Protestant theologians, especially Anglican ones, attempt to refute the Catholic doctrine of Eucharistic transubstantiation by citing a quote from Pope Gelasius. When I was an Anglican seminarian at Nashotah House, we were explicitly instructed to use this key Gelasian passage to oppose Catholics who insist on transubstantiation. It is a particularly bold tactic because Saint Gelasius is not just a Church Father, but also a Roman Pope from AD 492-496.

The Latin Text of Gelasius

The passage is from Pope Saint Gelasius’ work De duabus naturis in Christo Adv. Eutychen et Nestorium (On the two natures of Christ against Eutyches and Nestorius) at section 14. I have included the original Latin text:

*There is an alternative reading provided by Schwartz for verse 5:

Standard reading         ut sicut in hanc, scilicet in divinam transeant
Schwartz reading:       ut sicut haec licet in divinam transeant

The difference doesn’t substantially change the meaning of the text. The primary difference being:

Haec is nominative
Hanc is accusuative

Does Gelasius Contradict the Council of Trent?

The important text is verse 2, where Saint Gelasius explicitly states, “yet the substance or nature of bread and wine (substantia vel natura panis et vini) does not cease.” Strictly speaking, this would place Saint Gelasius at odds with the dogmatic definition of the Council of Trent on transubstantiation, which reads as follows:

“If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Session 13, Canon 2).”

Trent rejects the affirmation that the substances of bread and wine remain after the consecration. Gelasius says “the substance or nature of bread and wine (substantia vel natura panis et vini) does not cease.”

Two Possible Responses

The Catholic is faced with two possible responses to the formulation of Pope Gelasius:

1. Gelasius was wrong and held an incorrect belief about the Eucharist. But it doesn’t matter because Popes can be personally mistaken on matters of doctrine before their dogmatization.
2. Gelasius used “substance or nature” analogically to refer to what later Catholics called the “accidents of bread and wine,” and verses 5 and 7 reveal his clarification on that matter as in conformity with later Catholic teaching.

The proper response is that the second option, that Gelasius clarified his meaning in verses 2, 5, and 7. Let us look at the passages:

In verse 2, Gelasius states:

“the sacrament which we receive, the body and blood of Christ, is a divine thing (divina res).”

The Latin “res” refers to what is real. Our English word “real” comes from res. It is a divina res, or divine reality. Only after stating this does Gelasius say that “the substance or nature of bread and wine do not cease.” This is problematic because res usually refers to substance. However, we find clarification in verses 5 and 7.

In verse 5, Gelasius states:

5) That just as they pass into this, namely into the divine substance, the Holy Spirit perfecting, nevertheless remaining in the propriety of its nature.

Gelasius states in verse 5 that the bread and wine transeant (pass into or transition into) the divine substance. I have never heard a Protestant affirm that the bread and wine transition into the divine substance. Gelasius then affirms “nevertheless remaining in the propriety of its nature.” The bread and wine here retain not their “natures,” but he clarifies that they retain what is “propriety of its nature.” Gelasius refers here to what is proper to the nature of bread and wine, but this time does not denote “nature” simply. He is clarifying his statement in verse 2. What is proper to the nature of bread? Texture, smell, taste, etc. These are what would later be separated as the “accidents” or sensible features pertaining to the substance of bread. But the res is divine. This essentially clears up the misunderstanding.

Moving to verse 7:

From which permanent things, the one Christ, properly, remains constant, because the integrity and truth are shown to remain.

Gelasius here indicates that the one Christ is constant or enduring in the Eucharist. The full presence of Christ is in the Eucharist.

Two Possible Positions

From this analysis, Gelasius could be said to hold either of the two positions:

1. Consubstantiation: The substances of bread and wine are united to Christ’s divine and human substances. This is problematic because it creates a second hypostatic union with bread and wine. So that Christ now has a divine substance, a human substance, a bread substance, and a wine substance. Actually, it would create a second hypostatic union (union with bread substance) and then a third hypostatic union (with wine substance), since the consecration of each species is separate from the other.
2. Transubstantiation: The substances bread and wine are transubstantiated into the substances of Christ’s divine substance and human substance—the position of the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Trent.

One could argue that Gelasius affirms consubstantiation, but he is undoubtedly not affirming a symbolic or memorialist Eucharist held by most Protestants. I think the strongest argument is that Gelasius is describing transubstantiation, because he describes the bread and wine “remaining in the propriety of its nature.” He clarifies “nature” as actually being what is “proper to its nature.”

Furthermore, Gelasius was pope from 492 to his death on 21 November 496. He was daily praying the Roman liturgy with the fully developed Roman Canon as the Eucharistic anaphora or prayer. It is difficult to read the Roman Canon with its prayers over the Eucharist and deduce anything less than transubstantiation. Even Martin Luther (who held something closer to consubstantiation) felt the need to reject the Roman Canon (as used by Gelasius in the fifth century) because of its “transubstantiation” theology.

Imprecision is not Heresy

In conclusion, Gelasius affirmed the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and asserts that it enters into the divine substance. He remarks that the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease, but just after that, he clarifies his meaning by his reference to what is proper to their nature.

This debate is akin to that of the miaphysite arguments after the Council of Chalcedon. Miaphysite teaching is based on Saint Cyril of Alexandria’s formula μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη, meaning “one physis of the Word of God made flesh.” Chalcedon declared “two natures” in Christ but never doubted Saint Cyril’s orthodoxy or sanctity. Saint Cyril defended the right concept but used a different (misleading) formulation regarding one physis or nature with respect to the incarnation. Nobody doubts that Saint Cyril was correct, but later Catholic teaching rejects the “one nature” formulation of Saint Cyril in favor of “two natures.”

Gelasius is teaching the Catholic (Tridentine) doctrine of the Eucharist, but with the confusion about “substance or nature” not being what later Catholic dogma would articulate. Nevertheless, Gelasius does clarify in verse 5 that he is speaking of that which is proper to the nature of bread and wine.

Conclusion

Pope Gelasius (pope from 492-496) would be in continuity with his papal predecessor Pope Leo the Great (pope from 440 to 461) who wrote:

“Dearly beloved, utter this confession with all your heart and reject the wicked lies of heretics, that any contagion with error may not pollute your fasting and almsgiving: for then is our offering of the sacrifice clean and our gifts of mercy holy, when those who perform them understand that which they do. For when the Lord says, “unless ye have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man, and drunk His blood, ye will not have life in you,’ you ought so to be partakers at the Holy Table, as to have no doubt whatever concerning the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood. For that is taken in the mouth which is believed in faith, and it is vain for them to respond ‘Amen’ who dispute that which is taken.” Pope Saint Leo the Great, Sermon 91:3

The worst-case scenario is that Gelasius was teaching consubstantiation (not Protestant symbolism), but this is unlikely. The context of the passage seems to indicate that the bread and wine “enter into the divine substance,” but the properties of bread and wine remain. The entire context suggests what later theologians would call “transubstantiation,” even if Gelasius’s formulation is awkward. The goal here is to use the Eucharist as an analogy in discussing Christology, not as a dogmatic statement about the metaphysics of the Eucharist. That’s why the passage isn’t a major issue for Catholic theologians.