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”
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 19th 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 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." | 
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
  ELPIDIUSThe 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 VOLTERRABishops 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.
 
No comments:
Post a Comment