women in the Priesthood: A Systematic
Analysis in the Light of the Order of Creation and Redemption (San Francisco: Ignatius,
1988) 416-18. This entered the canonical tradition in the West as a result of its use by
Pope Innocent III. See the citation in Inter insigniores, section 2 (7).
23
He holds that "attempts to justify the maleness of the priest by appealing to the
normativeness of Christ's call of the Twelve" were unknown prior to Vatican ("Ordi
nation" 718).
19

66

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

temporary magisterium has clearly preferred the second to the first.

The argument from the Pauline texts does not form the basis of its
judgment, but is in fact subjected to a critique and even given a new
interpretation, based on the "gospel innovation" in Gal. 3:28, in recent
papal teaching.24 The faulty "intrinsic" argument, which is intimately
linked (but not identical) with the tradition of appealing to the Pauline
ban, and which marked Catholic explanations of the exclusion of
women from ministerial priesthood up until very recently, has been
abandoned. Instead, the argument from the will of Christ in choosing
the Twelve has been given new prominence, even while it is acknowledged that apart from the witness of the tradition one would not easily
find explicit indications of Christ's will on this matter in the Scripture.25
In the second place, I would offer two points in response to Ferrara's
theory about the source of the late scholastic appeal to the "extrinsic"
argument. One, it seems that Thomas and Bonaventure were well
aware of and took for granted the existing consensus of the Church,
fixed by that time in canonical legislation, when they advanced arguments from fittingness on this question. Both cite the Pauline texts as
evidence of a binding tradition. 6 1 take this to be a form of the extrinsic argument. Two, the appeal to institution by Christ (the alternate
form of the extrinsic argument) found in the later scholastics may be
explained in light of the question that intrigued them, namely, whether the Church is guilty of injustice for denying priestly ordination to
women. Their interest is to show that the restriction of orders to males
derives from the will of Christ, not from prejudice against women on
the part of the apostles or of the Church.27 While this move may reflect
some of the influences noted by Ferrara, his theory is not needed to
account for it.
Retrieval of Bonaventure's Argument from Fittingness
The magisterium has rejected the argument from fittingness based
on a faulty (i.e., hierarchical) understanding of sexual complementarity, and proposed in its place an argument from fittingness which links
the requirement of maleness for the priest with the maleness of Christ.
24

This revision is found especially in Pope John Paul IFs Apostolic Letter On the
Dignity and Vocation of Women (Mulieris dignitatem) (Washington: U.S. Catholic Conference, 1988); AAS 80 (1988) 1639-1729.
25
Commentary 27.
26
Bonaventure cites Paul in some of his objections, but he appears to rely more
heavily on the authority of the tradition, summed up in Gratian's Decretals. Thomas
cites 1 Tim 2:12, conflated with 1 Cor 11:34. Modern readers sometimes underestimate
the weight given by the scholastics to the "argument from authority" in the sed contra
of St. Thomas. See Leo V. Elder, "Structure et fonction de l'argument "sed contra" dans
la Somme Thologique de saint Thomas," Divus Thomas 80 (1977) 245-60.
27
See the analysis of John Hilary Martin, "The Injustice of Not Ordaining Women: A
Problem for Medieval Theologians," TS 48 (1987) 303-16.

"IN PERSONA CHRISTI"

67

28

This is not a novelty, as Ferrara supposes, but is drawn from the

sacramental theology of St. Bonaventure.
In reporting that the late scholastics were the first to appeal to the
extrinsic argument of Christ's institution of the priesthood, Ferrara
has overlooked evidence presented in Inter insigniores. He likewise
overlooks the evidence the Declaration supplies when he judges that
"the theological tradition prior to Vatican knows only one intrinsic
argument against the ordination of women: the 'faulty' argument from
women's inferior status."29 It seems to me that the magisterium has
successfully retrieved a "non-faulty" argument from the teaching of
Bonaventure on this question: it is the argument from maleness as a
condition for the priest's sacramental signification of Christ, Head and
Bridegroom of the Church.30
A rather full exposition of this teaching, set in the larger context of
Bonaventure's understanding of sacramental signification, was pub
lished by Jean Rezette shortly before the release of Inter insigniores;31
it can reasonably be assumed that this provides a rationale for the
Declaration's interpretation of the Seraphic Doctor's teaching. Al
though Bonaventure's commentary includes arguments of unequal
value, as the Declaration acknowledges, it also provides the elements
of the argument from fittingness which the Declaration adopts.
Curiously, Ferrara's report omits from Bonaventure's position the
very point that the magisterium finds most telling, namely, his un
derstanding of the way the person enters into the constitution of the
sacramental sign, and the relevance of male sex to the signification of
Christ the Mediator, who became incarnate as a male. Ferrara cites
only the first half of the pertinent sentence, then (without notifying
the reader of the omission) skips over to a different argument, drawn
from the solution to the first objection.32
He also fails to mention that one of the reasons Bonaventure gives
28

Ferrara, "Ordination" 718.

Ibid. I would concede that the precise points from Bonaventure's treatment which
are now regarded as pertinent were not reported in the tradition represented by manual
theology. See, e.g., Joseph A. Wahl, The Exclusion of Woman from Holy Orders, Abstract
of a Dissertation, Catholic University of America Studies in Sacred Theology (Second
Series) 110 (Washington: Catholic University of America, 1959) 48, 53-54.
30
1 have attempted to elucidate some of the implications of Bonaventure's position as
it relates to our contemporary inquiry regarding women's capacity for priestly ordina
tion, in "The Priest as Sacrament of Christ the Bridegroom," Worship 66 (1992) 498517.
31
"Le Sacerdoce et la femme chez Saint Bonaventure/' Antonianum 51 (1976) 520-27.
32
Ferrara, "Ordination" 712. Bonaventure writes: "In hoc enim sacramento persona
quae ordinatur signifcat Christum Mediatorem; et quoniam mediator solum in virili
sexu fuit et per virilem sexum potest significali: ideo possibilitas suscipiendi ordines
solum viris competit, qui soli possunt naturaliter repraesentare et secundum characteris
susceptionem actu signum huius ferre." Ferrara excerpts this only up to the word "mediatorem." See Bonaventure, In IV Sent. d. 25, a. 2, q. 1, conci. (Opera Theologica Selecta
[Quarrachi-Firenze: Collegii S. Bonaventura^ 1949] 4.639).
29

68

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

against the ordination of women is their incapacity for the office of

bishop (an office to which the other orders lead): because the bishop is
the bridegroom of the Church, a woman cannot become a bishop.33 The
special contribution of this "nuptial" argument is its potential for ar
ticulating the differentiation of the sexes as a relationship of comple
mentarity oriented to self-gift, rather than a hierarchically structured
relationship related to social status. 34
For Bonaventure, sacramental signs must have some quality in com
mon with the realities they signify. This principle is easily understood
in the case of baptism and Eucharist. In the case of orders, by contrast,
there is no "matter" in the strict sense; there is, however, an external
sign which might be called the "element" or "sign" in a broad sense. In
fact, the recipient of orders is himself the sign, a symbol of Christ. The
truth of the sacrament requires, for Bonaventure, that the visible sign
have a "natural resemblance" (i.e., correspond even by way of gender)
with the one signified.35
An Argument Common to Bonaventure and Thomas
It seems that this argument from fittingness can be positively coor
dinated with St. Thomas's principles of sacramental theology and his
view of priestly action in persona Christi in the sacrament of the Eu
charist. The common principle is that a sacramental sign should bear
a "natural resemblance" to the reality signified, and the common pre
supposition is that the priest symbolizes Christ. Inter insigniores
draws out the implications by claiming Thomas as well as Bonaven
ture in support of its theological argument from fittingness.
In Ferrara's view, the presentation of Thomas's argument from fit
tingness in Inter insigniores is "so completely bowdlerized as to be
virtually indistinguishable from Bonaventure's symbolic argument
that the ordained person is 'a sign of Christ.' " 3 7 He believes that the
"natural resemblance" Thomas has in mind is, rather, the position of
eminence in the ecclesial community appropriate to the male. This, he
supposes, is an expression of the "faulty" argument based on the hier33

Ibid. 638.
This is the line of development pursued by Pope John Paul in Mulieris dignitatem
nos. 23-27. The nuptial analogy relies on the symbolism of bodily sex, but understood as
a specific, reciprocal capacity for the personal gift of self, not simply as physical or
biological sex. I have drawn out some of the implications in 'The Priest as Sacrament."
35
Rezette provides this analysis ("Le Sacerdoce et la femme" 525-26.) A formal con
sideration of Bonaventure's position would have to take into account his other argu
ments, especially his appeal to the traditional view that a man, by reason of his sex, is
a more fitting image of God.
36
Bonaventure also teaches that it is because the priest speaks "in persona Christ?'
that he can say "my body" and "my blood" when he consecrates the Eucharist (IV Sent.
d. 8, a. 1, q. 1, conci. [Quaracchi, Opera IV, 464]; cited by Rezette, "Le Sacerdoce et la
femme" 527).
37
Ferrara, "Ordination" 716.
34

"IN PERSONA CHRISTI"

