SPLIT: The Eucharist in Scripture and Catholic teaching.

[jmcrae]

Why did Pope Gelasius I deny Transubstantiation?

See Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 3, p. 479 (XVIII.xxvi.xx)

Latin

Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologiae Latinae, Tractatus de duabis naturis Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium 14, PL Supplementum III , Part 2:733 (Paris: Editions Garnier Freres, 1964). See also Gelasius’s Eucharistic teaching at no. 14 of his Tractatus seu Gelasii episcope romani de duabus naturis in Christo adversus Eutychem et Nestorium in Andreas Thiel, Epistolae romanorum pontificum genuinae et quae ad eos scriptae sunt a S. Hilario usque ad Pelagium II, Tomus I (Brunsbergae, 1868), pp. 530-57, at 541-42.

Karl Keating: Catholicism And Fundamentalism p. 238
Source

Are you quite certain that he wasn’t quoting a heretic, with the aim of correcting him?

Here is what I found out about him, and I don’t see anything to indicate that he believed in anything other than the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and in fact did everything possible to trap any heretics who did not.

newadvent.org/cathen/06406a.htm

 

[coco2]

I just want to say that it has been a joy reading this thread! It is nice to see people here discussing without slinging arrows. God bless you all!

 

[Linda_Marie]

I think the following by Philthy is the oldest message I have not responded to:

If that letter is short, could you put a link to it on here for me?—if it’s easy for you to do.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
and a link to the writings of other Early Church Fathers
The Fathers of the Church
These writings are part of our Sacred Tradition.

In contrast, I was thinking that the Catholic view of John 6:53 (unless you eat and drink Jesus you have no life in you [paraphrase]) waters down the gospel and makes it easier. It’s easier to participate in Communion than to change your whole life by daily yielding to the Lord. (Although I hasten to add Jesus’ words, “My yoke is easy and my burden light.”)

Absolutely not. It is not an either/or situation. The Eucharist feeds our souls and makes following the Gospel easier. As has been said before, Catholics must be in a state of grace to receive the Eucharist. This necessitates regular examinations of conscience against the Teachings and recourse to the Sacrament of Reconciliation if a major ‘detour’ from the Path is detected. This regular stock-taking helps us to p(name removed by moderator)oint where we are weak in following Christ and to amend our ways. For the Catholic, salvation is a journey. We have been saved, we are being saved and we will be saved.

Here are a couple guides to Examination.
An Examination of Conscience for Adults

EXAMINATION OF CONSCIENCE

I have wondered if there are many Catholics who have not made Jesus Lord because the Church gave them the impression that participating in Communion was enough, or perhaps because the Church has emphasized Communion participation at the expense of proper emphasis on living by the Spirit.

That’s not an accusation, just a recurring thought I’ve had. I’ll pose it as a question at this point. Hopefully, you can show me that those thoughts are unfounded.

Catholicism is not a Sunday only practice. It is an entire way of life with Jesus Christ enthroned as our Lord and King. Participation in Communion facilitates living by the Spirit. We receive Jesus, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. We receive God, whole and entire. God is the Trinity; Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Here is one of the prayers we pray before Mass as preparation to receive Jesus, our Lord and King.

A DAILY PRAYER BEFORE DAILY MASS (By Saint Ambrose)
O gracious Lord Jesus Christ, though I, who am a sinner, in nowise presume on any merits of my own, and put all my trust in Thy goodness and mercy, yet do I fear and tremble in drawing near to the Table on which is spread Thy banquet of all delights. Many a sin has sullied me in body and in soul because I did not restrain my thoughts nor guard my lips: nevertheless it is to Thee, O God of majesty and love, that I turn in my extremity, for Thou art the fount of mercy; to Thee, as quickly as I may, I speed: for Thou alone canst heal me; I take refuge under Thy protection. I dare not face Thee as my judge, but I cleave to Thee as my saviour. Thy mercy is above all Thy works. Though I fear, because of my sins, yet I trust in Thee on account of Thy mercy. Turn, then, those pitiful eyes of Thine upon me, O Jesus Christ, our everlasting king and Lord, Who art God and man, and Who for man wast crucified. Have mercy upon me, full of misery and of sin though I be, upon me, whose only hope is in Thee, because of Thy loving-kindness. Hail! Thou saving victim, offered up for me and for all mankind upon the gibbet of the cross! Hail! thou glorious and most Precious Blood, that flowest from the wounds of Jesus Christ, my crucified Lord; to wash away the sins of all the world! Forget not, O Lord, that I am one of those whom Thou hast created, and with Thine own blood hast redeemed. I repent me of my sins: I will strive to amend my ways. O most merciful Father, put far from me all my iniquities and all my offences; so that, by Thee made whole in body and in soul, I may be accounted worthy to approach the Holy of holies. Grant, in fine, that the holy foretaste of Thy body and blood, which thou vouchsafest to me, a poor sinner, may be a pledge of the full remission of my sins and of the washing away for evermore of all my guilt. From my mind may it chase away every sinful thought: in my will may it foster all holy desires: may it spur me on to the doing of works well-pleasing to Thee; and may it be to me, of body and of soul, a very sure protection and defence against the craft of all my enemies.
Amen.

