Gelasius I and Transubstantiation

Q. Did Pope Gelasius I advocate the Roman dogma of transubstantiation?

Gelasius I, Bishop of Rome (c. ?-496 A.D.):

[1] Holy Scripture witnesses that this mystery began from the outset of the blessed conception by saying: ‘Wisdom built herself a house,’ propped under by the solidity of the septiform Spirit, that would provide the nourishment of the Incarnation of Christ by which ‘we are made partakers of the divine nature [naturae].’

[2] Certainly the sacraments of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing. On account of this and through the same 'we are made partakers of the divine nature.' And yet the substance or nature [substantia vel natura] of the bread and wine does not cease to exist. 

[3] And certainly the image and likeness of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. 

[4] Therefore it is shown clearly enough to us that we ought to think about Christ the Lord himself what we confess, celebrate and receive in his image: 

[5] that just as they pass over into this, namely, into the divine substance by the working of the Holy Spirit, yet remaining in the peculiarity of their nature; 

[6] so they demonstrate, by remaining in the proper sense those things which they are, that the principal mystery itself, whose efficacy and power they truly represent to us, remains the one Christ, integral and true. 

(Gelasius, Tractate 3 De duabus naturis in Christo adversus Eutychem et Nestorium 14) Trans. (Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., The Eucharist in the West: History and Theology, [Liturgical Press, 2004], p. 41). Here

Alternate Translation:

The sacrament which we receive of the body and blood of Christ is a divine thing. Wherefore also by means of it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease to be. And certainly the image and likeness of the body and blood of Christ is set out in the celebration of the mysteries. Therefore it is plainly enough shown to us that we must think this in the case of the Lord Christ Himself which we confess, celebrate, and receive in the case of the image of Him. Thus, as the elements pass into this, that is, the divine substance by the Holy Ghost, and none the less remain in their own proper nature, so they show that the principal mystery itself, the efficacy and virtue of which they truly make present (repræsentant) to us, consists in this, that the two natures remain each in its own proper being so that there is one Christ because He is whole and real. 

(Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, [London: Longman’s, Green, 1909], Volume I, p. 102). Here

Latin Text:

[1] Quod mysterium a beatae conceptionis exordio sic coepisse sacra scriptura testatur dicendo: Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum, septiformis Spiritus soliditate subnixam, quae incarnationis Christi, per quam efcimur divinae consortes naturae, ministraret alimoniam. 

[2] Certe sacramenta, quae sumimus, corporis et sanguinis ti divina res est, propter quod et per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae; et tamen non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini. 

[3] Et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum [Schwartz: mystical] celebrantur. 

[4] Satis ergo nobis evidenter ostenditur hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino sentiendum, quod in ejus imagine profitemur, celebramus et sumimus: 

[5] ut sicut in hanc, scilicet in divinam, transeant sancto Spiritu perficiente substantiam permanentes tamen in suae proprietate naturae; [Schwartz: ut sicut haec licet in diuinam transeant sancto spiritu perficiente substantiam, permanent tamen in suae proprietate naturae] 

[6] sic illud ipsum mysterium principale, cujus nobis efficientiam virtutemque veraciter repraesentant, ex quibus constat proprie permanentibus, unum Christum, quia integrum verumque, permanere demonstrant. 

(Gelasius, Tractate 3 De duabus naturis in Christo adversus Eutychem et Nestorium 14 (Thiel 541—42 [in E. Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen zum Acacianischen Schisma. Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Abteilung, Neue Folge, Heft 10 (Munich: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1934) 85.23—95.33, at 94.23—34.]). see (Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., The Eucharist in the West: History and Theology, [Liturgical Press, 2004], pp. 41-42). Here

Context:

The Eutychians say, that there is but one nature in Christ, that is to say, the Godhead: and also Nestorius saith, there is but one nature… [Eutychiani dicunt, unam esse naturam, id est divinam, ac Nestorius nihilominus memorat singularem,]

(Andreas Thiel, Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum Genuinae, Tomus I., [Brunsbergae: In Aedibus Eduardi Peter, 1868], Tractatus III, Gelasii episcopi Romani de duabus naturis in Christo adversus Eutychem et Nestorium, § 3, p. 532). Here Trans. (Thomas Cranmer, Writings and Disputations of Thomas Cranmer: Relative to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, ed. John Edmond Cox, [Cambridge: Printed at the University Press, 1844], p. 293). Here

Full:

[From the Tome of GELASIUS, “Necessarium,” on the two natures in Christ, (492—) 496]

(3) Although, I say, in accordance with this confession this must piously be believed regarding the conception of our Lord, although it can in no wise be explained, the Eutychians assert that there is one nature, that is, the divine; and Nestorius none the less mentions a single [nature], namely, the human; if we must maintain two against the Eutychians, because they draw out one, it follows that we should without doubt proclaim also in opposition to Nestorius who declares one, that not one, but rather two existed as a unity from His beginning, properly adding the human, contrary to Eutyches, who attempts to defend one, that is, the divine only, in order to show that the two, upon which that remarkable mystery rests, endure there; in opposition to Nestorius indeed, who similarly says one, namely, the human, we nevertheless substitute the divine, so that in like manner we hold that two against his one with a true division have existed in the plenitude of this mystery from the primordial effects of His union, and we refute both who chatter in a different way of single [natures], not each of them in regard to one only, but both in respect to the abiding possession of two natures: to wit, the human and divine, united from His beginning without any confusion or defect.

(Thiel, 532) Trans. (Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, Translated by Roy J. Deferrari,  [Loreto Publications], from the Thirtieth Edition of Henry Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum, [Herder & Co., Freiburg, 1954], #168, pp. 70-71). Here Ecclesiastical approbation: ["Nihil Obstat," Dominic Hughes, O.P., Censor Deputatus, "Imprimatur," Patric A. O'Boyle, Archbishop of Washington].

