Pope Gelasius I on the Eucharist (Roman Catholic & Lutheran)

[Daniel9v9]

In my studies, I came across this quote from Pope Gelasius I (AD 492):
"Certainly the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ are a divine thing, through which we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to be (tamen essc non desinit substantia, vel natura panis et vini)."

The quote above may very well be taken out of context, though I'm struggling to imagine how. Nonetheless, how does it sit with Trent's confession of Transubstantiation?

What Gelasius is saying sounds a lot like the Lutheran Sacramental Union - a Holy Mystery. (Not to be confused with Consubstantiation, which is not Lutheran, but commonly confused as Lutheran doctrine)

As a side note, Gelasius' statement is also consistent with that of Irenaeus (against heretics):
"How say they that the flesh passeth to corruption, and partaketh not of life, the flesh which is nourished from the body of the Lord and His blood. Either let them (i.e. heretics) change their mind or abstain from offering the things above spoken of (that is, the Eucharist). Our doctrine harmonizes with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist confirms our doctrine, and we offer to God His own, carefully teaching the communication and union of the flesh and spirit, and confessing the resurrection. For as the earthly bread (literally, the bread from the earth,) (apo gees artos), receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but Eucharist, consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly, so also our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternal life."

What do you reckon?

 

[ViaCrucis]

In my studies, I came across this quote from Pope Gelasius I (AD 492):
"Certainly the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ are a divine thing, through which we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to be (tamen essc non desinit substantia, vel natura panis et vini)."

The quote above may very well be taken out of context, though I'm struggling to imagine how. Nonetheless, how does it sit with Trent's confession of Transubstantiation?

What Gelasius is saying sounds a lot like the Lutheran Sacramental Union - a Holy Mystery. (Not to be confused with Consubstantiation, which is not Lutheran, but commonly confused as Lutheran doctrine)

As a side note, Gelasius' statement is also consistent with that of Irenaeus (against heretics):
"How say they that the flesh passeth to corruption, and partaketh not of life, the flesh which is nourished from the body of the Lord and His blood. Either let them (i.e. heretics) change their mind or abstain from offering the things above spoken of (that is, the Eucharist). Our doctrine harmonizes with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist confirms our doctrine, and we offer to God His own, carefully teaching the communication and union of the flesh and spirit, and confessing the resurrection. For as the earthly bread (literally, the bread from the earth,) (apo gees artos), receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but Eucharist, consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly, so also our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternal life."

What do you reckon?

Sounds good to my Lutheran ears. But definitely would like to know what it is in its entire context so as to not have Gelasius taken out of context.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[tz620q]

In my studies, I came across this quote from Pope Gelasius I (AD 492):
"Certainly the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ are a divine thing, through which we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to be (tamen essc non desinit substantia, vel natura panis et vini)."

The quote above may very well be taken out of context, though I'm struggling to imagine how. Nonetheless, how does it sit with Trent's confession of Transubstantiation?

What Gelasius is saying sounds a lot like the Lutheran Sacramental Union - a Holy Mystery. (Not to be confused with Consubstantiation, which is not Lutheran, but commonly confused as Lutheran doctrine)

As a side note, Gelasius' statement is also consistent with that of Irenaeus (against heretics):
"How say they that the flesh passeth to corruption, and partaketh not of life, the flesh which is nourished from the body of the Lord and His blood. Either let them (i.e. heretics) change their mind or abstain from offering the things above spoken of (that is, the Eucharist). Our doctrine harmonizes with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist confirms our doctrine, and we offer to God His own, carefully teaching the communication and union of the flesh and spirit, and confessing the resurrection. For as the earthly bread (literally, the bread from the earth,) (apo gees artos), receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but Eucharist, consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly, so also our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternal life."

What do you reckon?

When viewing a correspondence, it is often necessary to see what the opposing side was doing to get an accurate context for the quote. In this instance, Pope Gelasius I was writing to Eutyches and Nestorius, who had unorthodox views on the incarnation. At one point, Nestorius stated that Jesus did not obtain any divinity until he ascended. This, of course, would make the Last Supper and the Eucharist that followed less of an incarnational event. Most of Gelasius' letter was about the orthodox view on the incarnation and he was using the Eucharist as an example of the natural elements assuming a divine nature in an incarnational sacrament than trying to create an exact position on the nature of the Eucharist.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Sounds good to my Lutheran ears. But definitely would like to know what it is in its entire context so as to not have Gelasius taken out of context.

-CryptoLutheran

When viewing a correspondence, it is often necessary to see what the opposing side was doing to get an accurate context for the quote. In this instance, Pope Gelasius I was writing to Eutyches and Nestorius, who had unorthodox views on the incarnation. At one point, Nestorius stated that Jesus did not obtain any divinity until he ascended. This, of course, would make the Last Supper and the Eucharist that followed less of an incarnational event. Most of Gelasius' letter was about the orthodox view on the incarnation and he was using the Eucharist as an example of the natural elements assuming a divine nature in an incarnational sacrament than trying to create an exact position on the nature of the Eucharist.

Yeah, I agree. Context is everything.

