Question on persona Christi

[jesusmademe]

He first refer to Jesus as a historical person but then he refer to the Body of Jesus “my body”.
The Priest is first a narrator and then Jesus doing the offering. What do I need to understand about this?
At the blessing at the end of Mass he says “May almighty God bless you,
the Father, and the Son, ✠ and the Holy Spirit.”
He doesn’t seem to act in persona Christi when he uses the wishes that the Trinity would bless us. But he uses “you” and not “us”.
In the Confiteor he uses “us”.
What is going on? I mean, at what time at Mass is he acting as persona Christ and is there anything written on this?

 

[midori]

I’ll let others answer more thoroughly, but I’d like to point out the full context of where the phrase “my body” happens—

On the day before he was to suffer,
he took bread in his holy and venerable hands, he raises his eyes.
and with eyes raised to heaven to you, o God, his almighty Father,
giving you thanks, he said the blessing, broke the bread and gave it to his disciples, saying:
TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT OF IT,
FOR THIS IS MY BODY,
WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.

or

At the time he was betrayed
and entered willingly into his Passion,
he took bread and, giving thanks, broke it,
and gave it to his disciples, saying:
TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT OF IT,
FOR THIS IS MY BODY,
WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.

or

For on the night he was betrayed
he himself took bread, and, giving you thanks, he said the blessing,
broke the bread and gave it to his disciples, saying:
TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT OF IT,
FOR THIS IS MY BODY, WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.

or

Therefore, O Lord, we pray: may this same Holy Spirit graciously sanctify these offerings, that they may become the Body and X Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ for the celebration of this great mystery,which he himself left us as an eternal covenant.For when the hour had come for him to be glorified by you, Father most holy, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end: and while they were at supper he took bread, blessed and broke it,and gave it to his disciples, saying:
TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT OF IT,
FOR THIS IS MY BODY,
WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.

So, as far as actual words go, the priest is always narrating by referring to what happened at the Last Supper, rather than implying “this is me, myself, at this moment in time.” The phrase “my body” always occurs in context of citing Jesus’ reference to himself.

 

[InThePew]

The Eucharist is a commemoration or sharing in Christ’s sacrifice sacrifice on the cross but also a sacrifice of the Church (the Eucharist makes the Church and the Church makes the Eucharist). So while the priest is an alter Christus, at the same time, he is also offering sacrifice on behalf of the Church (including himself). As a memorial sacrifice it participates in Christ’s and is repeated for all times so that all can participate in it because we’re in time. At the same time, Mass isn’t a reenactment of Holy Thursday like some of Passion Play, but rather the point of mass is to highlight our participation in sacrifice of Christ. So, when we come to mass we offer the gifts of bread and wine as part of the sacrifice so that they may become the body and blood of Christ, but we also offer ourselves, not as individuals but as members of a community, asking that we too be transformed (in a different way) to become one with Christ through our participation in the Eucharist.

 

[jesusmademe]

What I don’t understand is how the Priest can act in Persona Christi but at the same time refer to Jesus as He.
Is the Priest a narrator rather than Jesus at Mass?

 

[MiserereMei]

I would like to point out that the term in persona Christi isn’t pulled out of nowhere. It is often missed in English due to the limits of translation, though. As far as I know, the first time the phrase is used is in 2 Corinthians 2. Below is the NABRE and Vulgate, with the phrase in persona Christi bolded.

NABRE: 10 Whomever you forgive anything, so do I. For indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for you in the presence of Christ, 11 so that we might not be taken advantage of by Satan, for we are not unaware of his purposes.

Vulgate: 10 Cui autem aliquid donastis, et ego: nam et ego quod donavi, si quid donavi, propter vos in persona Christi, 11 ut non circumveniamur a Satana: non enim ignoramus cogitationes ejus.

Bonus Greek: 10 ᾧ δέ τι χαρίζεσθε, κἀγώ· καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ὃ κεχάρισμαι, εἴ τι κεχάρισμαι, διʼ ὑμᾶς ἐν προσώπῳ Χριστοῦ, 11 ἵνα μὴ πλεονεκτηθῶμεν ὑπὸ τοῦ Σατανᾶ· οὐ γὰρ αὐτοῦ τὰ νοήματα ἀγνοοῦμεν.

