Pope Gelasius Letter Discussing Eucharist

This document is primarily about monophysitism/miaphysitism and Nestorianism but since the Reformation it’s almost only brought up concerning the Pope’s view of the Eucharist.

The relevant passage below reads:

“And He is not more one if He is not whole, because with a part removed from those by which He is approved whole, He will seem half, not whole: and so He is not one, as He is not whole: and as He is not whole, so He is not true: if He is not true, Christ is proven false among them. This mystery, from the beginning of the blessed conception, Sacred Scripture testifies to consist, saying: "Wisdom has built her house, supported by the solidity of the sevenfold spirit," which ministers nourishment to the matter of Christ's Incarnation, by which they become partakers of the divine nature. Certainly the sacraments we receive of the body and blood of Christ are a divine thing, because of which and through which they become partakers of the divine nature, and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to be: and certainly the image and likeness of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. Therefore, it is sufficiently evident to us that this must be felt in Christ our Lord Himself, which we profess, celebrate, and feel in His image, so that just as into this, namely the divine, the substance passes, infused by the Holy Spirit, yet the nature remains in its property, so this very principal mystery, whose efficacy and power are truly represented to us: from which it properly remains, demonstrating that one Christ remains whole and true”

Source is: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Maxima_bibliotheca_veterum_patrum_et_ant/wtSzU-GII64C?hl=en&gbpv=1

Notes:

A full treatment of Pope Gelasius on the Eucharist and his sources of his doctrine can be found in “The Eucharist in the west History and Theology.“

Thiel 530-544, al 541-542. The most recent critical edition of this work is in E. Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen zum Acacianischen Schisma, Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Abteilung, Neue Folge, Heft 10 (Muninch: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1934) 85:23-95.33, al 94.23-34

 

The following are notes made by Spanish theologian Jesus Solano on the writings on the Eucharist including Pope Gelasius, note that 176 is on the main text of this article.

Original Spanish

English Translation by AI

176 Este tratado teológico no consta con entera certeza que sea de San Gelasio: cf. CPL n. 1674. El texto mismo que acabamos de aducir es oscuro, pues por una parte afirma que permanece la naturaleza del pan y del vino, lo cual sería negar la transubstanciación, mas por otra parte dice que pasan a la sustancia divina, o sea, al cuerpo y sangre de Cristo, que por la unión hipostática son cuerpo y sangre de Dios. Es clara de todos modos la dependencia de este texto con respecto a los escritos de Teodoreto, de Ciro y de la "Escuela antioquena" (véase más arriba n.827 nota 161). Sobre todo el asunto, véase J.LEBRETON, Le dogme de la transsubstantiation et la christologic antiochienne du Ve siècle: Etudes 117 (1908) 479-482, 489s, 496s.

176 This theological treatise is not entirely certain to be authored by Saint Gelasius: cf. CPL n. 1674. The text itself, which we have just cited, is obscure, as on the one hand it affirms that the nature of the bread and wine remains, which would seem to deny transubstantiation, but on the other hand it states that they pass into the divine substance, that is, into the body and blood of Christ, which, through the hypostatic union, are the body and blood of God. In any case, the dependence of this text on the writings of Theodoret, Cyril, and the "Antiochene School" is clear (see above, n. 827, note 161). On the entire matter, see J. Lebreton, The Dogma of Transubstantiation and the Antiochene Christology of the 5th Century, Etudes 117 (1908) 479–482, 489, 496.

 

Calvinist 19^th century historian Phillip Schaff states:

Theodoret, who was acknowledged orthodox by the council of Chalcedon, teaches indeed a transformation (μεταβάλλειν) of the eucharistic elements by virtue of the priestly consecration, and an adoration of them, which certainly sounds quite Romish, but in the same connection expressly rejects the idea of an absorption of the elements in the body of the Lord, as an error akin to the Monophysite. “The mystical emblems of the body and blood of Christ,” says he, “continue in their original essence and form, they are visible and tangible as they were before [the consecration];¹⁰¹⁷ but the contemplation of the spirit and of faith sees in them that which they have become, and they are adored also as that which they are to believers.”¹⁰¹⁸

Similar language occurs in an epistle to the monk Caesarius ascribed to Chrysostom, but perhaps not genuine;¹⁰¹⁹ in Ephraim of Antioch, cited by Photius; and even in the Roman bishop Gelasius at the end of the fifth century (492–496).

The latter says expressly, in his work against Eutyches and Nestorius: “The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.”¹⁰²⁰  -- History of the Christian Church, Volume III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 311-600: Chapter 7

His note 1020 reads:

1020. De duabus naturis in Christo Adv. Eutychen et Nestorium (in the Bibl. Max. Patrum, tom. viii. p. 703) ... "et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini. Et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur." Many Roman divines, through dogmatic prejudice, doubt the genuineness of this epistle. Comp. the Bibl. Max. tom. viii. pp. 699-700.-- ¹⁰²⁰  -- History of the Christian Church, Volume III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 311-600: Chapter 7, note 1020

Notes of Maxima bibliotheca veterum patrum et antiquorum scriptorum ..., Volume 8, page 703

Heretici pestes. Unio naturarum in Christo. Calumnia hereticorum. delirde. Dua natura in. homine. Prov. 9. Corpus sangunis Christi. a Rite lector intellige verba Gelasij, substantia panis et vini appellat, non ipsam veram substantiam vocat naturam & essentiam accidentium que manet in Eucharistia, & Theologi species vocant, quae quia vicem & propriecaté substantiæ indount in nuctiendo &c. quodanmodo hac etiam ratione substantia dici queunt. Hunc autem morem loquendi non esse alienum à paribus, nec à Gelasio præsertim, abunde te docebunt Bellartmiuus Lib. 2. de Eucharistia,c. 27. Baronius tom. 6. Annal. Anno Christi 496.c.8. & seqq. b Non negit auctor vere & realiter esse in Eucharistia verum corpus & Sanguinem Christi, sed ait, non solú ipsas species sacramentales panis & vini esse signa corporis & sanguinis Christi, ibi reuera existentium, sed etiam ipsum corpus & sanguinem Domini, ut sunt in sacramento sub illis speciebus, esse signa seu symbola eiusdem corporis & sanguinis Christi, ut fuerunt in cruce Repræsentatur enim in Eucharistia mysterium dominicæ passionis: vnde S. Chrysost. Hom. 17. In epist. Hebr. ait Eucharistiá esse typus seu figuram sacrificij crticis, cum tamen & ipsa verum sit sacrificium. Vida Bellarminum lib. 2. de Eucharistia c.15. 1.Cor.2. 1.Pet.4. C. Idiomatum communicatio. Matt.10. d. Ante logebatur sedes Apostolicam, sed scribendu fide Apostolicae, monuit Canus lib. 6. de loc. Theol. C.8 . ad 9 argument. 1.Tim.6 Luc.2. loan 13. Col. 2.

Heretical pests. The union of natures in Christ. The slander of heretics. They rave. Two natures in man. Proverbs 9. The body and blood of Christ. a. Rightly, reader, understand the words of Gelasius: he calls [it] the substance of bread and wine, but he does not call the true substance itself the nature and essence of the accidents that remain in the Eucharist, which theologians call species, which, because they take on the role and property of substance in nourishing and so forth, can in some way also be called substance for this reason. That this manner of speaking is not foreign to the Fathers, and especially to Gelasius, Bellarmine in Book 2 of *On the Eucharist*, chapter 27, and Baronius in volume 6 of the *Annals*, Year of Christ 496, chapter 8 and following, will abundantly teach you. b The author does not deny that the true body and blood of Christ are truly and really present in the Eucharist, but he says that not only the sacramental species of bread and wine are signs of the body and blood of Christ, truly existing there, but also the very body and blood of the Lord, as they are in the sacrament under those species, are signs or symbols of the same body and blood of Christ, as they were on the cross. For in the Eucharist, the mystery of the Lord’s passion is represented: hence Saint Chrysostom in Homily 17 on the Epistle to the Hebrews says that the Eucharist is a type or figure of the sacrifice of the cross, even though it is itself a true sacrifice. See Bellarmine, Book 2 of *On the Eucharist*, chapter 15. 1 Corinthians 2. 1 Peter 4. c. Communication of idioms. Matthew 10. d. Previously, it was read as "Apostolic See," but it should be written as "Apostolic faith," as Canus advised in Book 6 of *On Theological Places*, chapter 8, to the 9th argument. 1 Timothy 6, Luke 2, John 13, Colossians 2.

The following is from a paper by MARIA NICOLE IULIETTO’s article INTORNO AL CENTIMETRVM DE CHRISTO DEL DECRETVM GELASIANVM in RIVISTA DI STUDI DI ANTHOLOGIA LATINA, VII 2016, page 150, note 17.

