Picture, Sign, Symbol

Gadamer writes, “a picture is situated halfway between a sign and a symbol. Its representing is neither a pure pointing-to-something [sign] nor a pure taking-the-place-of-something [symbol]. It is this intermediate position that raises it to a unique ontological status. Artificial signs and symbols alike do not – like the picture – acquire their signifying function from their own content, but must be taken as signs or symbols. We call the origin of their signifying function their ‘institution.’”

What might these distinctions say about sacramental theology? On Gadamer’s terms, the bread and wine are clearly signs or symbols, depending on one’s theory of the real presence (in contrast to signs, symbols can “so fully take the place of what is revered that the latter is present in them” – e.g., veneration of the Host). Water, bread and wine are signs or symbols also because they are instituted – they bear the meaning they do not because of their inherent qualities but because Jesus said, Do these actions with these things.

Still, I think it’s helpful to pursue a sacramental theology of the picture (in Gadamer’s sense). The sacramental signs are not, after all, arbitrary; they bear the meaning they bear because of Christ’s institution. But one can also consider how they are picture-like, “acquiring their signifying function from their own content.” Water has certain qualities that make it a “picture” of death and resurrection with Christ, exodus, flood, cleansing, etc. Bread and wine are pictures of Jesus’ self-offering as our food. Technical sacramental theology has often considered the sacraments so exclusively as signs or symbols that it has ignored the specific content of the representing things and actions. We find a sacramental theology of the picture in sermons, in typologies, in catechetical addresses, and this mode of sacramental theology provides a necessary corrective to technical sacramental theologies of sign and symbol.