Roman Objection:

Roman apologists assert that Gelasius is speaking of the accidents [accidens] and not of the substance [substantia].

A. Firstly, I see no meaningful contextual, syntactical or etymological evidence to suggest that he is utilizing the Aristotelian taxonomy popularized by the late Medieval scholastic theologians, and it seems quite anachronistic to insert such a meaning into the text. The logical tenability of that particular philosophical position aside, to further propose that Gelasius is not only operating under this philosophical school of thought, but that he is also intending "substantia" to denote "accidens" stretches credulity. 

Secondly, while context is the primary proponent in the determination of meaning, from a purely lexicographical standpoint the Latin terms "substantia" and "natura" both refer to internal essence or being not external appearance. 

Thirdly, there is no contextual, syntactical or etymological evidence to lead us to the conclusion that Gelasius is using either of these terms to denote a meaning which would fall well beyond the scope of their semantic domain. There is no basis for assuming that Gelasius is speaking only of the accidents and not the substance, other than the preconceived notion that transubstantiation is historical fact and therefore he could not possibly be referring to anything else. This is a textbook example of eisegesis. 

Patristic Scholar and Jesuit Priest, Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J.:

...in Tractate 3.10 (Thiel 538-39) Gelasius asks about the application of the term nature in Christology. He argues that every res has a proper substance, which is called a nature. He finds special significance in the fact that the "blessed Apostle Peter" did not hesitate to use this term for "God himself" when he preached the "mystery of Christ in the Lord" in 2 Peter 1:4. In general Gelasius uses the terms nature and substance interchangeably.

(Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., The Eucharist in the West: History and Theology, [Liturgical Press, 2004], n. 96, p. 39-40). Here "Quis jam ferat, dedignari eos vocabula promere naturarum, quum utique nulla res sit, quae non propriam possit habere substantiam, substantia vero nulla sit, quae non natura dicatur? Nam remove naturam cujuslibet substantiae, tolles etiam sine dubitatione substantiam: sublata substantia, pariter res quaelibet illa tollitur. Dedignantur, inquam, isti nomen naturarum, quum Deus ipse non dedignatus sit naturae suae vocabulo a suis praedicatoribus nuncupari, sicut beatus Petrus apostolus in epistola sua dixit, quum Christi Domini mysterium praedicaret: Ut per haec, inquit, efficiamini divinae consortes naturae." (Andreas Thiel, Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum Genuinae, Tomus I., [Brunsbergae: In Aedibus Eduardi Peter, 1868], Tractatus III, Gelasii episcopi Romani de duabus naturis in Christo adversus Eutychem et Nestorium, § 10, p. 538-539). Here

Fourthly, and most importantly, Gelasius is combatting the Monophysite heresy, which asserts that the incarnate Christ has only one nature (divine), not two (one divine and one human). See, for example, the title given to this treatise: De duabus naturis in Christo adversus Eutychem et Nestorium, note that the word nature is a reference to Christ's internal essence or being not His external appearance. Gelasius' refutation of Monophysitism is predicated on the comparison of the bread and wine of the Lord's supper to the incarnate Christ. According to Gelasius, just as the consecrated bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ while still remaining bread and wine (two natures, one divine, one earthly), so also the incarnate Christ possesses two natures one divine and one human. If Gelasius is intending the terms "substantia" and "natura" to refer to external appearance rather than internal essence or being then his entire argument is meaningless (the Monophysites did not deny that Christ appeared outwardly as a man).

Patristic Scholar and Sulpician Priest, Joseph Tixeront:

 

…Pope St. Gelasius, who, in his treatise De duabus naturis in Christo adversus Eutychen et Nestorium, attempts to prove against the Monophysites that Christ’s human and divine natures preserve their proper essence in the hypostatic union, and in proof of his assertion appeals to the Eucharist. He argues as follows: The sacraments of Christ’s body and blood, which we receive, are certainly a divine thing (divina res est); et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini. The Eucharist is an image of the Incarnation; now, in the sacred mysteries the eucharistic elements in hanc, scilicet in divinam transeunt, sancto Spiritu perficiente, substantiam, permanentes tamen in suae proprietate naturae; hence, in that chief mystery, of which the Eucharist is the image, and “of which it truly represents to us the efficacy and virtue,” both the human and divine natures preserve their own proper being in the one Christ. In order that this argument may be conclusive, it evidently does not suffice that the minor affirms that the accidents, species and appearances, are preserved in the Eucharist — for the Monophysites did not deny that Jesus Christ appeared externally as a man — it must also be affirmed that the eucharistic elements, once they have been consecrated, even when “they pass into a divine substance,” preserve their proper nature of bread and wine, and that is apparently what Gelasius says: “esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini . . . permanentes tamen in suae proprietate naturae.” 

Joseph Tixeront, History of Dogmas, Volume III, trans. Henry L. Brianceau, [B. Herder, 1916], pp. 365-366. Here Ecclesiastical approbation: ["Nihil Obstat," F. G. Holweck, Censor Librorum, "Imprimatur," Joannes J. Glennon, Archiepiscopus Sti. Ludovici].

Moreover, the argument formulated by Gelasius recurs in Theodoret's Eranistes and in the pseudo-Chrysostom's letter to Cæsarius. …The writings of Facundus of Hermiane contain a passage which gives rise to similar difficulties.

Ibid, p. 367.

Note: For more on this see Appendix B, at bottom of page.

