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
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment