Hello,
This answer from
this site is probably better than I could respond at the moment.
Did Pope Gelasius deny the doctrine of transubstantiation?
Here is the relevant passage often foisted by critics of the Catholic faith:
“Sacred Scripture, testifying that this Mystery[ie. The Incarnation] began at the start of the blessed Conception, says; ‘Wisdom has built a house for itself’(Prov 9:1), rooted in the solidity of the sevenfold Spirit. This Wisdom ministers to us the food of the Incarnation of Christ through which we are made sharers of the divine nature. Certainly the sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ that we receive are a divine reality, because of which and through which we ‘are made sharers of the divine nature’(1 Pt 1:4). Nevertheless the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to exist. And certainly the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the carrying out the Mysteries.”
Pope Gelasius I[regn A.D. 492-496],Tract on the two natures against Eutchyes & Nestorius.
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.
Therefore, do not base your understanding of the Eucharist during this time on one single passage from Pope Gelasius. Instead cull the passages from contemporaries of Pope Gelasius which speak directly on the Eucharist. Here you will find a clear and broad witness on behalf of Transubstantiation.
For more info see:
James T. O’Connor’s “The Hidden Manna” pgs 71-73
Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” p. 382
You wonder why critics of the Faith don’t downplay the divinity of Christ by citing Fathers prior to Nicea that seemingly subordinate the nature of Christ. Prior to definition, the Fathers are developing a theological vocabulary as they reflect on the mystery of the Incarnation, so it is no surprise to see some Fathers prior to Nicea seemingly downplay the divinity of Christ. This is the nature of development. Prior to definition, the Fathers are all over the theological landscape as they attempt to explain a divine mystery, and as time goes on the mystery becomes a little more clearer and more defined.