Original Italian

AI Translation

Il Tractatus III, noto anche come De duabus naturis in Christo adversus Eutychem et Nestorium, è un'opera attribuita a papa Gelasio I, contenuta nell'edizione curata da A. Thiel (Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum genuinae et quae ad eos scriptae sunt a S. Hilaro usque ad Pelagium II, vol. I, Braunsbergae 1867-1868, pp. 530 sgg.). In questo trattato, Gelasio affronta la controversia cristologica riguardante le due nature di Cristo (divina e umana), opponendosi alle posizioni di Eutiche (monofisismo, che enfatizza la natura divina a scapito di quella umana) e Nestorio (nestorianesimo, che separa eccessivamente le due nature). L'opera si inserisce nel contesto delle dispute teologiche post-conciliari, in particolare dopo il Concilio di Calcedonia (451), che aveva definito la dottrina ortodossa delle due nature unite in una sola persona. Nel Tractatus I, invece, denominato Gesta de nomine Acacii o Breviculus historiae Eutychianistarum (ed. Thiel, pp. 510 sgg.), Gelasio offre una sintesi storica del monofisismo, partendo dal Concilio di Efeso (431) fino alla scomunica di Acacio, patriarca di Costantinopoli, legata allo Scisma Acaciano. Questo testo si concentra sul contesto storico ed ecclesiastico, illustrando gli sviluppi della controversia monofisita e le tensioni tra Roma e Costantinopoli. Entrambi i trattati riflettono l’impegno di Gelasio nel difendere l’ortodossia calcedonese e l’autorità della sede romana. L’edizione recente citata (Ronzani, Gelasio…) potrebbe fornire ulteriori dettagli testuali o contestuali, ma non ho accesso diretto a quell’edizione per verificarne il contenuto. Se hai bisogno di un’analisi più approfondita di uno specifico passaggio o di un confronto tra i due testi, fammi sapere!

The Tractatus III, also known as De duabus naturis in Christo adversus Eutychem et Nestorium, is a work attributed to Pope Gelasius I, included in the edition by A. Thiel (Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum genuinae et quae ad eos scriptae sunt a S. Hilaro usque ad Pelagium II, vol. I, Braunsberg 1867-1868, pp. 530 ff.). In this treatise, Gelasius addresses the Christological controversy concerning the two natures of Christ (divine and human), opposing the positions of Eutyches (Monophysitism, which emphasizes the divine nature at the expense of the human) and Nestorius (Nestorianism, which excessively separates the two natures). The work is situated in the context of post-conciliar theological disputes, particularly after the Council of Chalcedon (451), which defined the orthodox doctrine of the two natures united in one person. In contrast, Tractatus I, called Gesta de nomine Acacii or Breviculus historiae Eutychianistarum (ed. Thiel, pp. 510 ff.), provides a brief history of Monophysitism from the Council of Ephesus (431) to the excommunication of Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople, related to the Acacian Schism. This text focuses on the historical and ecclesiastical context, illustrating the developments of the Monophysite controversy and the tensions between Rome and Constantinople. Both treatises reflect Gelasius’s commitment to defending Chalcedonian orthodoxy and the authority of the Roman See. The recent edition mentioned (Ronzani, Gelasio…) may provide further textual or contextual details, but I do not have direct access to that edition to verify its content. If you need a more in-depth analysis of a specific passage or a comparison between the two texts, let me know!

 

Page 699-704

Note about the Pope’s letter

Ex P. Philippo Labbé Societatis Jesu tomo in Bellartninum de sequenti opere Gelasii. Re melius discuss modo plerique, censent non esse abiudicandum Gelasio hoc opus, ut in margine Epitomes Baroniane ad annum 496. notauit Illustrissimus Episcopus Apamiensis Henricus Spondanus. Primo, quia ut locuples testis est Sirmundus in manuscriptis Codicibus probae notae descriptum reperitur inter indubitatas Gelasij Epistolas. Secundo, quod Gelasij nomine citatur a sancto Fulgentio in libro de quinque quaestionibus, apud Ferrandum Diaconum capite 18. Et a Ioanne II. Papa in Epistola ad Auicnum caeterosque Senatores, qua fide de Christi Divinitate & Incarnatione exquisitis undequaque testimoniis confirmat. Tertio, accedunt et alij suffragatores, Gennadius Massiliensis capite 94. de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis; & ex eo Honorius Augustodunensis. libello 3. capite 93. atque ipse Anastasius S. R. E. Bibliothecarius, aut quis alius In Gelasij vita.

From Father Philippe Labbé of the Society of Jesus, in his volume 'Bellartninum' concerning the following work of Gelasius. Indeed, as most scholars have more thoroughly discussed, they judge that this work should not be denied to Gelasius, as the Most Illustrious Bishop of Apamea, Henri Spondanus, noted in the margin of Baronius's Epitome for the year 496. First, because as the reliable witness Sirmondus attests, it is found transcribed among the undoubtedly authentic letters of Gelasius in manuscript codices of good reputation. Second, because it is cited under Gelasius's name by Saint Fulgentius in his book 'On Five Questions,' in chapter 18 of Ferrandus the Deacon's work, and by Pope John II in his letter to Avienus and other senators, where the faith concerning Christ's Divinity and Incarnation is confirmed by carefully selected testimonies from all quarters. Third, there are other supporters as well: Gennadius of Marseille in chapter 94 of 'On Ecclesiastical Writers'; and following him, Honorius of Autun in Book 3, chapter 93; and Anastasius himself, Librarian of the Holy Roman Church, or someone else in the life of Gelasius."