I’ve been meaning to discuss what the word is is (an allusion to Clinton was intended ).
Pretend your mind is a clean slate, that you’ve never heard any Catholic teaching. Wouldn’t it make more sense if is meant represents here, as it does in many other places in the Bible? For example, in Revelation it says things like “the beast is a king,” or “the seven heads are seven hills” (Rev 17:9).

But we do have Catholic teaching. Jesus did not leave us orphans to try to figure out what He was talking about on our own, especially in trying to understand translations of ancient writings without the cultural wrappings of the time. He left us His Church which He founded on Peter.
[
The Living Pillar of Truth.
The Church - The Mystical Body of Christ](http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/Pillar.htm)

 

[Algo1]

Are you quite certain that he wasn’t quoting a heretic, with the aim of correcting him?

Here is what I found out about him, and I don’t see anything to indicate that he believed in anything other than the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and in fact did everything possible to trap any heretics who did not.

newadvent.org/cathen/06406a.htm

I’m not denying that he believed in “a” Real Presence.
(In fact even John Calvin believed in “a” real presence as do I).
Just that Pope Gelasius believed that the substance did Not change.

 

[Linda_Marie]

I’m not denying that he believed in “a” Real Presence.
(In fact even John Calvin believed in “a” real presence as do I).
Just that Pope Gelasius believed that the substance did Not change.

The philosphical terms ‘substance and accident’ were just beginning to be used to describe what happens during the consecration of the Eucharist at the time Gelasius was pope[regn A.D. 492-496],. It appears to me that he was not using the term ‘substance’ in its philosophical definition when he said “Nevertheless the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to exist.” Tract on the two natures against Eutyches & Nestorius. He was affirming that the bread and wine do not change appearance during consecration. Moreover, the tract in question was not about the Eucharist but about the Incarnation of Christ, that He is both fully human and fully divine.
The Great Heresies

Nestorianism (5th Century)

This heresy about the person of Christ was initiated by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who denied Mary the title of Theotokos (Greek: “God-bearer” or, less literally, “Mother of God”). Nestorius claimed that she only bore Christ’s human nature in her womb, and proposed the alternative title Christotokos (“Christ-bearer” or “Mother of Christ”).
<…>
**Monophysitism (5th Century)
**
Monophysitism originated as a reaction to Nestorianism. The Monophysites (led by a man named Eutyches) were horrified by Nestorius’s implication that Christ was two people with two different natures (human and divine). They went to the other extreme, claiming that Christ was one person with only one nature (a fusion of human and divine elements). They are thus known as Monophysites because of their claim that Christ had only one nature (Greek: mono = one; physis = nature).

Pope Gelasius and Transubstantiation

He use the word substance to describe the physical presence of the Eucharist as it appears to us. Please note that this sentence is the ONLY reference by Pope St. Gelasius to the “bread and wine” of the Eucharist.

(12) Did Pope Gelasius deny the doctrine of transubstantiation?

First, Pope Gelasius categorically affirms the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This is denied by White. Second, Pope Gelasius was concerned in defending the nature of Christ not the Eucharist. So he was not so concerned in giving his understanding of the Eucharist as he was in explaining the mystery of the Incarnation. Remember, the Church was concerned with various Christological heresies at this time which denied the two natures, the two wills, and the one [divine]personhood of Christ.** At this point in time, the mystery of the Eucharist had not so developed in the mind of the Church to force upon the mind of Pope Gelasius an expression of the Eucharist in the terms of transubstantiation.** The Church had to develop a theological language to express the mind of the Church on various matters of faith. The Church was just beginning to express its thoughts to describe the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. There was no question regarding a Real Presence in the Eucharist; however, it is another matter regarding the type of change(consubstantiation, transubstantiation etc.). At best, Pope Gelasius was simply saying that the appearance[accidents] of bread/wine remain alongside the Real Presence in an attempt to explain the mystery of the Incarnation, since Christ humanity remains alongside His divinity. Some scholars interpret the above passage to refer to the accidents of the bread and wine. Even this analogy has some holes in it. At worst, Pope Gelasius was simply incorrect in his Eucharistic theology. I tend to believe the Pope was somewhere in the middle. That is, Pope Gelasius was not so concerned with explaining the doctrine of the Eucharist, but wanted to explain the Incarnation via an analogy. As with most analogies, they are imperfect. In addition, his theological vocabulary did not allow him to express the mystery of the Eucharist with any more precision.