69

archical relationship between the sexes that has been rejected, not on
the priest's sacramental role. "None of this has to do in any way, shape,
or form with a 'natural resemblance* to Christ himself.
In my opinion, there is a genuine convergence in the thinking of
these two great scholastics,39 but it can be discovered only by allowing
that both understood the priest to represent Christ in the celebration
of the Eucharist. I do not expect to demonstrate that Thomas provides
an argument against the ordination of women based on "gender symbolism" (other than the faulty argument already discounted). I do intend to challenge Ferrara's view that a non-representational, "apophatic" meaning is primary in Thomas's use of the formula in persona
Christi. I wish to show that Thomas regards the priest to be a sign as
well as an instrument in the sacrament of the Eucharist, that he presents this mode of signification as unique, and that he understands the
sacramental symbolism of persons as inclusive of the natural resemblance of gender.40 This leads me to my detailed response to his article,
"Representation or Self-Effacement?"
An "Apophatic" Understanding of "In Persona Christi"?
Ferrara sets out to investigate Thomas's use of the formula in persona Christi in light of his theories of instrumental causality and sacramental signification. He reports that Thomas uses it almost exclusively with reference to the celebration of the Eucharist, the supreme
expression of the priestly office. Thomas teaches that ordination confers a sacerdotal character, that is, a spiritual power ordered to divine
worship which is instrumental and ministerial. The priest, endowed
with this instrumental power, is himself a kind of instrument; in the
administration of the sacraments he operates not by his own power,
but by the power of Christ. In consecrating the Eucharist he acts both
by the power and in the person of Christ.
According to Ferrara's analysis, this instrumentality prohibits
rather than requires the priest's representation of Christ. As instru38
Ibid. Ferrara proposes a distinction, in Thomas, between the priest's hierarchical
and his sacramental role ("Representation" 203). I would follow Bernard Dominique
Marliangeas, who believes Thomas intentionally linked these roles (Cls pour une thologie du ministre: In persona Christi, in persona Ecclesiae [Paris: Beauchesne 1978]
227). On this same point, Ferrara's claim that Thomas never invoked 2 Cor 2:10 in a
eucharistie context cannot be supported; the key passage he dismisses directly refers to
the New Testament priesthood in the context of offering sacrifice (ST 3, q. 22, a. 4 c).
39
This might have come to full explicitation had Thomas lived to complete his Summa
theologiae. In fact, we have only what he wrote in his Commentary on the Sentences of
Peter Lombard, a work written some twenty years earlier. This article, In IV Sent. d. 25,
q. 2, a. 1, was incorporated into the Supplement (Q. 39, a. 1) of the Summa theologiae by
his disciples after his death.
40
1 will confine my inquiry, as Ferrara has, to the doctrine of Aquinas and its relation
to what is proposed in current Catholic teaching. I will indicate page numbers from
Ferrara's article, "Representation," in the text.

70

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

mental cause of the Eucharist, the minister "has no other act save the
pronouncing of the words" of consecration.41 Whereas in the other
sacraments the minister utters the form in his own person, in this
sacrament he effaces himself, for he pronounces the wonis "as if Christ
were speaking in person." Ferrara concludes that the priest, uttering
these words in persona Christi, appears "not as 'another Christ' but as
"another than Christ' " (201). Instead of adding "some kind of repre
sentation of Christ to the priest's mere instrumentality," he argues,
this sacrament "reduces it to the barest minimum" (205).
Ferrara makes his case by appealing to the "anamnestic" nature of
the sacramental form. The presence and transcendent causality of
Christ, the chief minister, is "sacramentally visible" not in the person
of the priest but in his recital of Christ's words. The priest, in fact,
"quotes" Christ: "in the quotation of Christ's words of institution by
way of anamnesis, the of the priest steps aside in order to let the
of Christ appear, the persona of the priestly narrator gives way visibly
to the persona of Christ" (213). Claiming the authority of St. Thomas,
Ferrara proposes that any positive representation of Christ by the
priest would obscure the "sacramental visibility" of Christ, the true
speaker of the words of consecration, and "to that extent would imply
a merely symbolic rather than real presence of Christ [in the eucha
ristie elements]" (215).
Ferrara supports the point that the priest is "other" than Christ by
insisting on the historical distance between the Last Supper and the
Mass. In his view the visible, sacramental sign of the Eucharist (sacramentum tantum Eucharistie^) 'lias the form of an historical recol
lection in which the priest, in uttering the words of Christ by way of
quotation, by that fact publicly and manifestly affirms the difference
between the Last Supper and the Mass and his own nonidentity with,
indeed, his radical otherness from, Christ" (211).
A key point in Ferrara's "apophatic" interpretation of in persona
Christi, then, is that the priest "quotes" Christ but does not represent
him. From this premise, he argues that the priest's instrumentality
does not involve dramatic representation. This, in turn, leads to his
conclusion that, "since the quoting has nothing whatsoever to do with
"taking Christ's role' dramatically and in fact expressly excludes it,
neither has being a man" (211). The success of his thesis is entirely
dependent on whether his initial premise is correct.
The Priest Does More than "Quote" Christ
In Ferrara's view, the priest recites or reads aloud an historical
narrative when he speaks the words of consecration. As evidence, he
brings forward a text from the Summa theologiae 3, q. 78, a. 5: "The
priest recites that Christ said: 'This is my body' " (207). Ferrara exST 3, q. 78, a. 1 c.

'TN PERSONA CHRISTI"