 Tractate III: De duabus naturis in Christo adversus Eutychem et Nestorium

Possibly by Pope Gelasius

Necessarium quoque fuit, ut quia multos de Incarnationis Dominicae sacramento recens altercatio vel causa perstringit, hoc est nostri deitate pariter & humanitate profitenda veraciter Salvatoris, in quantum clementer idem caelare dignatur, fidei rationique convenientia promerentur, praecipue cum repererit, quantum ad nos perlatum est, puerile commentum perniciosa calliditas, quo se velut necessarium providisse dicit argumentum, ut quolibet ingenio unam competenter existimer in reparatore generis humani proficeri nos debere substantiam, pronuncians, ridenda versutia contra Eutychianos, qui unam praedicant in nostro Redemptore naturam, duas & nobis merito proferendas: Contra autem Nestorianos, qui dividunt naturas in eodem Domini sacramento unam nostra confessione promendam. Quapropter nimis sollicite praecavenda est hac ingenia perversitas, que nec fidei veritate, nec rerum ratione consistit, & noxia subtilitate molitur in restauratore nostro quibusdam modis unius intelligentiam definire naturae: nam eam pati blasphemia utraque pestis insaniat, in conceptu scilicet virginis fact, atque ipso primordiali, vel initiali Domini Salvatoris exortu, qui in visceribus intactae matris, cessante terreni patris officio divina simplici operatione principium, materiam conditionis humanae de substantia genitricis instituens, & unitionem divinae potentiae dignatione sacrae majestatis impertiens, ut veraeque naturae ineffabiliter unition, ab ipso sac conceptionis exordio mirabiliter ac potenter existeret: nec in sanctae Matris prorsus internis, istius sacramenti quicquam vel praecessisse, vel post secutum fuerit institutum. Sed huius magis simul effectum mysterij conceptas ipsa praeveniet, nec illic aliqua praeveniente substantia perfecta unitionis accesserit; sed ab unione perfecta potius utriusque substantiae fuerit inchoatum: Sicut Angelus dicenti venerandae Virgini, cum de gloriosa sobole Futura cognosceret: Quomodo fiet istud, quia virum non cognosco? Respondit Spiritus Sanctus superveniens in te virtutis altissimi obumbrabit tibi: Propterea quod ex te nascetur sanctum, vocabitur Filius Dei. Et ex te nascetur ait, ut proprietatem de matre sumendam nostrae conditionis exprimeret: & sanctum, quia sine contagione carnalis concupiscentiae gigneretur: & vocabitur Filius Dei, ut simul humanae divinaeque naturarum hac conceptione sicut dictum est mirabiliter uniendum proderet sacramentum, secundum quod scriptum est: Et Verbum caro factum est habitavit in nobis. Malens spiritus Dei dicere: Verbum carnem fecit, cum in carnem Verbum non fuerit omnino conversum dummodo principalis unitionis naturaliter in eodem divinitatis humanitatisque significaret praesentiam veritatem, cum scilicet appareret ipsum Verbum in utero Matris Virginis operans, ex eadem suscipere sibimet tuendae substantiae fecunditatis illius excitasse conceptum. Cum, inquam, hac de Domini nostri conceptione, quae: licet nullatenus valeat explicari, pie tamen hac professione credenda sic, Eutychiani dicunt, unam esse naturam, id est, divinam, ac Nestorius nihilominus memorare singularem, id est, humanam. Si contra Eutychianos duae a nobis asserendae sunt, quia unam depromunt, consequens est ut etiam contra Nestorium unam dicentem, non unam, sed duas potius ab exordio sui unitas extitisse procul dubio praedicemus contra Eutychen, qui unam, id est, solam divinam conatur asserere, humanam competenter addentes, ut duas ex quibus illud sacramentum singulare constat, illic permanere monstremus. Contra Nestorium vero qui similiter unam dicit, id est, humanam, divinam nihilominus subrogantes, ut pari modo duas, contra eius unam in huius Mysterij plenitudine, primordialibus suae unitionis effectibus extitisse veraci definitione reneamus, atque utrosque diverso modo singulas garrulantes, non eorum quemquam de una tantummodo, sed ambos de duarum naturarum, humane scilicet & divinae, sui principio sine confusione qualibet atque defectu, unita Proprietate permanente vincamus, Quamvis enim unus atque idem sit Dominus Jesus Christus, & totus Deus homo, & totus homo Deus, & quicquid est humanitatis, Deus hominem suum faciat, & quicquid est Dei, homo Deus habet, tamen ut hoc permaneat sacramentum, nec possit ex aliqua parte dissolvi, sic totus homo permanet esse quod Deus est, totus Deus permaneat esse quicquid homo est. Si aliquid, quod absit, vel divinitatis vel humanitatis inde decessisse, sequatur ineffabilis resolutio sacramenti, & quod dicta audivique fugiendum est, vel homo Deus esse iam desinat, & sola illic humanitas, non etiam deitas perseverat: vel Deus homo consequenter esse desistat, si sola illic divinitas, non etiam humanitas unita permaneat. Nec glorificata videatur nostra conditio unitione deitatis, sed potius esse confusa si non eadem substantia in gloria, sed sola existente deitate, humanitas illic esse iam desiit. Videbitur autem, quod abhorret animus dicere, sed cogit necessitas non tacere, divinitas in utroque mutabilis, si vel in carnem est ipsa conversa, vel sic est in deitatem humanitatis transfusa conditio, ut proprietas eius esse desierit: Si enim ex se ipsa ex toto iam non est, restat ut accesserit adcreveritque deitati, sic in deitatis naturam scilicet transiendo, ut esse desierit prorsus humanitas, ubi modis omnibus divina substantia mutabilitatem recipere videtur: quae cum ne minui possit omnino, nec crescere transfusione humanitatis adiectae, velut aucta videatur. Sin, vero humana conditio, nec in divinitatem transfusa substantia, ne accessu sui hanc sentiatur hausisse, nec in sui proprietate perdurat, nusquam prorsus coelestis esse cognoscitur ac per hoc non sublimata, sed abolita potius invenitur: atque ita indissolubile, quantum ad ipsos pertinet, resolvitur sacramentum, Praeterea si in deitatem ut putant, humanitate transfusa, vel ex omni parte translata desierit esse humana substantia, ergo humanitatis forma sine sui Proprietate cessavit, si dicunt in nuda deitate humanae formae lineamenta constare, quid aliud quam Anthropomorphitae convincuntur inducere? quos dudum Catholica talia somniantes damnavit Ecclesia. Nam si & substantia & forma hominis Jesu Christi hac transfusione consumpta est, quis est quem vidit ad dexteram virtutis stantem S. Stephanus? Quis hominis filius venturus est ad iudicandos vivos & mortuos? Quis erit quem videbimus? in quem compunxerunt, Abolitum est omne Mysterium, vacuatum est resolutumque, ut dictum est, quod absit omne sacramentum, fallamque crit, quod ait ipse Salvator: Palpate & videte, quia spiritus ossa & carnem non habet, sicut me videtis habentem, Ex vere hoc post resurrectionem dixit, talis iam dixit, qualis cum discipulis per quadraginta dies conversatus est, conviscens, & cotans cum eis: Talis dixit, qualis ascendit in coelos: talis dixit qualis promissus est inde esse venturus. Aut legant ipsi, vbi posteaquam de illa professus est, fuerit mutatus, & aliter quam se discipulis patefecit, ascendisse levatus in coelum. Aut nos rectius ea sequimur, quae divinis voluminibus adstituuntur, non delirantium somnia & phantasmata vana sectamur. Sed aiunt homines inepti, quo se putent vim manifestationis huius effugere: quomodo ipse voluit, sic humanam sublimavit magnificavitque naturam. Plane sicut ipse voluit, sicut per Prophetas suos ante praedixit: sicut per Apostolos suos, per Evangelistas Ecclesiae suae voluit intimari. Quapropter ut dictum est, ab exordio istius sacramenti factas paginas revolvamus, quid de conceptu eius edixerint, quid de partu, quid de una eademque Persona Domini nostri Jesu Christi, simul Dei hominis hominis Dei, Quid ante Passionem de eodem vox divina pronunciet, vel de se ipse testetur, quidve post Resurrectionem nihilominus ipse perdoceat, qualis cum discipulis fuerit conversatus in terris, qualis in coelos ascenderit, quid de eodem ad coelos ascendente promissum sit, quid de eo nunc in coelis etiam constituto, quid de eius adventu cuncta coelestia dicta pronuncient, & qualiter se vel intelligi voluerit, vel nostra confessione depromi, Scripturis attestantibus audiamus, & competenter eius simus in omnibus, qua se nobis infinuare dignatus est, voluntate contenti, Sed iam diligentius vestigemus, si Eutychiani, qui se Nestorium refutare Praetendunt, & propter hunc Catholicis sensibus unam conantur subintroducere velle naturam: quamvis hoc iam manifesta sit ratione destructum, & non ips quodam circuitu, & occultis ambagibus, nescientes utique quid loquantur, neque de quibus affirmant, ad eundem Nestorium volentes nolentesque rediguntur. Dicunt enim ante adunationem duae naturae fuerunt, post adunationem una facta est. Quero ab iis, quando velint dicere ante adunationem: Si ante Incarnationis Dominic mysterium provenit, quis nesciat divinitatis esse naturas, & ineffabiliter differentes? iam summam omnium naturarum, istam, & si imaginem deitatis gerentem, tamen terrenae conditionis & infirmam. Nos autem de Incarnationis sacrae ratione tractamus, non de istarum, quae nota est omnibus, distantia naturarum. Si ante ergo quam hoc mysterium in utero Virginis gigneretur, nulla quaestio nulla contentio est, duas esse naturas divinitatis & humanitatis, longeque diversas, nos autem, sicut dictum est, de mysterio loquimur Christiano, quod utique in vero Virginis Matris est indicium, proinde si illinc velint accipi ante adunationem duas fuisse in utero