 

[Algo1]

The philosphical terms ‘substance and accident’ were just beginning to be used to describe what happens during the consecration of the Eucharist at the time Gelasius was pope[regn A.D. 492-496],. It appears to me that he was not using the term ‘substance’ in its philosophical definition when he said “Nevertheless the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to exist.” Tract on the two natures against Eutyches & Nestorius. He was affirming that the bread and wine do not change appearance during consecration. Moreover, the tract in question was not about the Eucharist but about the Incarnation of Christ, that He is both fully human and fully divine.
The Great Heresies

Pope Gelasius and Transubstantiation


(12) Did Pope Gelasius deny the doctrine of transubstantiation?

If you read any of Fr. Kilmartin’s work you will see the various views held by the early church. He points out that Augustine and Pope Gelasius I did not hold to the literal/material view.

 

[wisdomseeker]

If you read any of Fr. Kilmartin’s work you will see the various views held by the early church. He points out that Augustine and Pope Gelasius I did not hold to the literal/material view.

Perhaps you could read this then tell me what they are saying.

catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence

 

[Algo1]

Perhaps you could read this then tell me what they are saying.

catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence

The linked article is a great example of selective citation.

The author makes this assertion:

The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

This is misleading in that the author claims “The Early Church Fathers…” and assigns one view ( the literal view). He then quotes J.N.D Kelly from pg. 440 to support his assertion.
However the author ignores the fact that Kelly gives other views held by other Early Church Fathers including the “symbolic interpretation” on the very next page.

At the same time, there was a continuing representation by many Fathers of the eucharistic elements as figures or symbols of the Lord’s body and blood, although they also believed the Lord was spiritually present in the sacrament. Pope Gelasius I (492-496A.D.), for example, believed that the bread and wine in substance at consecration did not cease to be bread and wine, a view shared by Eusebius, Theodoret, Serapion, Jerome, Athanasius, Ambrosiaster, Macanus of Egypt, and Eustathius of Antioch.
J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), pp. 440-41, 445-46.

 

[Cat_Herder]

This is misleading in that the author claims “The Early Church Fathers…” and assigns one view ( the literal view). He then quotes J.N.D Kelly from pg. 440 to support his assertion.
However the author ignores the fact that Kelly gives other views held by other Early Church Fathers including the “symbolic interpretation” on the very next page.

At the same time, there was a continuing representation by many Fathers of the eucharistic elements as figures or symbols of the Lord’s body and blood, although they also believed the Lord was spiritually present in the sacrament. Pope Gelasius I (492-496A.D.), for example, believed that the bread and wine in substance at consecration did not cease to be bread and wine, a view shared by Eusebius, Theodoret, Serapion, Jerome, Athanasius, Ambrosiaster, Macanus of Egypt, and Eustathius of Antioch.
J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), pp. 440-41, 445-46.

Spiritual does not mean symbolic. Or do you worship the Father, Son and Holy Symbol?

All of the ECFs believed that Christ’s Body was truly present in the elements of the Eucharist. Transubstantiation had not yet been defined as the way by which Christ’s Body was present. But that does not make His presence any less real.

 

[jmcrae]

The philosphical terms ‘substance and accident’ were just beginning to be used to describe what happens during the consecration of the Eucharist at the time Gelasius was pope[regn A.D. 492-496],. It appears to me that he was not using the term ‘substance’ in its philosophical definition when he said “Nevertheless the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to exist.” Tract on the two natures against Eutyches & Nestorius. He was affirming that the bread and wine do not change appearance during consecration. Moreover, the tract in question was not about the Eucharist but about the Incarnation of Christ, that He is both fully human and fully divine.
The Great Heresies

Thank you for that clarification - that is most helpful.

I am under the impression that the theory of Transubstantiation (which is not a doctrine - the doctrine itself is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist - transubstantiation is a working theory of how this takes place, and happens to be the best that we have so far) is best articulated by St. Thomas Aquinas, who I believe lived much later than Pope Gelasius, so it stands to reason that Pope Gelasius may well have been using the term “substance” with a different intention than the strictly philosophical meaning of the word - he may indeed have intended “physical appearance” or even “chemical composition” rather than what philosophers mean by that term.

 

[Linda_Marie]

The linked article is a great example of selective citation.

The author makes this assertion:

This is misleading in that the author claims “The Early Church Fathers…” and assigns one view ( the literal view). He then quotes J.N.D Kelly from pg. 440 to support his assertion.
However the author ignores the fact that Kelly gives other views held by other Early Church Fathers including the “symbolic interpretation” on the very next page.

At the same time, there was a continuing representation by many Fathers of the eucharistic elements as figures or symbols of the Lord’s body and blood, although they also believed the Lord was spiritually present in the sacrament. Pope Gelasius I (492-496A.D.), for example, believed that the bread and wine in substance at consecration did not cease to be bread and wine, a view shared by Eusebius, Theodoret, Serapion, Jerome, Athanasius, Ambrosiaster, Macanus of Egypt, and Eustathius of Antioch.
J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), pp. 440-41, 445-46.