 

[jesusmademe]

Doesn’t it mean “in the person of Christ”?
“In the presence of Christ” is something I have never heard before.

 

[MiserereMei]

“in the presence of Christ” is how it is most often translated into English in the Bible. That’s what I was saying: the phrase is there, just often translated in a way that makes it unrecognizable unless you are aware of what’s going on.

 

[OddBird]

The greek word used here, πρόσωπον, has as primary sense “face” (as in human face), by extension “mask” or “role” (think ancient theater), and by extension again “person”.

It’s typical of the translation complexities we run into with polysemic words. As it is, neither “in the presence of Christ” nor “in the person of Christ” is a wrong translation.

I wonder if one could say that the same polysemic meaning applies to the role of the priest – being both in the presence and in the person of Christ.

 

[jesusmademe]

It’s typical of the translation complexities we run into with polysemic words. As it is, neither “in the presence of Christ” nor “in the person of Christ” is a wrong translation.

Is doing something in the presence of Christ and in the person of Christ really that simmilar?
How do we get “presence” from “mask”?
St Paul was actually using teeminology from Greek theatre?

 

[OddBird]

St Paul was actually using teeminology from Greek theatre?

He was using a word which has several acceptations, one of which might concern theatre.

How do we get “presence” from “mask”?

Because the mask was the way an actor, on the theatre stage, made “present” the character he was playing. The face of somebody is also the privileged way which “incarnates” (using a theologically loaded word here for want of a better one) their presence.

Is doing something in the presence of Christ and in the person of Christ really that simmilar?

That’s a good question, but I would say the word St. Paul uses implies both aspects.

 

[midori]

How do we get “presence” from “mask”?

It reminds me of that scene from St. Catherine d’Ricci in ecstacy, where Sister Euphrasia, who was skeptical, prayed to Jesus to help her with her disbelief. And then she saw Jesus’ face in place of Catherine’s, and he asked her, “Who do you think I am, Jesus or Catherine?” Not that Catherine’s ecstacy == a priest serving at table, but there was Benedict XIV’s commentary on it—

“Jesus Christ, wishing to show how far the union of thought and will between Himself and Catherine reached, placed a glorious sign of it on her face, by transforming it to a living image and perfect likeness of His own Face; so that those who saw Catherine thought they beheld the Son of God and the Son of Man.”

Whereas Catherine herself explained it by quoting St. John–

" Do you not know that ’ he who dwells in charity dwells in God, and God in him’ ?"

So, if we could have this conversation about a nun, why couldn’t you have the same conversation a thousand more times about a priest?

Even on the Road to Damascus, Jesus had said–

He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
“Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied.

He’s saying, “You’re persecuting me” rather than “You’re persecuting those who I love” or “those who follow my teachings.”

So, it’s not like a theatre sort of a thing— it’s a unity sort of a thing, and it pops up regularly in many places.

 

[De_Maria]

He first refer to Jesus as a historical person but then he refer to the Body of Jesus “my body”.
The Priest is first a narrator and then Jesus doing the offering. What do I need to understand about this?
At the blessing at the end of Mass he says “May almighty God bless you,
the Father, and the Son, ✠ and the Holy Spirit.”
He doesn’t seem to act in persona Christi when he uses the wishes that the Trinity would bless us. But he uses “you” and not “us”.
In the Confiteor he uses “us”.
What is going on? I mean, at what time at Mass is he acting as persona Christ and is there anything written on this?

Whatever the Priest does is as an emissary of Christ and thus it is as though Christ is doing it. Here is the explanation in Scripture.

2 Corinthians 5:20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

 

[goout]

Couple of good sources:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a6.htm
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

 

[InThePew]

What I don’t understand is how the Priest can act in Persona Christi but at the same time refer to Jesus as He.
Is the Priest a narrator rather than Jesus at Mass?

The priest, much like Christ himself, is both priest and victim - in other words, offering the sacrifice of the mass in his own capacity (that is, Fr Bob standing before you) and in persona Christi (that is, Christ - to whom the priest is configured through the sacrament of holy Orders - working through him).

If it helps, think about it in the context of the sacrament of Reconciliation - it’s the priest who says the words of absolution (“I absolve you…”) but Christ who actually does the absolving.