71

plains: "The *my' of This is my body' is antecedently included in the

Tie'of he said'" (208).
Article 5 of Question 78 asks whether the formulas used to consecrate the eucharistie elements are really true. Thomas sets out to explain how they are true, in the face of objections regarding what "This"
refers to (the bread? the objects of sense experience?) and the causal
relation of the form to its effect. (That the priest quotes Christ is not
the point at issue for him.) Thomas first affirms that the formulas are
true because these words are pronounced in persona Christi.42 He then
proceeds to consider four opinions; three are unacceptable, the fourth,
correct. The passage Ferrara cites"The priest recites that Christ
said: This is my body' "is taken from the first opinion. What Thomas
finds objectionable is the idea that the celebrant says 'This" in a
purely material sense, without intending to indicate anything present.
In the next sentence he writes: "This view, however, cannot be sustained. If it were so, the words would have no reference to any present
bodily material, and so there would be no sacrament."43
Ferrara takes from this only the point that the priest quotes Christ.
He draws the conclusion that since the power of the sacrament lies in
the words, no signification is required. According to Thomas, however,
simply "quoting5, Christ would be insufficient to accomplish the consecration, even if the celebrant were ordained. The priest must pronounce the words "as having signifying power (significative) and not in
a purely material sense."44
Thomas teaches that the celebrant must pronounce the words usimul
et recitative et significative."45 On the one hand, the priest must recite
the words of Christ in a material sense, and this he does recitative, that
is, as the words of another.46 Ferrara is quite right to insist on this
dimension: the priest is entirely dependent upon Christ. Unless he
quotes the words as Christ's, his speaking them would not refer to the
Lord's own words and deeds at the Last Supper. The liturgy would be
not a memorial, but a new and different sacrifice. The priest would not
act in persona Christi, and the word "my" would refer to his own body
and his own blood.47
42

See ST 3, q. 78, sed contra.

ST 3, q. 78, a. 5 c. (I am using the Blackfriars translation of the Summa Theologiae
[New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963]).
44
Ibid.
45
This expression is drawn from In IV Sent. d. 8, q. 2, a. 1, sol. 4 ad 4. Striking out
beyond the thought of his predecessors, Guerric of St. Quentin and St. Albert the Great,
Thomas adds the requirement of pronouncing the words significative. Marliangeas discusses this whole question (Cls 89-91).
46
See Aimo M. Roguet, Saint Thomas d'Aquin, Somme Thologique, L'Eucharistie
(Paris: Descle & Ci, 1960) 1.393-405; henceforth referred to as Roguet, UEucharistie.
47
Ferrara does not draw these conclusions, but seems in fact to promote what Thomas
rejects, namely, the independence of the eucharistie celebration from the Last Supper
and the differentiation of speakers in the form as uttered ("Representation" 210-11).
43

72

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

On the other hand, if all he did was to quote Christ, the word 'This"
would refer not to what lies before him, but to the elements transformed long ago at the Last Supper, leaving the elements on the altar
unchanged. The liturgy would remain only a memorial of the Last
Supper; it would not be its sacramental representation. So, in addition
to quoting Christ the priest must say the words of Christ formally,
significative, giving them the signifying power they would naturally
have in his mouth. In order to do what Christ did at the Last Supper,
it is just as necessary that the priest speak the words significative as
that he speak them recitative.
The difference can be seen by comparing two cases: (1) a priest proclaims Paul's institution narrative (1 Cor 11: 23-26) from the lectern,
and (2) a priest pronounces the words of institution at the altar. As a
lector, he pronounces the words only materially, as the words of another. In the sacrament of the Eucharist, he pronounces the words of
consecration both materially (as the words of another) and formally (as
his own) at one and the same time.48
Thomas refutes the very position Ferrara defends, namely, that the
causal influence of Christ is exercised through the words of institution
alone, while the minister disappears to the point of becoming invisible
before the person of Christ. For Thomas, Christ uses as instruments
both the words and the priest. The person of the priest, in a certain
manner, enters into the form of the sacrament, giving the form its
instrumental value.49 In his Commentary on the Sentences Thomas
writes that "the instrumental power which serves to accomplish the
eucharistie conversion is not only in the word, but also in the priest;
but it is in each in an incomplete state, since the priest cannot consecrate without the word, nor can the word consecrate without the
priest."50
By insisting that the words be pronounced significative Thomas
maintains the effective, though instrumental, causality of the priest.
By insisting that only a priest has the power to consecrate he shows
that the priest himself enters into the constitution of the sacrament of
48
Marliangeas shows that Thomas draws the idea of acting or speaking in persona
Christi from a patristic tradition of biblical exegesis, which is rooted in 2 Cor 2:10 (Cls
33-60).
49
L'Eucharistie 402. Roguet notes that Thomas is very aware of the temptation to
assimilate the sacramental structure of the Eucharist to that of the other sacraments,
especially the role of the minister of baptism to that of the minister of the Eucharist
(ibid. 392-93).
50
In IV Sent. d. 8, q. 2, a. 3, sol. 9, cited by Roguet (L'Eucharistie 402-3). Thomas
notes that the priest has a greater similarity to the principal cause than the word, since
he is a sign of Christ, but the word is in some respects more powerful than the priest
inasmuch as it is the sign of the effect. He uses the analogy of a writer, who employs both
his hand and his pen to write: the pen flike the word) is nearer to the writing, but the
hand (like the priest) to the writer.