Again, we are dealing with the definition of the term ‘substance’ and whether it was used by Pope St. Gelasius I as the philosophical term or not. I do not see his use of the term substance here to be a definitive statement about what he believed happened during consecration.

Gelasius was not even addressing transubstantiation or what happens during the consecration of the Eucharist in this tract. It would be an error therefore, imho, to claim that Gelasius believed that the bread and wine do not change their substance as opposed to accidents in becoming the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ Jesus based on this one sentence.

I have been unable to find the tract by Gelasius which was quoted. I would like to read all of it rather than just an excerpt.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The linked article is a great example of selective citation.

The author makes this assertion:

This is misleading in that the author claims “The Early Church Fathers…” and assigns one view ( the literal view). He then quotes J.N.D Kelly from pg. 440 to support his assertion.
However the author ignores the fact that Kelly gives other views held by other Early Church Fathers including the “symbolic interpretation” on the very next page.

At the same time, there was a continuing representation by many Fathers of the eucharistic elements as figures or symbols of the Lord’s body and blood, although they also believed the Lord was spiritually present in the sacrament. Pope Gelasius I (492-496A.D.), for example, believed that the bread and wine in substance at consecration did not cease to be bread and wine, a view shared by Eusebius, Theodoret, Serapion, Jerome, Athanasius, Ambrosiaster, Macanus of Egypt, and Eustathius of Antioch.
J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), pp. 440-41, 445-46.

You know how can a Catholic bring you to reason and the correct understanding of things Catholics. What i showed you are quotes not out of context, they are direct quotes related to the Eucharist. These are quotes from teh our Fathers in defense of the Eucharist. If it what just symbols, there would be no reason for them to even mention. but here they are defending the Teachings of our Lord to those who were saying that was a symbolic. Just as we are doing today. We have to defend the Holy Eucharist to the unbelievers.

Talking to protestantism is very tiredsome since we have to explain and give details trying to lead you all in the right thinking.

There is no reason for the Fathers to defend somethings if it is just a symbol. The Church has no interest whatsoever to spread such a lie. It doesnt make any sense. Plus if it was just a symbol, I see no reason for St Paul and our Fathers to mention that a person had to be right before God before partaken from the Eucharist. There would be no need to defend it.
Again what the Fathers are doing here is coming in defense of the Eucharist against the unbelievers. Just as we are doing today.

 

[Odell]

The linked article is a great example of selective citation.

The author makes this assertion:

This is misleading in that the author claims “The Early Church Fathers…” and assigns one view ( the literal view). He then quotes J.N.D Kelly from pg. 440 to support his assertion.
However the author ignores the fact that Kelly gives other views held by other Early Church Fathers including the “symbolic interpretation” on the very next page.

At the same time, there was a continuing representation by many Fathers of the eucharistic elements as figures or symbols of the Lord’s body and blood, although they also believed the Lord was spiritually present in the sacrament. Pope Gelasius I (492-496A.D.), for example, believed that the bread and wine in substance at consecration did not cease to be bread and wine, a view shared by Eusebius, Theodoret, Serapion, Jerome, Athanasius, Ambrosiaster, Macanus of Egypt, and Eustathius of Antioch.
J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), pp. 440-41, 445-46.

And, lastly, you quote Pope Gelasius, who writes…
Doubtless, the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ which we receive are a Divine thing, on account of which, by them, we become partakers of the Divine nature, and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to exist.
This is a very popular quote used by ignorant anti-Catholics who have no appreciation for historical context.* As I said above, the intellectual / philosophical / theological language used to define the dogma of Transubstantiation was that of Aristotle, and was adopted by the Latin West beginning in the 11th Century.* Pope Gelasius was a 5th Century father who reigned between A.D. 492 and A.D. 496.* He was, therefore, not a medieval Scholastic theologian, and he was obviously not addressing the error of Berengarius, which did not arise yet.* Rather, he was speaking in the same, patristic, Platonic theological language used by St. Ireneaus and others above; and what he is clearly referring to are the perceptible physical forms of bread and wine, which do not cease to exist.* And the fact that he was addressing Monophysites and Nestorians when he wrote this explains WHY he wrote it.* He was countering the Eutychian / Monophysite mentality which suggested that Christ’s Divine nature so absorbed His human nature that His human nature ceased to be.* Pope Gelasius’ point is that, as with the Eucharist (which, as the exchange between Theodoret and his opponent shows, was a popular analogy during the Monophysite controversy) the formal reality of bread and wine (that is, the signs of the Sacrament) are not “swallowed up” by the Presence of Christ.* But this, again, was clearly not a perfect analogy, nor would it have been appropriate or prudent to use it IF Berengarianism was a threat at the time, which it wasn’t.* So, it is anachronistic and dishonest to apply this quote from Gelasius to the issue of Transubstantiation vs. Berengarianism.* Indeed, if you pay careful attention to Gelasius’ full quote, he clearly believed that the Eucharist was not common bread and wine, but a “Divine thing” which makes human beings partakers of Divine nature “by them”.* Clearly, common bread and wine cannot do this.