scilicet maceratio: ergo fuit ibi aliquod interstitium, quod ante adunationem sui istae naturae putarentur fuisse discretae & in adunationem postea convenisse. Redolent hic Nestorii, utique ille dixit in partu, nudumque hominem disseruit procreatum, & postmodum in Deum fuisse provectum: hoc isti huius mysterij deprehenduntur sentire conceptum, si illic interstitium quantumlibet intervenisse dicatur, quo aliquid ante praecesserit, & aliquid Postea sic secutum ac non potius & ipse fuerit conceptus unitio, & ipsa primordialiter extiterit unitione conceptus, atque in huius unitionis effectu prorsus omne quod dicitur antea & postea sit remotum: quia non velut duae substantiae primitus extiterunt, id est, ipsius humanae formae quae suscepta est, & deitatis quae suscepit, ut earum postea, adunatio sequeretur, sed hoc ineffabile magnumque mysterium adunatione sit potius inchoatum, & ipsa inchoatione huius conceptionis unitum. Iam vero si, ut ipsi delirant, adunatione una facta natura est, aut unius abolitio est, aut utriusque confusio. Quod utrumque fides Catholica, & ipsius veritas sacramenti non recipit, testificantibus, ut dictum est, editis divinitas paginis, quibus sicut a principio sui & duarum naturarum hac unitione conceptus est, & conceptio Virginis hac eadem divinitatis pariter & humanitatis unitione perfecta procedat, ita & in hoc mysterio permanentibus utriusque naturis, & sacra partus evenit, & omni tempore, quo in hoc mundo Redemptor noster esse dignatus est, Deus simul & homo propriè permanens, veraciter id existendo, signis competentibus apparuit, dictis sacrisque conspicuus. Sic ad Passionem, quam pro nobis est suscipere dignatus accessit, sic post Resurrectionem curiosis etiam se non est dedignatus declarare discipulis, talisque ascendit in caelum, atque ita inde promissus est esse venturus, & in utraque natura etiam nunc caelo positus Apostolica praedicatione firmatur existere. Quis audeat non minus sacrilega mente, quam imperitis blasphemiis, mortiferaque dementia unam dicere post adunationem factam fuisse naturam? cum totius Scripturae salutaribus eruditionibus instituamur, & duas unitas fuisse conceptum, & sub una eademque Persona Domini nostri Jesu Christi totius Dei hominis, & totius hominis Dei duas in suis proprietatibus incontaminata generatione prolatas, & easdem propriè permanentes in conversatione mundana fuisse manifestas, & in omnibus. Ut saepe iam dictum est, sine defectu alterius utramque persistere in utraque unum eundemque Dominum Jesum Christum, totum Deum hominem, et totum hominem Deum, sine sui confusione, sine ulla divisione, quam conditio possit quacunque perstringere, sine privatione, vel defectu cujusquam, ex iis proprié, vel in iis veraciter manere, ex quibus, vel in quibus unus et perfectus, et verus est Christus, et sine quibus, vel sine qualibet ex iis, id est, sine humanitate, seu deitate, nec perfectus, nec unus, nec verus est Christus tempore conceptus. Dictum est: Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis. Tempore vero partus legimus: Emmanuel esse natum. Sic Angelos cecinisse gloriam Dei, sic nuntiasse pastoribus filium Dei natum: sic Magos ab Oriente Bethleem petiisse, et quem novo sidere gentium cognoverant, adorare, ut tamen veraciter puerum pannis involutum, praesepio positum, veraciter materno gremio gestatum, eum eum Magi oblatis muneribus adorarent, humanae substantiae et nostrae naturae conditionis exortum, sicut evangelica voce depromitur, sic Ecclesiae Catholicae professione credatur, ita deinceps pariter hunc eundem Dominum Jesum Christum et Deum, explesse quae humana sunt, et hominem gessisse quae divina sunt, ut in utroque hunc eundem unum veraciter existentem omnis confessio Christiana concederet: sic ad passionem venisse, ut et Deus et homo verus sit crucifixus: Et in Cruce pendens, latroni homo Deus verus patefecit atria paradisi, atque elementa etiam commovit: ut Deum hominem verum mortuum, sepultum, ut hominem Deum verum sepultum suscitasse post triduum, ut hominem Deum clausis januis coram discipulis constitisse, ut Deum hominem, manus suas, et pedes, carnem, ossaque monstrasse discipulis: ut Deum verum hominem quadraginta diebus ita discipulis fuisse conspicuum, ut hominem Deum verum sic in caelo esse sublatum, sicque inde promissum esse venturum Deum: Sic hominis filium a dextris stantem Dei, beato Stephano martyre testificante, conspectum: sic in caelestibus constitutum beato Paulo praedicante monstratum, cum ait: In quo habitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter: Sic inde veraciter Deum hominis filium sedentem in nubibus caeli, venturum ad judicandos vivos et mortuos. Quibus omnibus testimoniis manifestissime declaratur in utraque naturis, ex quibus, vel in quibus conceptus, editus, nutritus, et conversatus in mundo est, et elevatus ad caelum, unum atque eundem manere Dominum Jesum Christum, qui in utroque unus atque idem veraciter Deus homo, et homo Deus manere non possit, nisi utraque natura, in qua id permanet veraciter permaneret: ut iisdem naturis veraciter permanentibus, ex quibus, vel in quibus unus atque idem verus homo Deus, et Deus homo verus exstitit, idem semper homo Deus verus, et Deus homo verus esse permaneat. Adhuc autem, etiam illud adjicimus, ut sicut ex duabus rebus constat homo, id est ex anima et corpore, quanvis utriusque rei sit diversa natura: sicut dubium non habetur, plenitudine tamen usus loquendi singulariter pronunciet, simul utrumque complectens, ut humanam dictat naturam, non humanas natura, sic potentiam in Christi mysterio, et unitionem divinitatis atque humanitatis unam dici vel debere, vel posse naturam: non considerantes, quia cum una natura dictatur humana, quae tamen ex duabus constet, id est, ex anima et corpore principaliter, illa causa est, qua nec initialiter anima alibi possit existere, quam in corpore, nec corpus valeat subsistere sine anima: et merito qua alterutro sibi sit causa existendi, pariter unam abusive dici posse naturam, quae sibi invicem causam praebeat, ut ex alterutro natura subsistat humana, salva proprietate duntaxat duarum. Licet autem more locutionis humanae etiam a parte saepe totum quodlibet possit intelligi: quemadmodum cum dicimus: tot animas, corpora pariter indicamus: vel cum dicimus: Omnis caro naturas animarum simili designationes complectitur, nec habemus incognitum. Sic nos unam rem pro duabus dicere ad utraque significandas, ut tamen et duas esse nullatenus ignoremus, et propriis constare substantiis quantanis unitione nectantur: nam deitas absque humanitate permanet esse quod deitas est, et humanitas etiam sine adsumptione divina in sua, qua divinitas instituta est, permanet esse natura, atque ita sine sui adunatione possunt in suis proprietatibus permanere: ex quo si earum sacra processit unio, propter salvandam plenitudinem sacramenti, perfectionemque mysterii has easdem necessarium est proferri sub una eademque persona sic indiscretas atque inseparabiles illa unitione constare, ut permaneant esse quod sunt: Nam in hoc mysterio etiam nulla necessitas impugnationis emergit, simpliciter unam rem frequenter pro utraque proferimus, ut dicamus filius hominis. Et: Quid me quaeritis occidere hominem, qui veritatem locutus sum vobis? Et iterum Apostolus: Cum autem benignitas, inquit, et humanitas apparuit Salvatoris nostri Dei. Et alibi: Qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula. Numquid cum tantummodo Deus dicitur, nonne etiam humanitas dicta deitas inde removetur: Numquid cum filius hominis dicitur, non etiam filius Dei consequenter adducitur: Numquid cum Verbum Dei dicitur, non simul intelligitur et caro quod factum est. Numquid cum caro corpore depromitur, non etiam divinitas indubitanter ostenditur: Aliud est quod vitato loquendi compendio saepe de qualibet rei parte dicimus, et totum quod est sine dubio profitemur. Aliud cum protumpit humana temeritatis audacia, quae sic aliquam partem nuncupare contendit, ut quod totum est negare moliatur, necesse fit pro veritate exsistentes, illos qui partem suscipiunt, partemque contemnunt etiam de toto convincere: Nam quomodo non videatur etiam suis verbis admoniti, quia cum dicant: qualibet modo humanam naturam salva corporis animaeque distantia, unum tamen quolibet modo humanam pronuntietur esse naturam: Hinc ergo se adunante divina, etiam secundum ipsos duae sunt, utique humana pariter et divina: una igitur nec potest esse, nec dici cum duae sint: Unio est enim duarum: non cuilibet alterius abolitio, nam nec dici potest unio, nisi duarum; alioquin dualitate subiecta, non unio potest vel dici vel esse, sed unio. Quisnam ferat dedignari eos vocabula promere naturarum; cum utique nulla res sit quae non propriam possit habere substantiam, substantia vero nulla sit, quae non natura dicatur: nam remove naturam cuilibet subsistentiae, tolles etiam sine dubitatione substantiam, sublata substantia, pariter res quaellbet illa tollitur. Dedignantur, inquam; illi nomen naturarum, cum Deus ipse non dedignatus sit natura suas vocabulo a suis Praedicatoribus nuncupari, sicut beatus Petrus Apostolus in Epistola sua dixit, cum Christi Domini mysterium praedicaret: Ut per haec, inquit, efficiamini divinae consortes naturae. Quid quod ipsi etiam unam dicendo naturam in Domino nostro Christo, natura tamen nomen dominari aferre, an unam liceat nominare naturam, et duas, vel plures rerum exsequarum appellare fas non erit? Quis ista non rideat, et