Patristic Scholar and Jesuit Priest, Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J.:

…his identification of the two sacraments, i.e. of the body and of the blood, as one symbolical reality, indicates how far Gelasius’s thought is from what became traditional Westem scholastic theology. …Not surprisingly, it has significant points of contact with Augustine’s theology of eucharistic consecration, for, in important matters, Gelasius tends to borrow from the doctrinal expositions of the bishop of Hippo. But in the matter of the sacraments of the body and blood, his teaching is more closely related to that of the Antiochene branch of Eastern eucharistic theology as it had evolved in the context of the fifth century Christological controversies’. It is remarkably similar to that of the orthodox partner in the dialogue of Theodoret’s Eranistes; although there are enough differences to exclude arguing decisively for or against a direct borrowing. 

Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., “The Eucharistic Theology of Pope Gelasius I,” Studia Patristica, Vol. XXIX, ed. Elizabeth A. Livingstone, [Leuven: Peeters, 1997], pp. 283-284. Here 

Catholic scholars have recognized the similarities between Theodoret and Gelasius, but traditionally interpreted him as not excluding the real conversion of the eucharistic elements’. More recent scholarship has drawn different conclusions. For it is, in fact, quite clear that Gelasius, no less than Theodoret, appeals to the experience of the senses to prove that the nature of the bread and wine remains unchanged. And yet these elements function as holy symbols in virtue of a divine sanctifying activity by which they gain a real relation to a divine reality. The motivation is the same in both cases: to refute the monophysite thesis that the body of Christ is changed into the divine essence in virtue of the glorification. Both theologians argue from the correspondence, which amounts to a strict parallel, between a theology of the Eucharist and the hypostatic union, in order to confirm the dogma of the Council of Chalcedon. 

Ibid, p. 284.

Note: See Appendix C, at bottom of page, for the declaration of the Council of Chalcedon.

For Gelasius, then, the sacraments are an ‘image and likeness’ of Christ in that the material elements, in virtue of the consecration, contain a divina res and yet remain what they were before the consecration. …the material component, remaining unchanged in nature, become the ‘image and likeness’ of the body and blood of Christ in virtue of the ritual consecration within the liturgy of the Mass. 

Ibid, p. 287.

According to Gelasius, the sacraments of the Eucharist communicate the grace of the principal mystery. His main concern, however, is to stress, as did Theodoret, the fact that after the consecration the elements remain what they were before the consecration. ...The explanation of Gelasius does not include, and indeed seems explicitly to exclude, a doctrine of the somatic real presence of the ‘whole Christ’.

Ibid, p. 288, 289.

Appendix A:

Charles Gore:

The same principle was again in evidence at the period of controversy with the different forms of Monophysitism from Chalcedon downwards. Again and again in that controversy the doctrine of the Incarnation, the doctrine that the divine (or supernatural) does not destroy or absorb the human (or natural), was, so to speak, proved by the eucharist, the earthly elements of bread and wine being dignified, but not annihilated, by the spiritual presence of which they are made the vehicle. This argument is used by the author, said to be St. Chrysostom, of the letter to Caesarius, by Theodoret, by Gelasius, by Augustine as represented in a ‘sentence’ of Prosper, by Ephraim, bishop of ‘Theopolis’ (Antioch), and as nearly as he dared—so nearly that Bellarmine called him heretical—by Rupert of Deutz. These writers (with the possible exception of the last) unmistakeably declare that the ‘nature’ or ‘substance’ of the bread and wine remain after consecration. 

The principle which this theology both of the Incarnation and of the eucharist illustrates is admirably stated by the best theologian of the sixth century, Leontius of Byzantium [con. Nest. et Εut. ii. (P. G. lxxxvi. p. 1333)]. 

‘Let us not,’ he says, ‘leave it unnoticed that every sort of energy results from one of three distinguishable causes: one sort of energy proceeds from natural power; another from the perversion of the natural habit; the third represents an elevation or advance of the nature towards what is higher. Of these the first is and is called natural; the second unnatural; the third supernatural. Now the unnatural, as its name implies, being a falling away from natural habits and powers, injures both the substance itself and its natural energies. The natural proceeds from the unimpeded and naturally cogent cause. But the supernatural leads up and elevates the natural energy and empowers it for actions of a more perfect order, which it would not have been able to accomplish so long as it remained within the limits of its own nature. The supernatural therefore does not destroy the natural, but educes and stimulates it both to do its own business and to acquire the power for what is above it.’ He exemplifies this principle by the way in which art, without destroying its natural material, elevates it, whether in music or mechanics, to higher ‘supernatural’ uses. And he applies it to our Lord's humanity to emphasize that its natural laws remained unimpeded and unaltered by its supernatural union with the Godhead. ‘The supernatural,’ he concludes, ‘implies the permanence of the natural. The very possibility of a miracle is gone if the natural is overthrown by what is supernatural, and pride when it tyrannizes over the truth of nature deserves the name of insolence.’

Charles Gore, Dissertations on Subjects Connected with the Incarnation, [London: John Murray, 1896], pp. 274-278. Here

William Wigan Harvey:

One point in the Eutychian controversy ought to be carefully noted and remembered by the student. Eutyches imagined the flesh of Christ, that is, his body, to be absorbed and wholly turned into the Divinity, so that by that transubstantiation the human nature had no longer a being. (Bp Pearson.) In confuting the notion, the fathers shew clearly both in a positive and negative way, that the modern Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation was no part of their faith. For if it were then believed that a change of nature took place in the consecrated elements, Eutyches could hardly have failed to have urged this strong presumption in favour of a similar change of substance in the Incarnation; and, on the other hand, in refuting the heresy, the fathers must have said something in vindication of their own consistency, in declaring Transubstantiation to be catholic and orthodox as regards the Sacrament of the Eucharist, but Eutychian and heretical when applied to the Incarnation. The case is, no such notion then existed, and the fathers had to free themselves from no such charge of inconsistency. For the positive statement is unquestionably true; that the analogy of the consecrated elements was urged by Catholic writers, to shew how a material substance can be to us the body of Christ, without change of substance; the clearest testimony of all being that of Gelasius, bishop of Rome, in his work, De Duabus Naturis, against Eutyches and Nestorius. He says, ‘Certainly the mysteries which we receive, of the body and blood of Christ are something divine; because we are thereby made partakers of the Divine Nature, and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine do not cease to be. Certainly also the image and type of the body and blood of Christ, are set forth in the celebration of these mysteries. Wherefore it is made sufficiently plain to us, that the same thing is to be perceived in the Lord Christ himself, which we profess, and celebrate, and receive, in the symbol. That as through the energy of the Holy Spirit, the elements pass into a Divine substance, their nature still continuing in their own property; so that principal mystery it self, (whose efficacy and virtue they truly represent to us,) shews that Christ, by the true permanence of those natures of which he consists, remains one, because whole and real.’ 

William Wigan Harvey, The History and Theology of the Three Creeds, Volume I., [Cambridge: Printed at the University Press, 1854], p. 293. Here

Thomas Cranmer:

…then if in the sacraments remain but the accidents and appearance of bread and wine, and not the substances of them, how could  Gelasius by the resemblance of the two sacraments of bread and wine, prove the two substances and natures of Christ to remain? Might it not rather be gathered, that only the appearance of Christ's humanity remaineth in accidents, and not the substance of itself, as Marcion saith, and as you say it is in the sacrament; or else, that Christ's humanity is absorbed up by his divinity, and confounded therewith, as the Eutychians say, [and as you say] that the bread and wine is by the body and blood of Christ? … And the two natures in the sacrament, which Gelasius taketh for the image and similitude of the two natures in Christ, be bread and wine, which as they remain, and that truly in their natures and substances, so do the two natures in Christ.

Thomas Cranmer, Writings and Disputations of Thomas Cranmer: Relative to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, ed. John Edmond Cox, [Cambridge: Printed at the University Press, 1844], p. 297. Here

Lucius Waterman:

 

…what Gelasius says is, first and foremost, that the elements of the Eucharist are brought into such a relation to our Lord Jesus Christ, that what is true of that sacrament must be true of the Incarnation, also. Gelasius is laying down, be it observed, what he regards as a universally accepted proposition, in which all Catholic Christians will of course agree. It amounts to this, if I may paraphrase him: the elements in the Eucharist are taken to Himself by our Lord, as He took a body to Himself in His Incarnation. It is clearly shown to us, therefore, that we must think of the Incarnation as we think of the Eucharist. What happens to the bread and wine in passing "into the Divine Substance" must be what happens to the body of our Lord in passing "into the Divine Substance." It is the same experience in both cases. The particular point which Gelasius is essaying to prove is that as the bread and wine remain bread and wine, so the human body of flesh remains a human body of flesh. 

Lucius Waterman, The Primitive Tradition of the  Eucharistic Body and Blood, [1919], p. 200. Here

Darwell Stone:

In his treatise On the Two Natures in Christ a comparison is made between the Incarnation and the Eucharist. Pope Gelasius is there defending against the Eutychians the doctrine of the abiding reality of the human nature of Christ affirmed by the Council of Chalcedon; and he introduces an argument from the Eucharist in much the same way as the Catholic theologian in the Dialogue of Theodoret and the writer of the letter ascribed to St. Chrysostom. The one Person of Christ, he maintains, is abidingly in the two unimpaired natures of manhood and Godhead. In like manner there are in the Eucharist both the body and blood of Christ and the substance and nature of bread and wine. 

Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, [London: Longman’s, Green, 1909], Volume I, pp. 101-102. Here

Henry Wace:

The treatise de Duabus Naturis, arguing against the Eutychian position that the union of the human and divine natures in Christ implies the absorption of the human into the divine, adduces the Eucharist as the image, similitude, and representation of the same mystery, the point being that as, after consecration, the natural substance of the bread and wine remains unchanged, so the human nature of Christ remained unchanged notwithstanding its union with divinity. His words are "The sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we take are a divine thing, inasmuch as through them we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine ceases not to be."

Henry Wace & William C. Piercy, eds., Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature, [Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1911], "Gelasius (1) I.," p. 382. Here and Online Here

John Cosin:

It doth plainly appear out of these words, that the change wrought in the sacrament is not substantial, for first, the sanctified elements are so made the body and blood of Christ, that still they continue to be, by nature, bread and wine. Secondly, The bread and wine retain their natural properties, as also the two natures in Christ. Lastly, the elements are said to become a divine substance, because while we receive them, we are made partakers of the divine nature, by the body and blood of Christ, which are given to us. These things being so, their blindness is to be deplored who see not that they bring again into the Church of Rome the same error which antiquity piously and learnedly condemned in the Eutychians.

John Cosin, The Works of the Right Reverend Father in God John Cosin, Lord Bishop of Durham, Volume IV, Miscellaneous Works, [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1851], p. 191. Here

Reinhold Seeburg:

Pope Gelasius I taught that “the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease to exist, although the elements, the Holy Spirit perfecting them, pass over (transeant) into a divine substance, as was the case with Christ himself. And certainly the image and likeness (imago et similitudo) are honored (celebrantur) in the observance (actione) of the mysteries” (de duabus naturis in Christo, Thiel. Ep. pontif., p. 541f.).

Reinhold Seeburg, Text-Book of the History of Doctrines, Vol. I., [Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1905], p. 34. Here

James Craik:

Gelasius does not compare anything which takes place in the Eucharist to the Hypostatic union, but he illustrates that union, as against the Eutychians, by the completed “action” of the Holy Mystery. For as the consecrated bread and wine, he argues, though endowed with the mysterious power to make us "partakers of the Divine nature," yet retain their own nature; so the human nature of Christ remains in its own integrity, notwithstanding its mysterious relation to the Divine nature.