This is taken from someone who makes the same argument as you here catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/TheSacraments/Articles/MoreThanJustSymbol.aspx

 

[Odell]

Continued
Well, let me say from the start that it is very unfortunate when ignorant Protestant authors wrench quotes like this from the fathers without appreciating their true historical contexts and without appreciating the theological paradigm shift that took place between Greek/Patristic (Platonic-based) theology and medieval Latin/Scholastic (Aristotelian-based), which is what was used to define Transubstantiation in the 13th Century. *For, in different periods, the Church used different theological (philosophical) languages to describe the organic truths of Apostolic Tradition. *This is what you have stumbled on here. *If you’d like to explore this historical development in depth, I highly recommend an essay by the Catholic theologian Hans Urs Von Balthasar, entitled The Fathers, the Scholastics, and Ourselves, which explores the phenomenon in great detail. *It is a difficult read; but if you bear with it, it will give you great insight into the dynamics involved when one compares the writings of the Church fathers (who used the intellectual language of Platonic philosophy) with the writings of the medieval Scholastic doctors (who used the intellectual language of Aristotle). *The confusion between these two systems was one of the primary causes behind the Great Schism between the Catholic West and the Orthodox East; and what is so unfortunate about it is that both sides were frequently referring to the very same truths, but they were unable to see this because Latin Western theology (based on Aristotle) and Greek Eastern theology (based on Plato) focused on different aspects of Apostolic Truth, and this frequently led Greeks and Latins to simply talk past each other. *And, your Protestant author is failing to appreciate this very thing.
First off, one needs to come to terms with the fact that

 

[Odell]

Transubstantiation was a dogmatic definition designed to respond to a specific error – that of Berengarianism, which claimed that the Eucharist is merely a symbol and nothing more. *Berengarianism was authored by a medieval French (Western) priest named Berengar (or Berengarius) who was operating within the environment of the medieval Western / Latin theological tradition, and he was the first person in history to offer a “rationalistic”/“naturalistic” explanation of the Eucharist and to deny that any Divine or supernatural mystery is involved. *This historical fact must be appreciated. *And so, needless to say, none of the fathers who you quote above are addressing or responding to Berengarianism, since all of them lived centuries before the heresy came into being.
Now, in response to Berengarianism, Transubstantiation asserted that the bread and wine do not continue to exist as substantial realities, but are replaced by the substantial reality of the Person of Jesus Christ. *This definition employed the language and intellectual preoccupation of Aristotelian philosophy, which distinguished between substantial reality and formal reality. *And, for Aristotle, formal reality did not define true reality. *Rather, true reality is defined by substance – the very essence of a thing, which is not limited to its formal, physical nature. *For example, it is a biological fact that the physical body that you had when you were 5 years old is not the same formal body that you have today. *Rather, every cell that composed your 5-year-old body has died by now and is replaced by new cells. *So, from a formal perspective, the Eric Smith who existed at age 5 no longer exists today. *For, the physical body that you had at 5 is no longer the same formal reality that you have today. *Ah! *But, from a substantial (and metaphysical) perspective, the organism known as Eric Smith today is exactly the same organism that existed when you were 5. *Your substance did not change. *And it is this mystery – the mystery of substance that Transubstantiation addresses. *It teaches that the bread and wine remain as formal realities, but that the TRUE reality of the Eucharist – that is, the reality of its SUBSTANCE has indeed changed, by Divine command.
However, this was a medieval, Latin (Western) Scholastic definition, which addressed a medieval Latin challenge (i.e., Berengarianism), and focused on a medieval Latin preoccupation – that is, whether or not the Eucharist was merely a naturalistic symbol or a true metaphysical miracle. *In the pre-medieval Church (especially the Eastern Church), this was never an issue; and so, it is no big surprise that the early fathers never addressed this dimension of the Mystery. *And, with this historical context appreciated, if you now go back and read the quotes from the fathers above – keeping in mind that they are NOT addressing Berengarianism, and are using the intellectual language of Plato, and not that of Aristotle, it becomes abundantly clear that they are not denying Transubstantiation.
For example, you quote St. Ireneaus of Lyon, who (in full and more correctly translated writes) writes…

 

[Odell]

