Some critics of the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) doctrine of the nature of Real Presence point to Pope Gelasius. For example, William Webster wrote that
Pope Gelasius I (492-496 A.D.), for example, believed
that the bread and wine in substance at consecration did not cease to be bread
and wine, . . . (William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History
[Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1995], 120; let me note: I think Webster is over-rated, though the bibliographies of his books are good for those who love to track down sources])
Webster provides the
following reference:
Pope Gelasius, I On the Two Natures in Christ.
Taken from Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist,
vol. 1 (London: Longmans, Green, 1909), p. 102. (Ibid., 227 n. 11)
Here is the translation
provided by Stone:
“The Sacrament which we receive of the body and blood of
Christ is a divine thing. Wherefore also by means of it we are made partakers
of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does
not cease to be. And certainly the image and likeness of the body and blood of
Christ is set out in the celebration of the mysteries. Therefore it is plainly
enough shown to us that we must think this in the case of the Lord Christ
Himself which we confess, celebrate, and receive in the case of the image of
Him. Thus, as the elements pass into this, that is the divine, substance by the
operation of the Holy Ghost, and none the less remain in their own proper
nature, so they show that the principal mystery itself, the efficacy and virtue
of which they truly make present (repræsentant) to us, consists in this,
that the two natures remain each in its own proper being so that there is one
Christ because He is whole and real.” (Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine
of the Holy Eucharist, 2 vols. [London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909],
102)
Stone provides the following
reference:
Thiel, Epistolæ Romanorum Pontificum Genuinæ, i. 541, 542, which can be
found online here.
The following is the Latin
of paragraphs 13-14 of Tactatus III, "Gelasii epicopi Romani de duabus
naturis in Christo adversus Eutychem et Nestorium":
13. Numquidnam quum homo ex anima constet et corpore, quorum
duas naturas esse non dubium est, non adunatione naturali una persona et unus
est homo? Amplius dicimus: certe et interiorem hominem et exteriorem scripturae
divinae saepe testatur auctoritas, et tamen non ideo duo homines in uno, sed
una persona et unus est homo. Unde interior et exterior ad
significantiam dicitur qualitatum, non ad evidentiam personalem duorum. Quanto magis in illa ineffabili adunatione indivisibili
nunquamque solvenda, sicut salva proprietate utriusque naturae, ex quibus hoc
mysterium constare non dubium est, et sine quibus constare non posse manifestum
est, sicut una eademque persona est Domini nostri Jesu Christi, sie integer,
sic unus, sic verus Christus est. Et magis unus non est, si integer non est,
quia sublata parte ex iis, quibus integer ad probatur, dimidius videbitur esse
non integer. Et sic unus non est, sicut integer non est; et sicut integer non
est, sic verus non est; si verus non est, falsus apud eos Christus esse
convincitur.
14. Quod mysterium a beatae conceptionis exordio sic
coepisse sacra Scriptura testatur dicendo: Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum,
septiformis Spiritus soliditate subnixam, quae incarnationis Christi, per quam
efficimur divinae consortes naturae, ministraret alimoniam. Certe sacramenta,
quae sumimus, corporis et sanguinis Christi di- vina res est, propter quod et
per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae; et tamen esse non
desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini. Et certe imago et similitudo
corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. Satis ergo
nobis evidenter ostenditur hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino sentiendum, quod in
ejus imagine profitemur, celebramus et sumimus: ut sicut in hanc, scilicet in
divinam, transeant) sancto Spiritu perficiente substantiam permanentes tamen in
suae proprietate naturae; sic illud ipsum my~ sterium principale, cujus nobis
efficientiam virtutemque veracite repraesentant, ex quibus constat proprie
permanentibus, unum (Christum, quia integrum verumque, permanere demonstrant.
Here is a machine
translation of the Latin :
13. Is it not so that man
consists of soul and body, of which it is beyond doubt that there are two
natures, not united by a natural union, yet there is one person and one man? We
may say further: certainly, divine Scripture frequently bears witness to the inner
man and the outer man, and yet these are not therefore two men in one, but one
person and one man. Thus, “inner” and “outer” are spoken of to signify
qualities, not to suggest the evident personhood of two individuals. How much
more so is this true in that ineffable, indivisible union that cannot be
dissolved, saving the proper characteristics of each nature—on which this
mystery depends, and without which it cannot stand—as it is beyond doubt that
our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same person, who is whole, who is one, who
is true Christ. And indeed, He is not whole if He is not entire, because if a
part is removed from those by which He is shown to be entire, He will appear as
incomplete and not whole. And so, He is not whole if He is not entire; and if
He is not true, He is not true Christ, and He would be false in the eyes of
those who deny this.
14. This mystery of the blessed
conception is said to have begun, as sacred Scripture testifies, in these
words: Wisdom has built for herself a house, [subtly alluding to the
solidity of the sevenfold Spirit], which underpins the incarnation of Christ,
by which we are made partakers of the divine nature, and distributes
nourishment. Certainly, the sacraments we receive, namely, the body and blood
of Christ, are divine realities, because through them we are made partakers
of the divine nature; and yet they do not cease to retain the substance of
bread and wine. And thus, the image and likeness of the body and blood of
Christ are celebrated in the actions of the mysteries. It is sufficiently clear
for us to understand that we are told this concerning Christ the Lord Himself,
whom we profess to receive, celebrate, and partake of under this image. Just as
in this case, that is, they pass into the divine by the Holy Spirit perfecting
the substance, while still remaining in their proper nature. Thus, this very
principal mystery, whose effectiveness and power they truly represent to us,
shows through these properly enduring elements that one (Christ) remains,
demonstrating that He is whole and true.
Note that the “substance” (substantia) of the bread and wine remains after the priest says the essential form of the sacrament (“this is my body . . .”; “this is my blood . . . “) and ties this into how the image and likeness of the body and blood of Christ "are celebrated in the actions of the mysteries." At first blush, it would appear that Gelasius did not hold to the formulation that would be dogmatized in 1215 at Fourth Lateran (and one which some of his contemporaries did believe in). I do not think this is a "slam dunk" against Roman Catholicism (that a pope of Rome can err as a private theologian is an allowable position), but it does show that the concept of transubstantiation was not unanimous as some naive Roman Catholic apologists believe it to be.
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