James Craik, The Incarnation: The Divine Life and the New Birth, [Louisville: John P. Morton & Company, 1873], p. 67. Here

J. H. Srawley:

There is further the positive evidence of the same passage of Gelasius, in which, arguing from the analogy of the Incarnation against the monophysites, Gelasius denies that the substance of the bread and wine ceases to exist. The same argument appears in Theodoret and the author of the Epistle to Caesarius. 

J. H. Srawley, "The Doctrine of the Eucharist," Journal of Theological Studies, Volume 7, [Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1906], p. 300. Here

Henry Clay Sheldon:

The Roman Bishop Gelasius, arguing like Theodoret for the integrity of Christ's human nature, notwithstanding its union with the Logos, states, in like unmistakable terms, that the bread and wine retain their essence after consecration. “Truly the sacraments,” he says, “which we receive of the body and blood of Christ, are a divine thing, because through the same we are made partakers of the divine nature, and, nevertheless, the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to be, — tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini.” (De Duabus Naturis in Christo.) 

Henry Clay Sheldon, History of Christian Doctrine, Volume I.,  [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1886], pp. 276-277. Here

George Stanley Faber:

It may be useful to remark, that Theodoret in the East was not the only writer against the Eutychians during the lapse of the fifth century: their dishonest argument from the eucharistic phraseology of the ancient Catholics, which they with wilful perverseness chose to interpret precisely as the modern Romanists would still have us interpret it, received the self-same answer also from Pope Gelasius in the West. …I may add, that, when, notwithstanding the repeated assurance of their perversely misinterpreting the conventional phraseology of the Catholics, the Eutychians, even in the sixth century, still pertinaciously continued to employ it, by way of demonstrating, or at least of illustrating, the alleged transmutation of the substance of Christ's body into the substance of the Godhead: they once more received the same answer from Ephrem of Antioch.

George Stanley Faber, The Difficulties of Romanism in Respect to Evidence, Or, The Peculiarities of the Latin Church Evinced to be Untenable on the Principles of Legitimate Historical Testimony, [London: Thomas Bosworth, 1853], pp. 274-276. Here

John Pearson:

There can be no time in which we may observe the doctrine of the ancients so clearly, as when they write professedly against an heresy evidently known, and make use generally of the same arguments against it. Now what the heresy of Eutyches was, is certainly known, and the nature of the sacrament was generally made use of as an argument to confute it. Gelasius, bishop of Rome, hath written an excellent book against Eutyches, De duabus naturis in Christo, (in Biblioth. Patr. Lat. T. v. par. 3. p. 671B.) in which he propoundeth their opinion thus: ‘Eutychiani dicunt unam esse naturam, id est, Divinam;’ [p. 668D.] and, ‘sola existente Deitate, Humani tas illic esse jam destitit.’ [p. 688F.] That then which he disputes against is the transubstantiation of the human nature into the divine. The argument which he makes use of against it is drawn from the eucharist: ‘Certe Sa cramenta quæ sumimus corporis et sanguinis Christi Divina res est, propter quod et per eadem Divinæ efficimur consortes naturæ: et tamen esse non desinit substantia velnatura panis et vini. Et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. Satis ergo nobis evidenter ostenditur, hoc nobis de ipso Christo Domino sentiendum, quod in ejus imagine profitemur, celebramus, et sumimus, ut sicut in hanc, scilicet, in Divinam , transeant, Sancto Spiritu perficiente, substantiam, permanente tamen in suæ proprietate naturæ; sic illud ipsum mysterium principale, cujus nobis efficientiam virtutemque veraciter repræsentant, ex quibus constat proprie permanentibus, unum Christum, quia integrum verumque, permanere demonstrant.' In which words it is plain he affirms the union of the human nature of Christ to be the principal mystery, the representation of that mystery to be in the sacrament of the eucharist: he concludes from thence, that as in the representation the substance of the bread and wine remaineth in the propriety of their own nature, so the human nature of Christ in the greater mystery doth still remain.

John Pearson, An exposition of the Creed, revised and corrected by Temple Chevallier, [Cambridge: At the University Press, 1859], pp. 306-307. Here

John William Burgon:

...I invite your particular attention to the following words of Gelasius, who was Bishop of Rome, A.D. 492-496. That learned man was engaged in controversy with the Eutychians. Now the heresy of Eutyches consisted in this,—that he assumed a conversion of the Human Nature into the Divine. He taught that the Humanity in the One Person of Christ was absorbed and wholly turned into the Divinity; so transubstantiated, in short, that the Human Nature existed there no longer. The ancient Fathers who opposed this heresy made use of the sacramental union between the Bread and Wine, and the Body and Blood of Christ, in order to illustrate the Catholic Doctrine. They thereby showed that the Human Nature of Christ was no more really converted into the Divinity, and so ceased to be the Human Nature, than the substance of the Bread and Wine is really converted into the substance of the Body and Blood, and thereby ceases to be both Bread and Wine.

John William Burgon, Letters from Rome to Friends in England, [London: John Murray, 1862], pp. 319-320. Here

Johann Carl Ludwig Gieseler:

Very clear passages on this subject are furnished by the polemical demonstrations against Eutyches and the Monophysites, so far as they had been always accustomed to compare the union of the earthly with the heavenly in the Supper, with the incarnation of Christ, and now borrowed a proof from the rite in favor of the fact, that the human nature in Christ did not cease to exist after the union. 