For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection. *(Against the Heresies, Book 4:18 4-5, circa 180 A.D.)
Now, this expression that Ireneaus uses – “two realities” – leads many Protestants, like Martin Luther, to assume that St. Ireneaus is denying Transubstantiation, and that he is advocating the Lutheran doctrine of “Con-substantiation”, which teaches that the Eucharist is BOTH the Real Presence of Jesus Christ AND still truly bread and wine. *The problem with this view (Consubstantiation) is obvious, because it implies a second incarnation – that is, a Christ Who is not only fully-God and fully-man, but also fully-bread and fully-wine! *This is not the “Christ” Who the Catholic Church believes in, for we believe in only one Incarnation, not two, and not a repeated incarnation at every Eucharist. *Rather, we believe that the Eucharist brings the one and only Incarnate Sacrifice of Christ into our midst. *Lutheran consubstantiation implies (indeed, practically declares) that Jesus re-incarnates Himself at every Eucharist; and the Church obviously never believed this. *I’ll return to this point in a moment.
In terms of Ireneaus himself, he is clearly not denying Transubstantiation, and for several reasons. *First, Ireneaus lived in A.D. 180 – that is, about 900 years before the birth of Berengarius; and so he was not addressing the error of Berengarianism. *Secondly, Ireneaus is a Greek father who was using the philosophical language of Plato to communicate his theology, not the philosophical language of Aristotle, which distinguished between “form” and “substance”, and which was used to define the dogma of Transubstantiation against Berengarianism. *Thus, when Ireneaus speaks of “two realities”, he does not mean that “form” defines true reality – that “form” and “substance” are equal. *Not at all. *Rather, he is merely addressing two perceptible or distinguishable “realities” – that is, the fact that one can perceive the apparent physical presence of bread and wine in the Eucharist – what Aristotle would call mere “forms”. *For, despite what Protestants often fail to appreciate, we Catholics do not believe in “Trans-FORMation”, but in “Tran-SUBSTANTiation”. *We believe that the physical forms remain what they appear to be – that is, bread and wine. *The change that takes place is not a physical change, but a METAPHYSICAL change – a change in substance, not in physical form. *If the change were physical, rather than metaphysical, then the priest would not be able to lift the Eucharistic Host with one hand, since He would be lifting the physical / formal presence of a 160-pound Jewish Carpenter! *This is the “reality” – the FORMAL reality – that Ireneaus refers to. *The Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a SUBSTANTIAL reality – a metaphysical reality – “metaphysical” defined as “that which is proper to the physical realm, but which transcends mere physical form” (like you being the same organism today that you were when you were 5, despite the total change in physical form through the death and replacement of all your cells).
So, Ireneaus does not deny Transubstantiation, but merely affirms the very same organic Mystery using different (non-Aristotelian) language and from a different perspective and with different preoccupations in mind. *For example, he clearly says that the bread itself is “NO LONGER ORDINARY bread” – that is, he recognizes that SOME KIND OF CHANGE happens to THE BREAD ITSELF. *And that’s not all he says about the Eucharist. *For, he also writes…
[Christ] has declared the Cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies. *(Ibid.)
…and…

 

[Odell]

So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the essence of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ’s Blood and Body and is His member? *As the blessed Apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, “For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones” (Ephesians 5:30). *He is not talking about some kind of “spiritual” and “invisible” man, “for a spirit does not have flesh an bones” (Luke 24:39). *No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. *It is this which is nourished by the Cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the Bread which is His Body. *The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and “the grain of wheat falls into the earth” (John 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. *These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ. *(Ibid.)
So, again, while Ireneaus (like modern Catholics) recognizes that the formal realities of bread and wine remain, he clearly maintains that we are nourished and fortified, not by both Christ’s Body/Blood and bread/wine, but ONLY by Christ’s Body and Blood, which the bread and wine “BECOME” after receiving the Word of God. *So, not only was Ireneaus clearly not a Berengarian, he was clearly not an advocate of consubstantiation either! *Only one “reality” nourishes us – the Divine and Incarnational Presence of Christ. *The bread and wine are only what the Latin Scholastics (using the language of Aristotle, rather than Plato) call “the forms” or “the accidents” – that which is not intrinsic to the true substance of a thing. *For Ireneaus, the “substance” of the Eucharist is unquestionably only one thing: The Body and Blood of Christ.
And, when we address all of the other fathers cited above, we see exactly the same thing. *For example, you cite the Pseudo-Tertullian (which I will address directly in a moment). *But, the true Terullian writes…
The flesh feeds on THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, so that the SOUL TOO may fatten on God. *(Resurrection of the Dead 8:3)
It is not “two realities” that we receive substantially, but only one. *He also writes…
Likewise, in regard to the days of the fast, many not ont think they should be present at the Sacrificial prayers (i.e., the Mass), because their fast would be broken if they were to receive THE BODY OF THE LORD. *(On Prayer 19:1)
Again, it is not “two realities”, – not bread itself that might cause them to break their fast, but the Body alone that they receive.
Also, St. Justin Martyr very clearly states that the Eucharist is not normal bread and wine. *He writes…
The food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except the one who believes that the things we teach are true and has received the Washing for the forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. *For we do not receive these things as common bread and common drink; but as Jesus Christ, our Savior being Incarnate by God’s Word took Flesh and Blood for our salvation, so we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from Him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation (i.e., true change), is the Flesh and Blood of that incarnate Jesus. *(First Apology, 66)
Elsewhere, St. Justin talks about how the offering of the Eucharist is the pure Sacrifice (i.e., the one and only Sacrifice of Christ) that the prophet Malachi predicted would be offered by the Gentiles.
You also cite St. Augustine. *But, he also says…
You ought to know What you have received, What you are going to receive, and What you ought to receive daily. *The Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the Word of God, is the Body of Christ. *The Chalice, or rather What is in the Chalice, having been sanctified by the Word of God is the Blood of Christ *(Sermon 227, 21)