The reason I ask is that there has evidently been some confusion about this statement.
The full passage says:

No less express is the language of Pope Gelasius (A. D. 492): "Certainly the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ are a divine thing, through which we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to be (tamen essc non desinit substantia, vel natura panis et vini)." So helpless are the acutest Romish controversialists, Baronius, Bellarruin, Suarez, and others, before this passage, that they try to prove that another Gelasius wrote the book. But not only have these arguments been overthrown by Protestant writers, but the Jesuit LABBE, renowned for his learning and his bitter antagonism to Protestantism, has completely vindicated the claim of Pope Gelasius to the authorship of the book.

The book then goes on to defend that the Pope Gelasius I confession is in-line with the Fathers who describe the Eucharist more as a Holy Mystery; that is, they explain the substance but not the mode:

Augustine: "It consists of two things, the visible species of the elements, and the invisible flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus, the Sacrament, and the thing of the Sacrament, the body and blood of Christ."
"One thing is the object of vision, the other of the understanding."
"Receive in the bread that which hung upon the cross. Receive in the cup that which was shed from Christ's side."

Hesychius: "At the same time bread and flesh."

Facundus: "The Sacrament of His body and blood, which is in the consecrated bread and cup. They contain in them the mystery of His body and blood."

Chrysostom: "With those things which are seen, we believe, are present the body and blood of Christ."

Cyril of Jerusalem: "Under the species of bread the body is given there, and under the species of wine the blood is given there."
"In the type of bread His body is given thee, and in the type of wine His blood, that thou mayest be of one body and of one blood with Him. His sacred flesh and precious blood we receive in the bread and wine."

 

[tz620q]

Yeah, I agree. Context is everything.

The reason I ask is that there has evidently been some confusion about this statement.
The full passage says:
So helpless are the acutest Romish controversialists, Baronius, Bellarruin, Suarez, and others,

That's as far as I needed to read in your quote of this book to dismiss it as polemics. Any valid scholar would not use the perjorative Romish. There are many good Lutheran theologians that have written about the Lutheran view of the Eucharist. I would suggest reading these over whoever wrote this. It is the position of an apologist to try to bend a text to fit one's own view; but most scholars would not do this. If you are interested in the actual document and not this author's quote, you can find it here:

 

[Albion]

Yeah, I agree. Context is everything.

The reason I ask is that there has evidently been some confusion about this statement.
The full passage says:

No less express is the language of Pope Gelasius (A. D. 492): "Certainly the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ are a divine thing, through which we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to be....
Hesychius: "At the same time bread and flesh."

Facundus: "The Sacrament of His body and blood, which is in the consecrated bread and cup. They contain in them the mystery of His body and blood."

And, by the way, this illustrates why Sacred Tradition isn't a substitute for Scripture. Even if the theory were correct about it being a stream of divine guidance, it never is actually tradition. There is no consistency, which is said to be part of the theory. There are exceptions, different opinions, all along the chronological path, and the church leadership simply chooses which legends or opinions it wants to call true by Tradition.

 

[Daniel9v9]

That's as far as I needed to read in your quote of this book to dismiss it as polemics. Any valid scholar would not use the perjorative Romish. There are many good Lutheran theologians that have written about the Lutheran view of the Eucharist. I would suggest reading these over whoever wrote this. It is the position of an apologist to try to bend a text to fit one's own view; but most scholars would not do this. If you are interested in the actual document and not this author's quote, you can find it here:

I won't get into the language used as I'm well aware that there has been forceful language on both sides. Even the term "Lutheran" is pejorative, though in our day we happily suffer it in order to avoid confusion.

In any case, this book is a commentary on the Lutheran Confessions and it's actually in some respects a lot more moderate than Luther's own writings. I think when reading older texts, that often are harsher, we can look at the doctrine without getting caught up in the style of language. I certainly won't hold any grudge if people want to read Way of Perfection

Sorry, the link appears to be missing. I'd be very interested checking it out!

 

[tz620q]

I won't get into the language used as I'm well aware that there has been forceful language on both sides. Even the term "Lutheran" is pejorative, though in our day we happily suffer it in order to avoid confusion.

In any case, this book is a commentary on the Lutheran Confessions and it's actually in some respects a lot more moderate than Luther's own writings. I think when reading older texts, that often are harsher, we can look at the doctrine without getting caught up in the style of language. I certainly won't hold any grudge if people want to read Way of Perfection

Sorry, the link appears to be missing. I'd be very interested checking it out!

It appears that the only section that are accessible online is the part quoted above. The complete letter is in Migne PL. Too bad that has never been put online. I bet the copyright has expired. I've been able to find a few more relevant parts of the chapter in other books and a general overview of what Pope Gelasius was trying to combat. I know I have read at one time or another most of the chapter that this is pulled from. I just can't seem to find a link to the source.

 

[Daniel9v9]

It appears that the only section that are accessible online is the part quoted above. The complete letter is in Migne PL. Too bad that has never been put online. I bet the copyright has expired. I've been able to find a few more relevant parts of the chapter in other books and a general overview of what Pope Gelasius was trying to combat. I know I have read at one time or another most of the chapter that this is pulled from. I just can't seem to find a link to the source.

Ah, I see. I checked New Advent and LibriVox, and I figured it may be somewhere in Google Books, but there's perhaps no digital version that includes these writings. Thank you for taking the trouble to look into it!