"IN PERSONA CHRISTI"

73

51

the Eucharist by taking Christ's role. In the other sacraments, the

priest as a minister of Christ pronounces the sacramental words in his
own name: e.g. "I baptize you." He exercises his own proper, though
instrumental, activity.52 Here, his ministry is self-effacing (Ferrara's
point), and he does no more than supply the words of Christ. Still, he
is indispensable precisely because of his ordination. The constitution of
the sacrament of the Eucharist requires, as an essential component,
the activity of one who is ordained to obey the command, "Do this in
memory of me." The causality of Christ is present not only in the words
of institution but also in the person of the priest who gives sacramental
visibility to Christ whose minister and instrument he is.
This sacramental visibility, for Thomas, includes not only the words
but the actions of the priest. In celebrating this mystery, the priest acts
in persona Christi when he consecrates, offers, and administers the
sacrament. This leads to another point in Ferrara's analysis.
The Priest "Takes the Role" of Christ
Ferrara objects to the idea that the priest represents or "takes the
role o f Christ. As he sees it, Thomas stresses the priest's "otherness,"
both personally and in his historical situation, from Christ. He con
tends that Inter insigniores, claiming the authority of St. Thomas,
replaces this apophatic "otherness" with a theory of dramatic repre
sentation. But does the Declaration maintain that the priest "takes the
role o f Christ in the manner of an actor in a historical drama, as
Ferrara suggests (210)?
The Declaration does indeed speak of Christ's "role" being "taken"
by a man, stating that "role" is the original sense of the word persona
in the formula in persona Christi. And the Commentary released with
the Declaration explains this use persona in terms of "a part played
in the ancient theatre, a part identified by a particular mask. The
priest takes the part of Christ, lending him his voice and gestures."53
Admittedly, this seems to provide a basis for Ferrara's view that the
analogy is "to an actor who plays the part of Christ in a historical
drama" (210).
Assuming this to be the case, Ferrara uses the following example to
compare the dynamics of dramatizing a historical event with the dy51
Thomas explains that only a priest has the power of consecrating in persona Christi
(ST 3, q. 82, a. 1). He states further that "the consecrating virtue is not only in the words
of consecration, but also in the power delivered to the priest when he is dedicated and
ordained (ibid, ad 1).
52
Roguet insists on Thomas's distinction between acting "by the power" and "in the
person" of Christ (L'Eucharistie 398). Ferrara agrees with this ("Representation" 203).
Marliangeas, on the other hand, seems to suppose that Thomas identifies the two (Cls
129,134).
53
Inter Insigniores section 5 (13); Commentary 32.

74

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

namics of celebrating the Eucharist. In a drama about the Civil War,

he points out, every effort would be made to abolish the difference
between the actor and Abraham Lincoln; in the Mass, on the other
hand, no effort is made to disguise the non-identity of the priest with
Christ whose words he quotes. In the drama, moreover, every effort is
made to abolish historical distance, so that the audience experiences
"being there"; in the Mass, however, the past is recalled as past and
historical distance is consciously affirmed. The liturgy is clearly not an
historical pageant intended to reproduce the Last Supper, and the
celebrant is quite evidently not disguised as Christ.54 From this, Ferrara concludes that acting in persona Christi should not be interpreted
as "taking Christ's role." In his judgment, the "anamnestic" form of the
consecration serves to "rule out formally and completely the meaning
assigned to the term persona" by the Vatican Declaration (209).
Inter insigniores is concerned, however, neither with the apophatic
self-effacement described by Ferrara, nor with dramatic representation in the manner of a historical play, but with sacramental representation. And in this, I would argue, the Declaration is faithful to St.
Thomas. It is clear to any onlooker that, although he is not an actor,
the priest is ritually enacting Christ's part in relation to the other
worshippers. He pronounces the words spoken at the Last Supper with
the intention of doing what Christ did, and he accompanies his words
with gestures (breaking, giving to eat and drink).55 He presides as host
at this sacrificial meal, in obedience to the Lord's command, just as
Christ presided at that Supper. The voice which pronounces the words
of consecration is not disembodied, but the speech of a person who
stands in the midst of a community, taking the part of Christ in a way
not shared by the others who are present. Thomas does not hesitate
to say that the priest enacts, or "bears" the image of Christ.57
The sacramental mode of representation is sui generis. On the one
hand, the priest is not simply identical with Christ. On the other, there is
a positive relationship of sacramental representation, not just between
the words the priest speaks and the words Christ once spoke, and not just
between what the ministerial priest does and what Christ once did, but
also between the priest himself and Christ. This cannot be explained, as
Ferrara would like, only in terms of "otherness" and "non-identity."
64
In Ferrara's comparison, "Only a man (or an ungainly and heavily disguised
woman) can play Abraham Lincoln; but anyone can quote the words of Christ" ("Representation" 211).
55
Thomas argues that administering the sacrament belongs to the priest, just as the
consecration does, for 'lie consecrates in the person of Christ, who consecrated his body
at the Last Supper and also gave it to others to receive" (ST 3, q. 82, a. 3 c). See also
Marliangeas, Cls 95.
56
It seems Ferrara pays insufficient attention to the contextual situation of the priest
vis-a-vis the worshipping assembly. Here is where the value of sexual differentiation
comes into play, signifying sacramentally the relation of Christ and the Church.
57
ST 3, q. 83, a. 1 ad 3.

"IN PERSONA CHRISTI"

75

According to Aquinas, it is the nature of the sacraments to be signs,

and as signs they make the realities they signify present under "alien"
forms.58 Similarly, liturgical anamnesis looks to the past, and in fact
recalls a real, concrete event in history, but it neither leaves the event
in the past nor reproduces it in its natural condition. Rather, anam
nesis makes the past event effectively present now. The virtue of this
category lies precisely in its capacity to highlight the unity of the
eucharistie celebration with Christ's once-for-all sacrifice on the
cross.59 History is irreversible, so the historical event is not itself re
peated, but by the Holy Spirit, and by means of signs, this very event
becomes sacramentally present.60
When Thomas considers the role of the priest as minister of this
sacrament, he calls attention not to historical difference but rather to
the unity of the Eucharist with the sacrifice of the cross. In ST 3, q. 83,
a. 1, he poses the question, "Is Christ sacrificed in this sacrament?"
Then he considers a possible objection: "in Christ's sacrifice priest and
victim are the same.... Yet in the mass the priest and victim are not
the same." In the body of the article Thomas lays the foundation for his
reply: "the celebration of this sacrament is a definite image represent
ing Christ's Passion, which is his true sacrifice"; when this commem
oration is made "the work of our redemption is carried on." Then, in
answer to the third objection, he asserts that "the priest also bears
Christ's image (sacerdos gerit imaginem Christi), in whose person and
by whose power he pronounces the words of consecration.... And so in
a measure (quodammodo) the priest and the victim are the same." Just
as this sacrament in a certain way represents Christ's passion, so the
priest in a certain way represents Christ.61
According to Ferrara's "apophatic" interpretation of acting in per
sona Christi, the "visible" sign is not the priest but the "anamnestic
form," that is, the "formal differentiation and subordination of speak
ers" which is evident when the priest, in the recitation of the words of
consecration, quotes Christ" (212). We have already seen that the au
62
thority of Thomas cannot be claimed for this interpretation. Ferrara
58
Ansgar Vonier writes: "At no time do we deal in the Eucharist with Christ in his
natural condition, in propria specie. . . . He must he there in specie aliena in order to
safeguard the veracity of the sacrament as a sign" (A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist
[Westminster, Md.: Newman, 1960] 32).
59
Jean Marie Tillard provides an excellent survey of the use of this concept in Cath
olic teaching since Vatican ; see his "Sacrificial Terminology and the Eucharist," One
in Christ 17 (1981) 306-23. One function of this biblical concept is to exclude the error
that the Eucharist only "calls to mind" the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ.
60
Ibid. 314.
61
Roguet speaks of a "dynamic, accidental, and transitory representation" of Christ by
the priest in the eucharistie celebration (L'Eucharistie 399).
62
This is the fundamental flaw in Ferrara's thesis. More generally, there is something
inherently problematic about the concept of an "apophatic" sacrament, for sacramental
reality is inextricably linked with the Incarnation.

76

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

thinks Thomas's apophatic interpretation of in persona Christi rules

out the Declaration's reading that the priest "takes the role" of Christ.
I maintain that both Thomas and Inter insigniores refer to sacramental
representation, not dramatic representation. But, granted that acting
in persona Christi differs from dramatic representation, is there any
basis in Thomas for thinking it requires gender correspondence between the priest and Christ?
Gender Symbolism and the Sacramental Sign
Sacramental representation, I have argued, belongs to a different
order than dramatic representation. The priest who "takes Christ's
role" in the celebration of the Eucharist does what Christ did and
pronounces his words. For this to have its sacramental effect, he must
be ordained, but he need not be a good candidate for the lead role in
"Jesus of Nazareth." Nevertheless, when Inter insigniores defends the
fittingness of symbolic correspondence of gender, it appeals to Thomas's principle that sacraments represent what they signify by way of
natural resemblance.63
Is there any evidence from Thomas that this principle extends to
persons, as well as to things? The Declaration claims the authority of
Thomas when it invokes this sacramental principle at a crucial point
in its theological argument.64 Three examples indicate how he takes
this into consideration.
In the first example, Thomas judges that only someone in grave need
of physical healing is competent to receive the sacrament of extreme
unction (today, anointing of the sick), because the spiritual healing
conferred by the sacrament is signified by way of bodily healing.65 He
would exclude, as unable to signify the grace of the sacrament, persons
who are healthy or facing execution. There is obviously no reference to
gender here, but this example serves to illustrate the principle. His
point is that without a sick person the sacramental sign of Extreme
Unction cannot be constituted. The visible sign of a person in need of
healing is a precondition for signifying the grace of the sacrament
which pertains not only to liceity but to validity. Thomas invokes this
example to argue against the ordination of women, a case that turns on
the relation of gender symbolism to sacramental reality.66 It is perti63
Inter insigniores, section 5 (12), citing Aquinas, In TV Sent. d. 25, q. 2, a. 2, q. 1 ad
4. Also see ST Suppl. q. 39, a. 3 ad 4.
64
The Commentary notes that both Thomas and Bonaventure "require that the sign
should have natural meaningfulness" (32). It also makes clear that maleness is thought
to link the priest to Christ at the level of the visible sign (sacramentum tantum); the
sacramental character of ordination (res et sacramentum), which is spiritual and invisible, is what constitutes the priest Christ's representative.
66
ST Suppl. q. 32, a. 1.
66
He teaches that the ordination of a woman would be invalid as well as unlawful. A

"IN PERSONA CHRISTI"