 

[Odell]

Notice that Augustine distinguishes between what is perceived (what his flock “sees”) and what It truly is. *It is not the common elements (the physical forms) that they received, but the real substance that they are made into when they are sanctified by the Word of God. *And he also writes…
He who made you men, for your sakes was Himself made man; to ensure your adoption as many sons into an everlasting inheritance, the Blood of the Only-Begotten has been shed for you. *If in your own reckoning you have held yourselves cheap because of your earthly frailty, now assess yourselves by the price paid for you; meditate, as you should, upon What you eat, What you drink, to What you answer “Amen”. *(Second Discourse on Psalm 32, Ch. 4)
Here, again, Augustine speaks of what the medieval Scholastics (using Aristotelian language) call “the substance”. *And he also writes…
The fact that our fathers of old (i.e., the Israelites) offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: That those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. *A visible Sacrifice, therefore is the Sacrament (the Eucharist), that is to say, the sacred sign of an invisible Sacrifice. …Christ is both Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. *He willed that the Sacramental sign of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church (the Eucharist), Who, since the Church is His Body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him. *(The City of God, 10:5, 10:20)
Here, in speaking about the “visible” and the “invisible”, Augustine, again, touches on the distinction between that which is physical form and underlying substance. *It is Christ Himself, and Christ alone, that is truly offered in Sacrifice
You also cited Chrysostom. *But, he also writes…
When the Word says, “This is My Body”, be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with eyes of the mind. *For Christ did not give us something tangible (i.e., ephemeral), but even in His tangible thing all is intellectual. …How many now say, “I wish I could see His shape, His appearance, His garments, His sandals.” *Only look! *You see Him! *You touch Him! *You eat Him! *(Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, 82:4.)
…and…
I wish to add something that is plainly awe-inspiring, but do not be astonished or upset. *This Sacrifice (the Eucharist), no matter who offers it, be it Peter or Paul, is always the same as that which Christ gave His disciples and which priests now offer: The Offering of today is in no way inferior to that which Christ offered; because it is not men who sanctify the Offering of today, it is the same Christ Who sanctified His own. *For just as the words which God spoke are the very same as those which the priest now speaks, so too the oblation is the very same. *(Homilies on 2 Timothy, 2:4.)
…and…
It is not the power of man which makes What is put before us, the Body and Blood of Christ, but the power of Christ Himself who was crucified for us. *The priest, standing there in the place of Christ, says these words but their power and grace are from God. *“This is My Body”, he says, and these words change What lies before him. *(Homilies on the Treachery of Judas, 1:6)
…and…
The Cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the Blood of Christ? *Very trustworthily and awesome does he says this: What is in the Cup is that which flowed from His side, and we partake of it. *He called it a Cup of blessing because when we hold it in our hands that is how we praise Him in song, wondering and astonished at His indescribable Gift, blessing Him because of His having poured out this very Gift so that we might now remain in error, and not only for His having poured It out, but also for His sharing It with all of us. *(Homilies on First Corinthians, 24:1)

 

[Odell]