tanquam puerilia deliramenta despiciat: Nam et cum dicunt, unam fuisse naturam incarnatam volentes hoc modo velut offendere singulariter, nullatenus evadunt significationem duarum, dum enim dicitur unam divinitatis naturam fuisse incarnatam remotis ambiguitatibus, altera erit quae incarnata est, altera quae incarnata perhibetur: quoniam non eadem erit natura deitatis, quae incarnata est; quae est natura carnis; quae incarnata affirmatur, neque ipsa natura deitatis incarnata est, sed natura carnis incarnata cognoscitur. Sicut neque ipsa natura carnis extitit deitate sublimis; quia et non aliunde divinitas, quam de utero Virginis Matris incarnata procedit, et carno non fuit in eisdem visceribus Sancto Spiritu superveniente, et Altissimi obumbrante virtute est unita deitati. Certe cum dicimus de uno eodemque Domino nostro, quid secundum Deum, quid secundum hominem dixerit feceritque, vel etiam si dicamus hoc: ut homo Deus dixit aut fecit, et hoc ut homo Deus dixit et fecit, quaero utrum, vel cum secundum hominem dicimus dicitur factumque aliquid, vel Deus homo fecit aut dixit aliquid, utrumne in eo homo sit verus an falsus. Si falsus, MANICHAEUS, APOLLINARIS, Marcionista, atque huiusmodi pestes consequenter exsultaverunt, quae in Christo Domino veritatem corporis abnegaverunt, aut putandum esse dixerunt: Vel alias interim perniciosiores, quae hoc dogmate continuent haereses nunc omittam. Si autem cum hominem Christum quoquomodo nuncupamus, verus illic intelligendus est homo, sicut fide Catholicam tenere manifestum est, vera illic ergo et humana natura subsistentia, et proprietas humana veraciter conditionis exsistit, ut verus homo sine contradictione subsistat; quia aliter esse verus homo non possit, nisi natura suae subsistentiae et vera proprietate subsistens. Nihil ergo cur vel esse verum videantur firmare: si non est. Aut eum negare contendant verum non esse, quod verum est. Si autem non negant; manet ergo naturaliter in suae proprietate subsistentia: quia verum aliter esse non potest. Quaerunt ergo isti, quia suae dementiae foveas quibus circumdantur evadant, et palam seautin illorum esse numero fateantur, qui verum Christi corpus impugnant, aut negare non audeant, tum nisi hac ratione verum esse non possit. Sicut et cum eundem Deum dicimus, vel secundum Deum loqui, aut facere praedicamus, aliter verum esse non possit, nisi veram illic divinitatem, et in suae proprietate subsistentia permanentem deitatis fatemur esse naturam. Ergo hae utraeque in uno Domino Jesu Christo vera esse manifestum est. Vera autem utraeque aliter esse non possunt, nisi in suarum proprietate permanentia naturarum, nullus humanae mentis sensus, si quantulacunque rationis est, prorsus addubitat. Hae inquam, in uno eodemque Domino Jesu Christo, atque in eius una eademque persona, quae ex utrisque naturis unus atque idem est, utraeque ineffabili atque insolubili unione perpetua sunt, ut et totus homo Deus sit, et totus Deus homo sit, atque hae eadem ex quibus, vel in quibus unus atque idem et Deus homo est, et homo Deus est, conficiant non sint, deficiente non sint, sed sic unum eundemque Deum hominem et hominem Deum utraeque naturae perficiant, ut proprietatem suam penitus non amittant, qua ex utrisque unus atque idem Deus homo, et homo Deus possit esse, perficiant: Si qualibet parte, quod absit proprietas exinde subsistatur, aut Deus homo non erit, aut homo Deus est: non potest. Ac sic eo venimus, quo nos istorum cogit venire intentio, unius rei proprietate sublata pro parte apud eos medius restat Christus, non unus, non integer, ideoque nec verus, sequitur ut falsus; quia modis omnibus in hoc rendit abhorret, si aliquid naturaliter inde removeatur, ex quibus vel in quibus unus et integer Christus est, ob hoc consequenter et verus: Ergo ut verus sit, integer sit necesse est, ut integer sit, unus atque idem sit, utroque in eo sine ambiguo permanente, ex quibus vel in quibus unus idemque persistit: Unde quod nos homines imperiti duos Christos adseverare detestantur, quia dicimus proprietatem utriusque subsistentiae, vel naturae in Christo manere perpetuum, dolenda potius eorum grandis est excaecatio, quae non vident, non duos Christos per haec posse depromi, ex quibus integer Christus exsistit, et sine quarum unaquaque subsistentia integer non possit ostendi: Sed ipsi potius se non integrum Christum confitentur altuere, cum in eodem Sacramento aliquid de iis, quibus integer constat, conantur abstrahere; atque non magis unum dicimus, qui integrum profitentur, et illi partem removendo de iis, ex quibus integer et unus exsistit, ita unum non habent, sicut nec integrum, et sicut integrum non habent, ita nec verum. Quapropter cum nobis obiicitur videri sine quibus integer unus et verus Christus omnino non consistat, aperiant oculos illi cordis, et videant quod ipsis potius re vera illis imputetur, per quam non integer Christus, ergo nec unus, nec verus apud eos esse doceatur. Numquid nam cum 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 scriptura divina saepe testatur auctoritas, et tamen non ideo duo homines in uno, sed una persona et unus est homo; unde interior et exterior ad significationem dicitur qualitatum, non ad evidentiam personalem duorum. Quanto magis in illa ineffabili adunatione individibili, nunquamque solvenda, sicut salva proprietate utriusque naturae, ex quibus hoc mysterium constare non dubium est, et sine quibus constare non possit manifestum est: sicut una eademque persona est Domini nostri Jesu Christi, sic integer, sic unus, sic verus Christus est! Et magis unus non est, si integer non est, quia sublata parte ex iis, quibus integer approbatur, 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. Quod mysterium a beatae conceptionis exordio sic constare Sacra Scriptura testatur, dicendo: Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum, septiformis spiritus soliditate subnixam, quae Incarnationis Christi rem, quam efficiunt divinae consortes naturae, ministraret alimoniam. Certe sacramenta quae sumimus corporis et sanguinis Christi, divina res est, propter quod et per eadem divinae efficiuntur 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 offenditur, hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino sentiendum, quod in eius imagine profitemur, celebramus, et sentimus, ut sicut in hanc, scilicet in divinam transeat, Sancto Spiritu perfundente substantiam, permanente tamen in sua proprietate naturae, sic illud ipsum mysterium principale, cuius nobis efficaciam virtutemque veraciter repraesentant: ex quibus constare proprié permanentibus unum Christum, quia integrum verumque permanere demonstrant. Sed Apostolus, inquiunt, dixit de Judaeis: Si cognovissent, numquam Dominum maiestatis crucifixissent. Et ecce, inquiunt, Dominus maiestatis est Crucifixus. Plane hoc dicimus, hoc scribimus salva impassibilitate deitatis: deitas enim impassibilis semper sine ambiguitate persistit. Sicut enim legitur Dominus maiestatis Christus, sic utique legitur etiam Hominis Filius. Itaque et Dominus maiestatis, Filius hominis est, et Homo est; et Filius hominis Deus est maiestatis, et homo Deus est, et quicquid deitatis est, habet filius hominis, et quicquid humanitatis est, habet Dominus maiestatis. Beatum Petrum audiamus dicentem: Christo igitur carne passo vosmet ipsos eadem fide armamini. Carne passum dicimus, non deitate, cum tamen ipsa deitas totum suum faciat, quicquid caro perpessa est: sicut et filius hominis suum habet totum, quicquid est Dei et sublimis persona merito unus atque idem dicitur pati, quicquid ut Deus homo patitur, non infirmitate et conditione passibili, sed dignitate suam faciens passionis iniuriam, adunatione particeps, sed sine passibilitate compatiens, sicut unus idemque virtutes operatur, quicquid ut homo Deus operatur. Si enim quanquam corporeis obnoxia passionibus anima sit humana, et corum vel molestetur blanditiis, vel afficitur adversis, et compatiendo sentiat ipsa quicquid conditioni carnis infertur, non tamen secundum se ipsa est quae est animae substantia ullo vulnere sauciatur, vel quibuslibet plagis vexationibusque contingitur. Unde dictum est: Nolite timere eos qui occidunt corpus, animam autem non possunt occidere. Quomodo posset fieri, ut deitas his subiaceret rebus, quibus anima non subiacere cognoscitur? Cum tamen ut dictum est, divinitatis non passibilitate non cruciatione, non adflictione, non vulneratione passibilis sit, sed ea dignatione qua suscepit hominem sibique univit, suam facit quicquid hominis est, quia homini tribuit quicquid est Dei, ita tamen, ut ab omni passibilitate prorsus intemerata permaneat. Quapropter hanc regulam Catholicae fidei, orthodoxaeque doctrinae, quam a cunctis patribus, Catholicaque magisteriis Ecclesiae, sicut eorum dicta testantur, quae recensere perlongum est, ex divinis manantia fontibus ad nos usque transmisimus, quamque summam in perfectione libavimus, cum sedem Apostolicam veluti dilectio unanimiter veneremur constanter praeferat, sapienterque defendat, cunctasque adversum hanc blasphemias procedentes exterminet, quae pugna magis verborum, sicut ait Apostolus, conantur ingerere, quam salutarem cunctis suscipere veritatem, ut idipsum dicentes uno corde, unoque ore, et credamus quod a maioribus nostris accepimus, et donante Domino tradamus posteris confitendum, cum quibus nobis unitam fidem Deo propicio perdurare Catholicorum subiecta testimonia magistrorum recensita testantur.