Johann Carl Ludwig Gieseler, A Text-Book of Church History, Vol. I., trans. Samuel Davidson, ed. Henry B. Smith, [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1868], p. 436. Here

John Edwards:

…Gelasius, Theodoret, and other Fathers, who argue from the eucharist to the nature of the union of Christ's divinity and humanity; for as it was then believed and owned, that the bread and wine remained still the same after consecration, so the human nature of Christ remained still the same, though united to the divinity: the words of those writers are worth our consulting, as they are set down at large by that excellent prelate. They are a pregnant and illustrious confutation of the doctrine of transubstantiation taken from the sacramental union between the bread and wine, and the body and blood of Christ; for the orthodox Fathers took occasion thence to shew, that the human nature of Christ is no more really converted into the divinity, and so ceaseth to be the human nature, than the substance of the bread and wine in the Lord' s supper is really converted into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, and thereby ceases to be both bread and wine. This evidently makes it appear, what was the sense of the ancient Fathers in this matter.

John Edwards, Supplement to Gibson's a Preservative Against Popery, Vol. VI., Edwards on The Doctrines Controverted Between Papists and Protestants, ed. John Cumming, [London: 1850], p. 151. Here

William James Stracey:

What the heresy of Eutyches was, is certainly known, and the nature of the Sacrament was generally made use of as an argument to confute it. Gelasius, Bishop of Rome, “de duabus naturis in Christo,” says: “Eutychiani dicunt unam esse naturam, id est Divinam,” and “solâ existente Deitate Humanitas illic esse jam destitit.” That then which he disputes against is the transubstantiation of the human nature into the divine. The argument which he makes use of against it is drawn from the Eucharist: “Certe sacramenta quæ sumimus corporis et sanguinis Christi Divina res est, propter quod et per eadem Divinæ efficimur consortes naturæ: 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 evidentur ostenditur, hoc nobis de ipso Christo Domino sentiendum, quod in ejus imagine profitemur, celebramus, et sumimus, et sicut in hanc, scilicet in Divinam, transeant, S. Spiritu perficiente, substantiam, permanentes tamen in suæ proprietate naturæ: sic illud ipsum mysterium principale, cujus nobis efficientiam virtutemque viraciter repræsentant, ex quibus constat proprie permanentibus, unum Christum, quia integrum verumque, permanere demonstrant.” In which words it is plain he affirms the union of the human nature of Christ to be the prinicipal mystery; the representation of that mystery to be in the sacrament of the Eucharist. He concludes from thence, that, as in the representation, the substance of the bread and wine remaineth in the propriety of their own nature, so the human nature of Christ in the other great mystery doth still remain. The same argument is used by Theodoret in his second dialogue; on which, says Bishop Pearson, “Who sees not then that Theodoret believed no more that the bread is converted into the body, than that the body is converted into the Divinity of Christ? Who perceives not that he thought the bread to be as substantially and really bread after consecration as the body of Christ is really a body after His ascension?” So also St. Chrysostom, against the Apollinarians, in his Ep. “ad Cæsarium;” and by Ephraimus in “Photii Bibliotheca,” against the Eutychians. As therefore all the μεταστοιχείωσις of the sacramental elements maketh them not cease to be of the same nature which before they were; so the human nature of Christ, joined to the divine, loseth not the nature of humanity, but continueth with the Divinity as a substance in itself distinct: and so does Christ subsist, not only ex, but in., duabus naturis, as the council of Chalcedon determined against Eutyches.

William James Stracey, The Teaching of Scripture and the Church Respecting the Sacrament, Holy Communion, [London: Joseph Masters, 1863], pp. 13-14. Here

Edward Meyrick Goulburn:

…for, in expounding the doctrine of the Eucharist, he explicitly says that, while the right reception of the elements makes us partakers of the divine nature, yet nevertheless these elements do not cease to have the substance (or nature) of bread and wine. The mystery, he says, is like that of the Incarnation, in which two whole and perfect natures were joined together without confusion in one Person; and we know from the part he took in other controversies of his time, that he would have resisted to the death the heresy that Christ had not a real and perfect human nature. But if He had such a nature, and if Gelasius's illustration is just, the bread and wine remain in their natural substances after consecration, as really and truly as Christ's human nature remained, when it was united in the moment of His conception with the Godhead.

Edward Meyrick Goulburn, The Collects of the Day, Vol. I., [New York: Pott, Young, & Co., 1880], pp. 35-36. Here

Joseph Bingham:

…Pope Gelasius, who wrote against the Nestorians and Eutychians about the reality of the two natures in Christ, anno 490, where he thus proves them: ‘Doubtless the sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we receive are a divine thing; and therefore by them we are made partakers of the divine nature, and yet the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease to be in them. And indeed the image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ is celebrated in the mysterious action. By this therefore is evidently shown us, that we are to believe the same thing in our Lord Christ as we profess and celebrate and take in his image: that as by the perfecting virtue of the Holy Ghost the elements pass into a divine substance, whilst their nature still remains in its own propriety; so in that principal mystery the union of the divine and human nature,whose efficacy and power these represent, there remains one true and perfect Christ, both natures, of which he consists, continuing in their properties unchangeable.’

Joseph Bingham, The Antiquities of the Christian Church, Vol. V., [Oxford: At the University Press, 1855], pp. 433-434. Here

August Neander:

In the controversy about the two natures of Christ, a comparison was drawn between the relation of the divine nature to the human, and that of Christ's body and blood to the bread and wine. A fragment, erroneously ascribed to Chrysostom, yet certainly an ancient and important testimony, illustrates the doctrine of the Son of God in his two natures, which remain peculiar and distinct, by a comparison with the Lord's Supper; the bread after the consecration loses the name of bread; as the divine and human natures remain unchangeable in their attributes, and yet we speak only of one Christ, so we speak only of one body of Christ, although the bread and wine are united with Christ's body and blood. Theodoret gives an equally plain testimony against the transmutation of the bread; the bread and wine remain in their former οὐσία, and yet to the soul they seem as that which they have become, and as such are believed and reverenced. He distinguishes the μεταβολὴ τῇ χάριτι from the μεταβολὴ τῆς φύσεως, which here does not take place. Also the Roman Bishop Gelasius, at the end of the fifth century, thus expresses himself: the two natures of Christ must be thought of like his image in the Supper; just as this by the operation of the Holy Spirit passes into the divine substance, although its nature retains its peculiar attributes, &c.