77

nent to our question, then, in that it establishes that persons enter into
sacramental signification and that their bodily condition may be a
relevant factor.
The second example is found in the question "whether a woman can
67
baptize?" In this case, Thomas explores the possible requirement of
natural resemblance based on gender, but declares it irrelevant to the
constitution of the sign. The person whose sexuality may possibly be
symbolically meaningful in the constitution of this sacramental sign is
the minister, not the recipient. The objectors think women are prohib
ited from baptizing on account of their sex, even in an emergency.68
The first and second objections recall that women are prohibited from
exercising public, authoritative pastoral functions.69 The third argues
that since spiritual regeneration imitates natural regeneration (the
water symbolizes the waters of the mother's womb while the one who
baptizes holds the position of the father), it is symbolically unfitting for
a woman to baptize.
Thomas answers the question in the affirmative on the authority of
Pope Urban : a woman is permitted to baptize in case of necessity.
Theologically, he solves this on the grounds that a woman who bap
tized would act as Christ's minister. Because Christ is the chief baptizer, and because "in Christ there is neither male nor female," a
woman can baptize in an emergency, just as a layman can. 70 This
solution relies on the argument that Christ is the principal cause, and
the minister his instrument, a principle which also proves the capacity
of the non-baptized to administer baptism.71 The priest (or bishop) is
the ordinary minister of the sacrament, but the principle of instrumen
tality is invoked in the case of emergency because baptism is necessary
for salvation.72 In response to the first two objections, Thomas teaches
that public and authoritative pastoral services not ordinarily permit
ted to women are allowed in case of emergency. In response to the third
he rejects the objector's premise about the need to signify spiritual
generation by appropriate gender roles and repeats his appeal to in
strumentality: the minister acts not by her own power but only as an
instrument of Christ.
This example is extremely pertinent to our topic. At first it appears
woman is incompetent to receive orders, he explains, in the same way that a healthy
person is incompetent to receive extreme unction.
67
ST 3, q. 67, a. 4.
68
This was commonly taught and enforced until the eleventh century.
69
Here the gender symbolism is directly related to arguments which depend on a
faulty anthropology, so I will not comment on them.
70
The chief reason offered to explain the capacity of a layman is the fact that baptism,
being necessary for salvation, must be accessible.
71
See ST 3, q. 67, a. 5 on the capacity of a non-baptized person. This is another
reminder that the notion of "minister" is analogous, not univocal.
72
ST 3, q. 67, a. 3 makes this explicit. Article 4 alludes to this when it says that "just
as a layman can baptize, as Christ's minister, so can a woman."

78

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

to support Ferrara's position. Thomas argues that there is no need for

a symbolic correspondence of gender between Christ and the minister
of baptism because the minister functions only as an instrument (by
implication, not a representative) of Christ. Thomas excludes the ne
cessity for "natural resemblance" based on the minister's capacity for
symbolizing the "active," fatherly role in carnal generation. The spir
itual generation of baptism, in other words, requires neither the sign
of physical maleness nor the signification of authority that the medi
eval authors assumed was proper to males.
Ferrara cites this example in support of his case that Thomas's prin
ciple of instrumental causality, applied to the sacraments, positively
excludes the representation of Christ by the minister (202). But I be
lieve Ferrara's argument from baptism fails precisely because he over
looks the difference between acting by the power of Christ and acting
by the power and in the person of Christ. Acting as the "minister of
Christ" is not the same as acting in persona Christi.73 In baptism, the
form of the sacrament is pronounced by the minister, speaking in his
own person, not in persona Christi. This confirms the teaching of Inter
insigniores that the symbolic correspondence of gender is required only
"in actions which demand the character of ordination."74
The third example is the question "whether the female sex is an
impediment to ordination?"75 Thomas bases his answer on the Pauline
prohibition of women's teaching in Church and having authority over
men, traditionally interpreted as excluding women from orders. He
adds a point that would not touch on the validity of the sacrament, but
only its fittingness, the traditional objection that women should not
receive tonsure (1 Cor 11). He begins his theological argument by
stating the principle that a sacrament requires the signification of the
reality, then proceeds to develop an analogy. Just as in extreme unc
tion it is necessary to have a sick person in order to signify the need of
healing, so in orders the male sex is necessary, both for the liceity and
validity of the sacrament, in order to signify eminence of degree. Since,
in his view, a woman is unable to signify eminence of degree because
she is in a state of subjection, she cannot receive the sacrament of
order. This reasoning supplies evidence that Thomas relates the mas
culine symbolism of "being head" and the feminine symbolism of "be
ing subject" explicitly to the question of sacramental realism.76
Is Thomas's understanding of the symbolic value of sexual difference
73

ST 3, q. 78, a. 1, c; q. 82, a. 1, c and ad 2.