It was also necessary that, since a recent dispute or controversy concerning the sacrament of the Lord's Incarnation has affected many—namely, the need to truly profess the divinity and humanity of our Savior in equal measure, to the extent that He deigns to mercifully conceal it—these matters be deemed fitting for faith and reason. This is especially true since, as far as has been reported to us, a childish and pernicious cunning has proclaimed itself to have provided a necessary argument, asserting that any intellect should properly consider there to be only one substance in the restorer of the human race. This ridiculous subtlety opposes the Eutychians, who preach one nature in our Redeemer, while two ought to be duly professed by us; and likewise opposes the Nestorians, who divide the natures in the same sacrament of the Lord, with one to be confessed by us. Therefore, this perverse ingenuity must be most carefully guarded against, as it lacks both the truth of faith and the logic of reason, and with harmful subtlety seeks to define the understanding of a single nature in our restorer in certain ways. For both plagues of madness rage in their blasphemy regarding the conception in the virgin and the very primordial or initial origin of the Lord Savior, who, in the womb of the untouched mother, with the earthly father's role ceasing, by a divine and simple operation established the matter of human condition from the substance of the mother, and by the dignity of sacred majesty granted the union of divine power, so that the ineffable union of true nature might miraculously and powerfully exist from the very beginning of the sacred conception. Nor did anything precede or follow in the inner parts of the holy Mother regarding this sacrament's institution. But rather, the effect of this mystery's conception itself will precede, and no pre-existing substance of perfect union will have been added there; rather, it began with the perfect union of both substances. Just as the Angel said to the venerable Virgin, when she learned of the glorious offspring to come and asked, "How will this be, since I know not man?" the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore, that which will be born from you will be called holy, the Son of God. And "from you will be born," he said, to express the property to be taken from the mother of our condition; and "holy," because it would be born without the contagion of carnal desire; and "will be called the Son of God," so that through this conception the sacrament of the marvelous union of human and divine natures, as stated, might be revealed—according to what is written: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." The Spirit of God preferred to say, "The Word made flesh," since the Word was not entirely converted into flesh, but rather signified the natural presence and truth of the principal union of divinity and humanity in the same, when it appeared that the Word itself was working in the womb of the Virgin Mother, taking from her the conception of the substance to be preserved, which it had aroused. Since, I say, concerning the conception of our Lord—which, though it cannot be fully explained, must nonetheless be piously believed in this profession—the Eutychians say there is one nature, that is, divine, and Nestorius likewise mentions a singular one, that is, human. If against the Eutychians two must be asserted by us because they propose one, it follows that against Nestorius, who speaks of one, we must rather proclaim that from the beginning two existed in their unity, beyond doubt. Against Eutyches, who asserts one, that is, only the divine, we appropriately add the human, to show that the two natures from which this unique sacrament consists remain there. Against Nestorius, who similarly speaks of one, that is, the human, we likewise substitute the divine, so that by a true definition we may refute that the two natures existed from the primordial effects of their union in the fullness of this mystery, and thus overcome both, who babble about single natures in different ways, not about only one, but about both of the natures—human and divine—from their origin, united in property without any confusion or defect.   For although the same Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same, entirely God and man, and entirely man and God, and whatever is of humanity, God makes His own man, and whatever is of God, man has as God, yet for this sacrament to remain and not be dissolved in any part, so the whole man remains what God is, and the whole God remains whatever man is. If anything—God forbid—either of divinity or humanity were to depart from it, an ineffable dissolution of the sacrament would follow, and what has been said must be avoided: either man would cease to be God, and only humanity, not also divinity, would persist; or God would consequently cease to be man, if only divinity, not also humanity, remained united. Nor would our condition seem glorified by the union with divinity, but rather confused if the same substance were not in glory, but only divinity existed, and humanity had already ceased to be there. It would appear—though the mind recoils from saying it, yet necessity compels us not to be silent—that divinity in both would be mutable, if it were either converted into flesh or so infused into the condition of humanity that its property ceased to exist. For if it is no longer entirely itself, it follows that it has been added to and increased by divinity, thus passing into the nature of divinity, so that humanity would entirely cease to be, where in every way the divine substance seems to receive mutability—which, since it cannot be diminished at all or increased by the infusion of added humanity, would appear augmented. But if the human condition, not infused into divinity as a substance, nor perceived to have absorbed it by its accession, does not persist in its property, it is nowhere recognized as celestial, and thus not exalted but rather abolished; and so, to the extent it pertains to them, the indissoluble sacrament is dissolved. Furthermore, if humanity, as they suppose, is infused into divinity or entirely transferred and ceases to be a human substance, then the form of humanity, without its property, has ceased; if they say the features of the human form consist in mere divinity, what else would they be convicted of introducing but the Anthropomorphites, whom the Catholic Church long ago condemned for such dreams? For if both the substance and form of the man Jesus Christ were consumed by this infusion, who is it whom Saint Stephen saw standing at the right hand of power? Who is the Son of Man who will come to judge the living and the dead? Who is it whom we will see? In whom did they pierce? Every mystery is abolished, emptied, and dissolved, as has been said—God forbid—all the sacrament would fail, and the Savior's own words would be false: "Touch and see, for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see I have." He said this truly after the resurrection, as He was when He conversed with His disciples for forty days, eating and drinking with them; as He was when He ascended into heaven; as He was when He promised to return from there. Or let them read where, after He professed this, He was changed and ascended into heaven differently than He revealed Himself to His disciples. Or let us more rightly follow what is established in divine writings, not pursue the dreams and vain imaginations of the deluded. But they say, foolish men that they are, thinking to escape the force of this manifestation: as He Himself willed, so He exalted and magnified human nature. Indeed, as He Himself willed, as He foretold through His prophets, as He willed to be made known through His Apostles and Evangelists to His Church. Therefore, as has been said, let us review the pages of this sacrament from its beginning, what they decreed about His conception, what about His birth, what about the one and same Person of our Lord Jesus Christ, both God and man, man and God. What did the divine voice pronounce about Him before the Passion, or what did He Himself testify about Himself? What did He likewise teach after the Resurrection, as He was when He conversed with His disciples on earth, as He ascended into heaven, what was promised about Him as He ascended to heaven, what about Him now established in heaven, what do all the celestial sayings pronounce about His coming, and how He willed to be understood or professed by our confession? Let us hear this with the Scriptures as witnesses, and let us be content with His will in all things, by which He deigned to reveal Himself to us. But let us now investigate more diligently whether the Eutychians, who pretend to refute Nestorius and for this reason attempt to introduce one nature into the Catholic understanding—though this has already been clearly destroyed by reason, and not by some circuitous and hidden ambiguities, not knowing what they say or affirm—are unwittingly reduced to the same Nestorius, willing or unwilling. For they say that before the union there were two natures, and after the union one was made. I ask them when they wish to say "before the union": if before the mystery of the Lord's Incarnation came about, who does not know that there are natures of divinity, and ineffably distinct? Namely, the highest of all natures, this one, and even if it bears the image of divinity, yet it is of earthly condition and weak. But we are dealing with the rationale of the sacred Incarnation, not with the distinction of these, which is known to all. Therefore, if before this mystery was conceived in the Virgin's womb, there is no question or contention that there are two natures, divinity and humanity, far different, yet we, as has been said, speak of the Christian mystery, which is certainly indicated in the true Virgin Mother. Therefore, if they wish it to be understood from there that before the union there were two in the womb, namely a separation, then there was some interval there, which they suppose these natures were distinct before the union and later came together in union. This smells of Nestorius; indeed, he said at birth, and asserted that a mere man was procreated, and afterward advanced to God; these are found to hold this view of the conception of this mystery if some interval, however small, is said to have intervened, by which something preceded and something followed, and not rather that the conception itself was the union, and that it primordially existed by union, and in the effect of this union all that is said to be before or after is entirely removed. Because it was not as if two substances first existed—that is, the human form that was assumed and the divinity that assumed it—so that their union would follow later, but this ineffable and great mystery began rather with the union, and by the beginning of this conception it was united. Now if, as they rave, one nature was made by union, it is either the abolition of one or the confusion of both. Neither of which the Catholic faith or the truth of the sacrament accepts, as testified by the divine pages issued, as has been said, by which, just as from the beginning of its own and the union of two natures the conception occurred, and the Virgin's conception proceeded by this same perfect union of divinity and humanity, so also in this mystery the two natures remain, and the sacred birth occurred, and at all times while our Redeemer deigned to be in this world, God and man properly remaining, He truly existed, appearing with fitting signs, conspicuous in words and sacred deeds. Thus He approached the Passion, which He deigned to undergo for us; thus after the Resurrection He did not disdain to reveal Himself to His curious disciples; as such He ascended into heaven, and thus He is promised to return; and in both natures, even now placed in heaven, He is confirmed to exist by Apostolic preaching. Who would dare, with a mind as sacrilegious as it is ignorant, and with deadly madness, to say that one nature was made after the union? When we are instructed by the salutary teachings of all Scripture, and the unity of two natures was conceived, and under one and the same Person of our Lord Jesus Christ, entirely God and man, and entirely man and God, two were brought forth in their uncontaminated generation, and these same remained manifest in their worldly conversation, and in all things.   As often said, without the defect of the other, both persist in each, making one and the same Lord Jesus Christ, entirely God and man, and entirely man and God, without confusion, without any division that any condition might affect, without deprivation or defect of either, remaining truly from those or in those, one and perfect and true Christ, and without which, or without any of them—that is, without humanity or divinity—neither perfect, nor one, nor true is Christ at the time of conception. It is said: "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." At the time of birth, we read that Emmanuel was born. Thus the angels sang glory to God, thus announced to the shepherds the Son of God was born; thus the Magi from the East sought Bethlehem and adored Him whom they recognized by a new star among the nations, so that they might truly adore the child wrapped in swaddling clothes, placed in a manger, truly carried in the maternal bosom, and the Magi with their offerings. The evangelical voice expresses the origin of human substance and our nature's condition, as is believed by the profession of the Catholic Church, and henceforth equally this same Lord Jesus Christ, both God and man, fulfilled what is human, and as man performed what is divine, so that in both this same one truly existing might be conceded by every Christian confession: thus He came to the Passion, so that both true God and true man might be crucified; and hanging on the Cross, as man and God He opened the courts of paradise to the thief and even moved the elements; so that true God and man died, was buried, so that true man and God raised Himself after three days, so that true man and God stood before His disciples with closed doors, so that true God and man showed His hands, feet, flesh, and bones to His disciples; so that true God and man was so visible to His disciples for forty days, so that true man and God was thus lifted into heaven, and thus promised to return as God; so the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God was seen by the blessed martyr Stephen; so established in the heavens He was shown by the preaching of blessed Paul, who said: "In whom dwells all the fullness of divinity bodily"; so truly from there the God, Son of Man, sitting on the clouds of heaven, will come to judge the living and the dead. By all these testimonies, it is most clearly declared that in both natures, from which or in which He was