August Neander, Lectures on the History of Christian Dogmas, Vol. II., [London: George Bell and sons, 1888], p. 408. Here

Appendix B.1:

Ephrem, the Syrian (c. 306 - 373 A.D.):

Fire even has not one nature, but a double one, for it consists of wood and flame. In the same manner the bread consists not of one paneous nature, but also of a divine one. For the body, (namely of Christ) which is of one nature with the divine, rejoices not in one nature, but in a double nature. 

(Serm. de sanct. et vivific. Christ. Sacram.) Here See Also: (J. P. Minge, Encyclopédie Théologique, [1855], Tome Treiziéme, S. Ephrem, de sacrament., serm. 1, t. III, Col. 1121). Here Trans. (J. H. Treat, The Catholic Faith; Or, Doctrines of the Church of Rome Contrary to Scripture and the Teaching of the Primitive Church, [1888], p. 175). Here

Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia (c. 350 - 428 A.D.):

It does not do this by its own nature but by the Spirit who is dwelling in it, as the body of our Lord, of which this one is the symbol, received immortality by the power of the Spirit, and imparted this immortality to others, while in no way possessing it by nature. 

(Alphonse Mingana, Woodbrooke Studies: Christian Documents in Syriac, Arabic, and Garshūni, Volume 6, [W. Heffer & Sons Limited, 1933], Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Lord's Prayer, Baptism and the Eucharist, Ch. 5, p. 77). Here and Online Here

 

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (c. 393 - 458/66 A.D.):

Eran.—As, then, the symbols of the Lord’s body and blood are one thing before the priestly invocation, and after the invocation are changed and become another thing; so the Lord’s body after the assumption is changed into the divine substance.

Orth. — You are caught in the net you have woven yourself. For even after the consecration the mystic symbols (σύμβολα) are not deprived of their own nature (φύσεως); they remain in their former substance (ουσίας) figure and form; 

(Philip Schaff, NPNF2, Vol. III, Theodoret, Dialogue II.—The Unconfounded. Orthodoxos and Eranistes). Here

 

For He, we know, who spoke of his natural body as corn and bread, and, again, called Himself a vine, dignified the visible symbols by the appellation of the body and blood, not because He had changed their nature, but because to their nature He had added grace. 

(Philip Schaff, NPNF2, Vol. III, Theodoret, Dialogue I.—The Immutable. Orthodoxos and Eranistes). Here

The Letter to Monk Cæsarius Against the Apollinarian Heresy (c. 5th Century A.D.):

For as (in the eucharist) before the bread is consecrated we call it bread , but when the grace of God, by the priest, has consecrated it, it is no longer called bread, but is esteemed worthy to be called the Lord's body, although the nature of bread still remains in it; and we do not say there be two bodies, but one body of the Son; so here the divine nature being joined with the body, they both make up but one Son, one person . But yet they must be confessed to remain without confusion, after an invisible manner, not in one nature only, but in two perfect natures. 

(Epist. ad Cæsarium Monachum) Trans. (Charles Elliott, Delineation of Roman Catholicism, [New York: George Lane, 1841], p. 273). Here See Also: (J. P. Minge, Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, [1862], Patrologiæ Græcæ, Tomus LII, Ad Cæsarium Monachum, Col 758). Here

Ephraim, Bishop of Antioch (c. 6th Century A.D.):

So also the Body of Christ, Which believers receive, neither departs from the sensible substance [αίσθητῆς οὐσίας], nor is divided from the intelligible grace; and spiritual baptism, which becometh and is one whole, preserves the property of the sensible substance [αίσθητῆς οὐσίας], the water I mean, yet loses not that which it is become.

(J. P. Minge, Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, [1860], Patrologiæ Græcæ, Tomus CIII, Photii, Bibliotheca, Cod. CCXXIX, Col. 980). Here Trans. (Herbert Thorndike, The Theological Works of Herbert Thorndike, Sometime Prebendary of the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, Westminster, Vol. IV., [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1852], p. 86). Here

Appendix B.2:

Tertullian, of Carthage (c. 155 - 240 A.D.):

But if you maintain that a transfiguration and a conversion amounts to the annihilation of any substance, then it follows that “Saul, when changed into another man,” passed away from his own bodily substance; and that Satan himself, when “transformed into an angel of light,” loses his own proper character. Such is not my opinion. 

(Philip Schaff, ANF, Vol III, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, LV). Here

Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340 - 397 A.D.):

If, therefore, there is such power in the word of the Lord Jesus, that the things which were not began to be, how much more is it effective, that things previously existing should, without ceasing to exist, be changed into something else [ut sint quae erant et in aliud commutentur]?

(Ambrose, On the Mysteries and the Treatise on the Sacraments, trans. T. Thompson, ed. James Herbert Strawley, [London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1919], Bk. IV, Ch. IV, § 15, p. 110). Here

Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (c. 378 - 444 A.D.):

For a thing to be made, does by no means signify a change of nature. 