Section 5 (13) and Commentary (31). A. G. Martimort discusses the implications of
this point in his essay, 'The Value of a Theological Formula persona Christi/ " in The
Order of Priesthood: Nine Commentaries on the Vatican Decree Inter Insigniores (Hun
tington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor, 1978) 85-97 at 92-94.
In IV Sent. d. 25, q. 2, a. 1; see ST Suppl. q. 39, a. 1.
76
The Commentary on Inter insigniores explicitly disowns such explanations to the
extent that they are based on the conviction that women are inferior to men (22,31). The
Declaration itself is more cautious (section 1 [5]).
74

"IN PERSONA CHRISTI"

79

limited to this hierarchical consideration? Attention to the objections

and responses suggests that it is not. The first objector argues that
since women are eligible for the office of prophet, which is greater than
than the priesthood, they should be eligible for the office of priest.
Thomas's response points out the difference: prophecy is not a sacrament, so there is nothing to prevent a woman from receiving it; there
is no signification involved, only the reality. He adds: "in matters
pertaining to the soul woman does not differ from man as to the thing
[res] (for sometimes a woman is found to be better than many men as
regards the soul)." This underlines that what is in question is not one's
potential for achieving spiritual pre-eminence, but precisely what is
signified by one's sexuality.77 This response is said to provide the solution to the second and third objections.
The second objector reasons that since women can achieve preeminence in other ways, such as by martyrdom or by religious life, and
since they can exercise authority as abbesses (or, in the Old Testament, as judges of Israel), they should be eligible for orders. The third,
closely aligned with the first, points out that since the power of orders
resides in the soul, and "sex is not in the soul," sexual difference should
be irrelevant to the reception of the sacrament. Again, Thomas replies
that the impediment to ordination lies not in an incapacity for the
reality of spiritual pre-eminence but in an incapacity, rooted in the
bodily nature of being a woman, for symbolizing it. Thomas teaches,
then, that female sex is an impediment to orders at the level of bodily
signification. This is an impediment specific to sacramental signification.78
Thomas does not link this explicitly with an incapacity to signify
Christ who is male, or with his speculations regarding the reason for a
male incarnation. He does, however, claim that a certain resemblance
to what is signified is a condition for sacramental signification which
sometimes pertains to the validity of the sacrament, and that this
principle extends to persons, for they participate, as minister or recipients, in the constitution of sacramental signs. The natural gender
symbolism of women and men, in their bodily conditions (sickness) and
bodily constitutions (sexuality), may also enter into these signs. In an
emergency, women may baptize as "ministers of Christ." The principle
of instrumentality governs this, for no external (sexual correspon77
Contemporary feminist analysis inclines some to read into this a "soul-body" dualism, or to see in it reference to "biological sex" as opposed to "socially-constituted gender." It is likely that Thomas views this in the more classical manner (admittedly,
entangled with "hierarchical" considerations), viz., that the bodily condition of being
male or female bears a certain symbolism. While he does not agree, e.g., that spiritual
generation in baptism needs to be symbolized by an appropriately male minister, he
evidently accepts as a given the fact that male and female capacities for generation have
symbolic value.
78
Notice that Thomas does not prohibit women from exercising authority over men in
the secular order (ST Suppl. q. 39, 1 ad 3).

80

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

dence) or internal (sacramental character) configuration to the person

of Christ is required of the minister. In the case of priestly ordination,
however, the principle of signification comes into play; it explains why
the sacrament cannot be validly conferred on a woman. Whereas we
rightly reject the hierarchical understanding of sexual differentiation
Thomas appeals to, it is possible that we can imagine another, nonhierarchical, way of understanding the complementarity of the sexes
that may illuminate the reasonableness of this determination.
Inter insigniores neither accepts nor employs Thomas's "subordinationist" explanation of masculine-feminine symbolism. It draws instead on his general principle that sacramental signs must be perceptible and recognizable, and on his teaching that they represent what
they signify by way of natural resemblance. Thomas does not, like
Bonaventure, appeal explicitly to the need for symbolic correspondence
between the priest and Christ on the level of sex. When he calls him
the "image" of Christ, he refers to the fact that the priest is configured
to Christ, in ordination, by means of a sacerdotal character, an invisible, spiritual sign (res et sacramentum). But since the sacrament of
orders must be visible on the level of the sign (sacramentum tantum),
he may also have in mind the fact of being ordained and of "taking the
role of Christ" vis-a-vis the community.
Inter insigniores specifies that symbolic correspondence of gender is
required of the priest "in actions which demand the character of ordination and in which Christ himself, the author of the Covenant, the
Bridegroom and Head of the Church, is represented, exercising the
ministry of salvation."80 It locates the "natural resemblance" to Christ
effected by the priest's maleness not at the level of dramatic representation, but at the level of sacramental signification. This outward sign
makes his actions vis-a-vis the congregation perceptible as Christ's
actions. Maleness links the priest to Christ at the level of the sign, a
sign established by the fact of the Incarnation and bound up with the
mystery of God's covenant love.
Mundelein Seminary
Mundelein, Illinois

SARA BUTLER,

M.S.B.T.

79
Thomas required that the sign have natural meaningfulness in these two respects
(Commentary, 32). He considered the priest's action in persona Christi chiefly in its
distinction from and relation to his action in persona Ecclesiae. See Marliangeas, Cls
89-140. Thomas is more inclined to conceptualize the relation of Christ to the Church
as that of Head to Body than that of Bridegroom to Bride. It appears to me that this
explains why gender symbolism, taken in the sense of the natural differentiation of the
sexes, does not occupy a significant place in his reasoning.
80
Section 5 (13). Thomas uses these same three imageshead, shepherd, bridegroomin discussing the need for holy orders as a service to the Church's unity, linking
the sacramental and hierarchical ministry of the ordained to Christ's service (Summa
contra Gentiles 4.76.7).