conceived, born, nourished, and conversed in the world, and lifted to heaven, one and the same Lord Jesus Christ remains, who in both cannot remain one and the same truly God and man, and man and God, unless both natures, in which this truly persists, truly remained; so that with these natures truly remaining, from which or in which one and the same true man and God, and God and man truly existed, the same always remains true man and God, and God and true man. Moreover, we add this: just as man consists of two things, that is, soul and body, though the nature of each is diverse, yet it is not doubted that, with the fullness of speech, it is singularly pronounced, encompassing both, so that human nature is said, not human natures; thus in the mystery of Christ, the union of divinity and humanity may be called one nature, either ought to or can be, not considering that when one human nature is named, which nonetheless consists of two—that is, soul and body principally—this is the reason why neither can the soul initially exist elsewhere than in the body, nor can the body subsist without the soul; and deservedly, since one is the cause of the other's existence, it can be abusively called one nature, which provides a cause to each other, so that a human nature subsists from the other, preserving only the property of the two. Although by the custom of human speech, the whole can often be understood from a part—as when we say "so many souls," we also indicate bodies; or when we say "all flesh encompasses the natures of souls with similar designation," we do not find it unknown. Thus we say one thing for two to signify both, yet we do not ignore that there are two, and consist of their own substances, however united; for divinity remains what divinity is without humanity, and humanity also, without divine assumption, remains in its nature as instituted by divinity, and thus without their union they can remain in their properties; from which, if their sacred union proceeded for the sake of preserving the fullness of the sacrament and the perfection of the mystery, it is necessary to present these same under one and the same person, so indivisible and inseparable by that union, that they remain what they are. For in this mystery, no necessity of contention arises; we often simply put forth one thing for both, as we say "Son of Man." And: "Why do you seek to kill a man who has spoken the truth to you?" And again the Apostle: "But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared." And elsewhere: "Who is over all, God blessed forever." Surely when only God is named, is not humanity thereby removed from divinity? Surely when "Son of Man" is said, is not the Son of God consequently brought in? Surely when the Word of God is named, is not the flesh that was made also understood? Surely when flesh is expressed corporeally, is not divinity undoubtedly shown? It is one thing that, avoiding the brevity of speech, we often say of any part of a thing, and without doubt profess the whole that is. It is another when the audacity of human temerity contends to name some part in such a way as to deny what is whole; it becomes necessary for the sake of truth to convince those who accept a part and despise a part, even of the whole. For how is it not seen, even warned by their own words, that when they say in any way human nature, preserving the distinction of body and soul, yet one human nature is pronounced in any way? Hence, with divinity united to it, even according to them there are two, namely human and divine; therefore, it cannot be one, nor can it be said to be one when there are two: for union is of two, not the abolition of either; for union cannot be said unless of two; otherwise, with duality as its subject, it cannot be called or be a union, but a union. Who can bear that they disdain to express the names of natures, when certainly no thing exists that cannot have its own substance, and no substance exists that is not called a nature; for remove nature from any subsistence, and you will also undoubtedly remove the substance; with the substance removed, likewise any thing is taken away. They disdain, I say, the name of natures, though God Himself did not disdain for His nature to be named by His preachers, as blessed Peter the Apostle said in his letter when he preached the mystery of Christ the Lord: "That through these you may become partakers of the divine nature." What of the fact that they themselves, by saying one nature in our Lord Christ, nonetheless bring the name nature to dominate—may one nature be named, and two or more kinds of things be lawfully called? Who would not laugh at this and regard it as childish nonsense? For even when they say one nature was incarnate, wishing to offend singularly in this way, they by no means escape the signification of two; for when it is said that one nature of divinity was incarnate, with ambiguities removed, there will be another that was incarnate, another that is said to have been incarnate; since the nature of divinity will not be the same as that which was incarnate, which is the nature of flesh; which is said to have been incarnate, nor is the nature of divinity itself incarnate, but the nature of flesh is recognized as incarnate. Just as the nature of flesh itself did not exist as sublime divinity; because divinity also did not come from anywhere else than from the womb of the Virgin Mother, incarnate, and flesh was not in the same womb when the Holy Spirit came upon her, and the power of the Most High overshadowed and united it to divinity. Certainly when we speak of one and the same Lord of ours, what He said or did according to God, what according to man, or even if we say this: that as man God said or did, and this as man God said and did, I ask whether, when we say something was said or done according to man, or that God and man did or said something, whether in Him man is true or false. If false, the Manichaeans, Apollinarians, Marcionites, and similar pests consequently rejoice, who denied the truth of Christ's body or said it should be thought otherwise; or meanwhile other more pernicious ones, who continue this dogma, I now omit their heresies. But if, whenever we name Christ as man in any way, He is to be understood as true man, as it is manifest to hold by Catholic faith, then there is truly a human nature and a human property of condition existing verily, so that true man subsists without contradiction; because otherwise He cannot be true man unless subsisting in the true nature and property of His subsistence. Therefore, why do they seem to affirm what is not true if it is not? Or let them contend to deny that He is not true, which is true. But if they do not deny it, it remains naturally in the subsistence of its property; because it cannot be true otherwise. They ask, therefore, that by the pits of their madness, by which they are surrounded, they might escape, and openly confess themselves to be of the number of those who attack the true body of Christ, or dare not deny, then unless by this reasoning it cannot be true. Just as when we call Him God, or say He speaks or acts according to God, He cannot be true otherwise unless we confess there is true divinity there, and a subsistent nature remaining in its property. Therefore, it is manifest that both are true in one Lord Jesus Christ. But both cannot be true otherwise unless they remain in the property of their natures; no sense of the human mind, if it has any reason at all, doubts this at all. These, I say, in one and the same Lord Jesus Christ, and in His one and same person, which from both natures is one and the same, are perpetually united by an ineffable and indissoluble union, so that the whole man is God, and the whole God is man, and these same from which, or in which, one and the same is both God and man, and man and God, are not made, are not deficient, but so perfect the one and same God and man, and man and God by both natures, that they do not utterly lose their property, by which from both one and the same God and man, and man and God can be, they perfect: if any part—God forbid—the property ceases from there, either God will not be man, or man will not be God; it cannot be. And so we come to where their intention forces us to go, with the property of one thing removed in part, Christ remains half with them, not one, not whole, and therefore not true; it follows that He is false; because in every way this is abhorrent if anything is naturally removed from those from which or in which one and whole Christ is, and consequently true: therefore, to be true, He must be whole; to be whole, He must be one and the same, with both in Him without ambiguity, from which or in which one and the same persists: whence what they detest, that we unlearned men assert two Christs, because we say the property of each subsistence or nature remains perpetual in Christ, it is rather to be lamented that their great blindness does not see that by this two Christs cannot be expressed, from which the whole Christ exists, and without either subsistence He cannot be shown whole; but they rather confess to upholding a Christ who is not whole, since in the same sacrament they attempt to abstract something from those by which He is whole; and we do not say one more, who profess Him whole, and they, by removing a part from those from which He is whole and one, thus do not have one, just as they do not have a whole, and as they do not have a whole, so they do not have a true one. Therefore, when it is objected to us that it seems that without which the whole, one, and true Christ cannot consist at all, let them open the eyes of their hearts and see that this is rather truly imputed to them, by which a Christ who is not whole, therefore neither one nor true, is taught to be among them. Surely when man consists of soul and body, of which there is no doubt that there are two natures, is he not by natural union one person and one man? Moreover, we say that both the inner man and the outer man are often testified by divine Scripture’s authority, and yet not therefore two men in one, but one person and one man; whence inner and outer are said for the signification of qualities, not for the evidence of two persons. How much more in that ineffable, indivisible, and never-to-be-dissolved union, just as with the property of each nature preserved, from which this mystery is undoubtedly constituted, and without which it cannot be constituted is manifest: so is there one and the same person of our Lord Jesus Christ, so whole, so one, so true Christ! And He is not more one if He is not whole, because with a part removed from those by which He is approved whole, He will seem half, not whole: and so He is not one, as He is not whole: and as He is not whole, so He is not true: if He is not true, Christ is proven false among them. This mystery, from the beginning of the blessed conception, Sacred Scripture testifies to consist, saying: "Wisdom has built her house, supported by the solidity of the sevenfold spirit," which ministers nourishment to the matter of Christ's Incarnation, by which they become partakers of the divine nature. Certainly the sacraments we receive of the body and blood of Christ are a divine thing, because of which and through which they become partakers of the divine nature, and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to be: and certainly the image and likeness of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. Therefore, it is sufficiently evident to us that this must be felt in Christ our Lord Himself, which we profess, celebrate, and feel in His image, so that just as into this, namely the divine, the substance passes, infused by the Holy Spirit, yet the nature remains in its property, so this very principal mystery, whose efficacy and power are truly represented to us: from which it properly remains, demonstrating that one Christ remains whole and true. But the Apostle, they say, said of the Jews: "If they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of majesty." And behold, they say, the Lord of majesty was crucified. Plainly we say this, we write this, preserving the impassibility of divinity: for divinity always persists without ambiguity impassible. Just as it is read that Christ is the Lord of majesty, so certainly it is also read that He is the Son of Man. Thus both the Lord of majesty is the Son of Man and man; and the Son of Man is God of majesty, and man is God, and whatever is of divinity, the Son of Man has, and whatever is of humanity, the Lord of majesty has. Let us hear blessed Peter saying: "Therefore, arm yourselves with the same faith, since Christ suffered in the flesh." We say He suffered in the flesh, not in divinity, though divinity makes its own whatever the flesh endured: just as the Son of Man has all His own, whatever is of God and the sublime person is deservedly called one and the same to suffer, whatever as God and man He suffers, not by weakness and passible condition, but by dignity making the injury of passion His own, partaking in union, but without passibility, compassionating, just as one and the same works virtues, whatever as man God works. For if, though subject to bodily passions, the human soul is troubled by their allurements or affected by adversities, and by compassion feels whatever is inflicted on the condition of the flesh, yet it is not the substance of the soul itself that is wounded by any injury or afflicted by any blows or torments. Whence it is said: "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul." How could it happen that divinity would be subject to those things to which the soul is not known to be subject? Yet, as has been said, not by the passibility, not by the torment, not by the affliction, not by the wounding of divinity is it passible, but by that dignity by which it assumed man and united him to itself, it makes its own whatever is man's, because it grants to man whatever is God's, yet so that it remains entirely untouched by all passibility. Therefore, this rule of Catholic faith and orthodox doctrine, which, as their sayings testify, which it would be too long to recount, we have transmitted to us from divine sources by all the fathers and the Catholic teachings of the Church, and which we have sipped to its fullest perfection, since we unanimously venerate the Apostolic See as beloved and constantly prefer it, wisely defend it, and exterminate all blasphemies proceeding against it, which, as the Apostle says, strive more to impose a fight of words than to accept the salutary truth for all, so that saying the same with one heart and one mouth, and believing what we have received from our ancestors, and with the Lord’s gift passing it on to posterity for confession, with whom our united faith, God willing, endures, the submitted testimonies of Catholic teachers recounted testify.