As with Augustine, the substantial reality of the Eucharist is the Presence of Christ Himself – His Self and His Life. *This is what is received and offered, nothing else.
Now, in regard to the comparison made by the fathers, in response to the Gnostics and Eutychians (Monophysites), between the Eucharist and the Incarnation (the two natures of Christ), this, as I already addressed above, was clearly not a perfect analogy, nor was it ever meant to be. *For, when the pseudo-Tertullian author responds to the Gnostic error, he is not advocating two substantial realities for the Eucharist, but merely using the Eucharist to illustrate the essential error that the Gnostics professed, which was that there was no physical or incarnational dimension to the Christian faith – that Christ had no Body, etc. *Thus, all Pseudo-Tertullian is saying is that Christ must have possessed a physical nature because He equated His physical nature with the physical nature of bread. *There is no denial of Transubstantiation here, nor is the issue of any kind of Eucharistic change even addressed. *Likewise, Augustine (as we’ve seen above) certainly does not deny a substantial change, but, in your quote above, merely confesses that the Sacraments possess a physical (touchable) dimension. *We Catholics obviously believe this too. *This is what makes them Sacraments. *The Eucharist certainly retains all the physical properties of bread and wine. *It looks like bread, feels like bread, tastes like bread, and can be manipulated like bread. *This is because bread is the formal sign of the Sacrament. *Jesus is saying: “I Am nourishment to you.” *But, the true, substantial reality is not that of bread, but Christ Himself. *And, in your quote from him above, St. John Chrysostom is merely saying the same thing. *When he confesses that “the nature of bread remains in it”, Chrysostom is referring to the physical properties (the forms) of the Eucharist, which of course do remain. *Again, Chrysostom is not using the Scholastic language of Aristotle and is not addressing the specific concerns of the defined dogma of Transubstantiation. *Rather, he merely affirms its organic truth, as we’ve seen above. *And the same goes for Theodoret, who is also merely referring to the physical dimension (the formal dimension) of the Sacrament. *And, thus, when he writes…
He that called His own natural body wheat and bread, and gave it the name of a vine, He also honoured the visible symbols or elements with the name of his body and blood, not changing their nature, but adding grace to nature.
The meaning of “not changing their nature” refers to the fact that the bread and wine do not look like Jesus or appear to be Him…just as Chrysostom refers to in my quote from his Homilies on Matthew above. *Here, you must keep in mind that both Chrysostom and Theodoret were Antiochians, and their Antiochian perspective was not very accurate in distinguishing between Christ’s two natures. *Indeed, Theodoret himself was a Nestorian. *So, that needs to be kept in mind. *It also reveals (if you understand Nestorianism) that, when Theodoret says that the nature of bread has not changed, this does not rule out any kind of “overlapping” nature to account for the substantial Real Presence of Christ. *This is exactly how the Nestorians viewed the two natures of Christ Himself.
And, as for the rest of Theodoret’s exchange with the Eutychian that you present…

 

[Odell]

The Eutychian heretic says:
As the symbols of the Lord’s body and blood are one thing before the invocation of the priest, but after invocation are changed and become another thing, so also the body of our Lord, after its assumption, was changed into the divine substance. *(Dial. ii, p.85, Eranistes, Ed. Schultze iv. 126)
To which Theodoret replies:
Thou art taken in thine own net, which thou hast made; for neither do the mystical symbols depart from their own nature after consecration, for they remain in their former substance, figure and form.
Here, again, keep in mind that you have an argument here between two heretics – a Eutychian (Monophysite) and a Nestorian. *In this, the Eutychian’s observation of the Eucharist is orthodox, although His application of it to Christ’s post-Ascension nature is heretical. *And, Theodoret (a Nestorian) is simply wrong if he proposed that the “substance” of the bread remains unchanged. *But, we should not be too quick to judge Theodoret here, since he is clearly not speaking in Scholastic language or using the word “substance” as it was used centuries in the definition of the dogma of Transubstantiation. *Indeed, since I do not have access to Theodoret’s original Greek, I’m not sure what Greek word he really used. *He may have used the word “physis” – “nature”, and thus his statement would technically be orthodox, since the formal nature of the bread does not change. *Yet, needless to say, a contest between two heretics (a Monophysite and a Nestorian) is not a good way to explore what ancient orthodox Christians really believed about the Eucharist.
And, lastly, you quote Pope Gelasius, who writes…
Doubtless, the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ which we receive are a Divine thing, on account of which, by them, we become partakers of the Divine nature, and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to exist.
This is a very popular quote used by ignorant anti-Catholics who have no appreciation for historical context. *As I said above, the intellectual / philosophical / theological language used to define the dogma of Transubstantiation was that of Aristotle, and was adopted by the Latin West beginning in the 11th Century. *Pope Gelasius was a 5th Century father who reigned between A.D. 492 and A.D. 496. *He was, therefore, not a medieval Scholastic theologian, and he was obviously not addressing the error of Berengarius, which did not arise yet. *Rather, he was speaking in the same, patristic, Platonic theological language used by St. Ireneaus and others above; and what he is clearly referring to are the perceptible physical forms of bread and wine, which do not cease to exist. *And the fact that he was addressing Monophysites and Nestorians when he wrote this explains WHY he wrote it. *He was countering the Eutychian / Monophysite mentality which suggested that Christ’s Divine nature so absorbed His human nature that His human nature ceased to be. *Pope Gelasius’ point is that, as with the Eucharist (which, as the exchange between Theodoret and his opponent shows, was a popular analogy during the Monophysite controversy) the formal reality of bread and wine (that is, the signs of the Sacrament) are not “swallowed up” by the Presence of Christ. *But this, again, was clearly not a perfect analogy, nor would it have been appropriate or prudent to use it IF Berengarianism was a threat at the time, which it wasn’t. *So, it is anachronistic and dishonest to apply this quote from Gelasius to the issue of Transubstantiation vs. Berengarianism. *Indeed, if you pay careful attention to Gelasius’ full quote, he clearly believed that the Eucharist was not common bread and wine, but a “Divine thing” which makes human beings partakers of Divine nature “by them”. *Clearly, common bread and wine cannot do this.