 

Other instances where Pope Gelasius speaks of the Church include the two entries below that unlike the Treatise above, are found in Migne PL 59:143! Originally from Elpidio episcopo Volterrano frag 7 (Thiel 486).

GELASIUS ELPIDIO EPISCOPO. Sacrosancta religio, quae catholicam tenet disciplinam, tantam sibi reverentiam vindicat, ut ad eam quilibet nisi pura conscientia non audeat pervenire. Nam quomodo ad divini mysterii consecrationem coelestis Spiritus invocatus adveniet, si sacerdos, et qui eum adesse deprecatur, et criminosis plenus actionibus reprobetur?

GELASIUS TO BISHOP ELPIDIUS The most holy religion, which upholds Catholic discipline, claims such reverence for itself that no one dares approach it without a pure conscience. For how could the heavenly Spirit, invoked for the consecration of the divine mystery, come if the priest, who prays for His presence, is full of criminal actions and is condemned?

 

GELASIUS HELPIDIO EPISCOPO VOLATERRANO. Absque auctoritate Romani pontificis ad comitatum episcopi proficisci non audeant. (0143B)Quo ausu, qua temeritate rescribis Ravennam te parare proficisci, cum canones evidenter praecipiant nullum omnino pontificem nisi nobis visis, atque consultis, ad comitatum debere contendere (quod cum longaevi vel aetate vel honore pontifices Pistoriensis, Lucensis, et Fesulanus nuper monstrentur fecisse, tu qui paucorum dierum fungi sacerdotio videris), quemadmodum tibi putas licere, quod non licet; nisi quod hoc officio carere festinas, quod his excessibus te ostendis indignum?

GELASIUS TO BISHOP HELPIDIUS OF VOLTERRA Bishops must not dare to travel to the court without the authority of the Roman pontiff. With what audacity, with what recklessness do you write that you are preparing to travel to Ravenna, when the canons clearly command that no bishop may proceed to the court without consulting us? When long-serving bishops, distinguished by age or honor, such as those of Pistoia, Lucca, and Fiesole, have recently shown compliance with this, how do you, who appear to have held the priesthood for only a few days, think it permissible to do what is not allowed? Unless, perhaps, you hasten to forfeit this office, which you show yourself unworthy of through such excesses?

 

Concerning these two entries the Spanish theologian Jesus Solano makes the following notes:

Original Spanish

English Translation by AI

177 "Consagración" parece que no ha de entenderse aquí de la consagración en cuanto conversión del pan y del vino en el cuerpo y sangre de Nuestro Señor; más bien ha de tomarse en un sentido amplio, del que hay otros ejemplos en el lenguaje litúrgico, y abarcaría además de la conversión eucarística la "santificación" plena de la Eucaristía, la cual no desarrolla toda su virtualidad si por indignidad propia no queda santificado el comulgante. De todos modos en esta época sería un anacronismo el que afirmara aquí San Gelasio que la validez de la Eucaristía depende de la santidad del ministro. Cf. I. BRINKTRINE, Der Vollzieher der Eucharistie nach dem Brief des Papstes Gelasius († 496) an den Bischof Elpidius von Volterra: Miscellanea Liturgica... Mohlberg 2 (Roma 1949) 66-69. Esta es la que JUGIE llama epiclesis impetratoria o utilitaria en contraposición a la consecratoria: M. JUGIE, Considé- rations générales sur la question de l'épiclèse: Echos d'Orient 35 (1936) 325s.   178 Este texto ha sido muy discutido. Aceptamos la interpretación tan conforme al lenguaje eclesiástico de estos primeros siglos y al del propio San Gelasio, según la cual "sacerdos" equivale a obispo; consiguientemente el "et qui" ha de referirse al simple sacerdote de nuestra actual terminología. Cf. BRINKTRINE, o.c., 61-66.

177 "Consecration" here does not seem to refer to the consecration understood as the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Our Lord; rather, it should be taken in a broader sense, of which there are other examples in liturgical language, and it would encompass, in addition to the Eucharistic conversion, the full "sanctification" of the Eucharist, which does not realize its full potential if the communicant, due to their own unworthiness, is not sanctified. In any case, it would be anachronistic in this period to claim that Saint Gelasius asserted that the validity of the Eucharist depends on the sanctity of the minister. Cf. I. Brinktrine, The Minister of the Eucharist According to the Letter of Pope Gelasius († 496) to Bishop Elpidius of Volterra, Miscellanea Liturgica... Mohlberg 2 (Rome 1949) 66–69. This is what Jugie calls the imprecatory or utilitarian epiclesis, as opposed to the consecratory epiclesis: M. Jugie, General Considerations on the Question of the Epiclesis, Echos d’Orient 35 (1936) 325 ff. 178 This text has been widely debated. We accept the interpretation that is consistent with the ecclesiastical language of these early centuries and that of Saint Gelasius himself, according to which "sacerdos" is equivalent to bishop; consequently, the "et qui" must refer to the simple priest in our current terminology. Cf. Brinktrine, op. cit., 61–66.

 

Finally, we have a fragment found in Migne PL 59, the final sentence is the most pertinent:

communionem, id est consortium ceterorum fidelium et perceptionis sacri corporis et sanguinis Christi--Gelasius, Fragment 49 (Thiel 510)"

"communion is, integration with the rest of the faithful and the reception of the holy Body and Blood."

INCIPIUNT DICTA GELASII PAPAE.(Ex ms. cod. Luc. saec. IX.) Catechumeni, Latine dicuntur instructi vel audientes, ii sunt qui fidem Christi instructi audiunt Christi praecepta, et recte credunt, et etiam a sacerdote consignati sunt, et per exorcisma purgati, et resipiscunt, sed necdum sacro baptismate sunt abluti. Poenitentes hi dicuntur in canone qui de criminibus, de majoribus culpis agunt publice poenitentiam. Et sciendum est quia secundum praeceptum canonis non licet fidelibus, id est jam baptizatis, missas in ecclesia cum audientibus, id est catechumenis stare tempore orationis et canonicae laudis, et simul cum eis orare et psallere. Neque clericis, aut aliis laicis licet cum poenitentibus simul mixti orare aut psallere . . . . . antiquitus proprius statutus locus, aut extra ecclesiam, aut in initio introitus ecclesiae, ubi ad orandum et audiendum divinum officium stabant catechumeni, id est instructi vel audientes, et infra ecclesiam. Super istos erat similiter proprie locus statutus ubi stabant poenitentes, ut omnes in ecclesiam introeuntes scireut eos de crimicalibus culpis poenitere, et orarent pro eis, et illi per haec humiliati magis reciperent veniam delictorum suorum. Et super hos in alio ecclesiae spatio stabant caeteri fideles laici, segregati tamen a clericis. Cumque autem in aliquibus capitulis canonis dicatur ut pro quacunque criminali, id est graviori culpa ejiciatur ab ecclesia quicunque, non est intelligendum ut funditus prohibeatur ab omni conventu et auditione divinae laudis, et praeceptorum Domini; quod nimis absurdum est, et contra praeceptum divinae clementiae, ut aeger a divina excludatur medicina Dei, qui pro salute peccatorum est incarnatus et passus; et abjectus ab omni conventu et consolatione fidelium diabolo tradatur. Sed praedicta rationabiliter intelligendum est, ut ejiciatur a communione, id est consortio aliorum fidelium, qui intra ecclesiam stant tempore orationis et laudis Dei, et stet per statutos annos ad orandum et laudes Dei audiendum extra ecclesiam inter audientes, id est catechumenos; et expletis his omnibus secundum judicium commissae culpae intret in ecclesiam in communionem, id est consortio orationis cum poenitentibus, inter quos, expletis iterum annis secundum judicium culpae suae, redeat plenius a communione, id est consortium caeterorum fidelium, et perceptionis sacri corporis et sanguinis Christi.

BEGINNING OF THE SAYINGS OF POPE GELASIUS (From a 9th-century manuscript codex of Lucca) Catechumens, in Latin called "instructed" or "hearers," are those who, having been instructed, hear the precepts of Christ, believe rightly, have been signed by the priest, purified through exorcism, and come to their senses, but have not yet been washed in sacred baptism. Penitents are those named in the canon who publicly perform penance for crimes or major faults. It must be known that, according to the canon’s precept, it is not lawful for the faithful—that is, those already baptized—to stand in church with hearers, that is, catechumens, during the time of prayer and canonical praise, nor to pray and sing psalms with them. Nor is it permitted for clerics or other laity to pray or sing psalms mingled with penitents…. In ancient times, a designated place was established, either outside the church or at the entrance, where catechumens—that is, the instructed or hearers—stood to pray and hear the divine office, and within the church. Similarly, a designated place was set for penitents, so that all entering the church would know they were repenting for criminal faults, pray for them, and, being humbled by this, they might more readily receive forgiveness for their sins. Beyond these, in another part of the church, the rest of the faithful laity stood, separated from the clergy. When certain canons state that anyone should be expelled from the church for any criminal—that is, graver—fault, it should not be understood as entirely prohibiting them from all assembly and hearing of divine praise and the Lord’s precepts, which would be utterly absurd and contrary to the precept of divine mercy. For it is unreasonable that the sick be excluded from God’s divine medicine, who was incarnated and suffered for the salvation of sinners, or that one cast out from all assembly and consolation of the faithful be handed over to the devil. Rather, this is to be understood reasonably: that they are expelled from communion—that is, the fellowship of other faithful who stand within the church during prayer and praise of God—and stand for the prescribed years outside the church among the hearers, that is, catechumens, to pray and hear God’s praises. After completing these, according to the judgment of the committed fault, they enter the church into communion—that is, the fellowship of prayer with penitents. Among them, after completing further years according to the judgment of their fault, they fully return to communion—that is, the fellowship of the other faithful—and to the reception of the sacred body and blood of Christ.

 

Conclusion: Pope Gelasius’ controversial letter (assuming it’s authentic, which its generally seen to be) does not seem to support transubstantiation, nor does it support the purely symbolic memoralist position of many modern Protestants, the Pope believed the sacramental elements absorped the divine nature at the priestly consecration. He still referred to the Eucharist as the “body and blood of Christ.” He certainly believed Christ was present in the eucharist, but what he believed happened to the bread and wine might be closer to consubstantiation, or it might simply by wording indicating the physical properties of bread and wine remain, which is not incompatible with transubstantiation. Regardless, Catholicism does not claim every word a pope makes is dogma. Popes can (and are at times wrong), and at times their doctrine is wrong and is revised as time goes by.  I am not a scholar to analyze Pope Gelasius’ letter to determine its authenticity but most regard it as genuine now, though I did come by a recent doctoral thesis that expressed uncertainty about it.