(J. P. Minge, Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, [1863], Patrologiæ Græcæ, Tomus LXXV, S. Cyrilli Alexandrini Archiep., Thesaurus., Aliud, ex eodem syllogismo illaium, Solutio objectionis, Col. 340). Here Trans. (J. H. Treat, The Catholic Faith; Or, Doctrines of the Church of Rome Contrary to Scripture and the Teaching of the Primitive Church, [1888], p. 170). Here

 

Nestorius, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 386 - 450 A.D.):

How is it that, when He said over the bread ‘This is My body,’ He did not say that the bread was not bread and His body not body? But He said ‘bread’ and ‘body’ as showing what it is in ousia. But we are aware that the bread is bread in nature and in ousia. Yet Cyril [That is, St. Cyril of Alexandria] wishes to persuade us to believe that the bread is His body by faith and not by nature: that what it is not as to ousia, this it becomes by faith. 

(Bazaar of Heraclides, p. 326, in [Bethune Baker, Nestorius and his Teaching, [Cambridge: At The University Press, 1908], p. 146.]). Here See Also: (Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, [1909], Volume I, pp. 98-99). Here

Eutherius, Bishop of Tyana (c. 5th Century A.D.):

Eutherius of Tyana, a partisan of Nestorius, appears to have taught that objectively “the mystical bread is of the same nature” as earthly bread, but that by faith it subjectively became the body of Christ to the believer. 

(Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), [The University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 238). Here See: (Gerhard Ficker, Eutherius von Tyana, [Leipzig: Verlag von Johann Ambrosius Barth, 1908], pp. 20-21). Here

Leontius of Byzantium (c. 485 - 543 A.D.):

The supernatural leads up and elevates the natural, and empowers it for more perfect actions, such as it could not accomplish if it remained within the limits of the natural. The supernatural therefore does not destroy the natural but educes and stimulates it both in its capacity for actions of its own and in its receiving power for those things which are beyond this capacity. 

(J. P. Minge, Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, [1860], Patrologiæ Græcæ, Tomus LXXXVI, Leontii Byzantini, Contra Nestor. Et Eutych, Col. 1333). Here Trans. (Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, [1909], Volume I, p. 135). Here

This understanding would continue well into the Middle Ages.

Rupert, Abbot of Deutz (c. 1075/80 - 1129 A.D.):

You must attribute all to the operation of the Holy Ghost, who never spoils or destroys any substance He useth, but to that natural goodness it had before, adds an invisible excellency which it had not. 

(J. P. Minge, Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, [1854], Patrologiæ Latinæ, Tomus CLXVII, Ruperti Abbatis Tuitiensis, De Trinitate Et Operibus Ejus Lubri XLII, In Exod. Lib. II, Cap. X, Col. 617). Here Trans. (John Cosin, The Works of the Right Reverend Father in God John Cosin, Lord Bishop of Durham, Volume IV, Miscellaneous Works, [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1851], p. 220). Here

Appendix B.3:

Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (c. 313 - 386 A.D.):

But beware of supposing this to be plain ointment. For as the Bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is mere bread no longer, but the Body of Christ, so also this holy ointment is no more simple ointment, nor (so to say) common, after invocation, but it is Christ’s gift of grace, and, by the advent of the Holy Ghost, is made fit to impart His Divine Nature. Which ointment is symbolically applied to thy forehead and thy other senses; and while thy body is anointed with the visible ointment, thy soul is sanctified by the Holy and life-giving Spirit. 

(Philip Schaff, NPNF2, Vol. VII, Cyril, Catechetical Lectures, XXI.3). Here

Gregory Nazianzen, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 329 - 390 A.D.):

Say to him relying on the Seal, “I am myself the Image of God; I have not yet been cast down from the heavenly Glory, as thou wast through thy pride; I have put on Christ; I have been transformed into Christ by Baptism… 

(Philip Schaff, NPNF2, Vol. VII, Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen, Oration XL.x). Here

Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (c. 335 - 395 A.D.):

For this holy altar, too, by which I stand, is stone, ordinary in its nature, nowise different from the other slabs of stone that build our houses and adorn our pavements; but seeing that it was consecrated to the service of God, and received the benediction, it is a holy table, an altar undefiled, no longer touched by the hands of all, but of the priests alone, and that with reverence. The bread again is at first common bread, but when the sacramental action consecrates it, it is called, and becomes, the Body of Christ. So with the sacramental oil; so with the wine: though before the benediction they are of little value, each of them, after the sanctification bestowed by the Spirit, has its several operation. The same power of the word, again, also makes the priest venerable and honourable, separated, by the new blessing bestowed upon him, from his community with the mass of men. While but yesterday he was one of the mass, one of the people, he is suddenly rendered a guide, a president, a teacher of righteousness, an instructor in hidden mysteries; and this he does without being at all changed in body or in form; but, while continuing to be in all appearance the man he was before, being, by some unseen power and grace, transformed in respect of his unseen soul to the higher condition. 

(Philip Schaff, NPNF2, Vol. V, Oratorical Works., On the Baptism of Christ). Here

John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 349 - 407 A.D.):

For great indeed is the might of baptism (φωτίσματου): it makes them quite other men than they were, that partake of the gift; it does not let the men be men (and nothing more). … But besides, consider how many, after their baptism, have of men become angels! 

(Philip Schaff, NPNF1, Vol. XI, A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily XXIII). Here

Nilus of Sinai (c. ? - 430 A.D.):

Paper made of the papyrus and glue, is called common paper; but when it has received the signature of the Emperor, everyone knows that it is called a sacra. So also consider the divine mysteries: before the invocation of the priest and the descent of the Holy Spirit, the things which are displayed are mere bread and common wine; but after these dreadful invocations, and the coming of the adorable, and vivifying and good spirit, the things which are displayed upon the holy table are no longer mere bread and common wine, but the precious and immaculate body and blood of Christ, the God of all. 

(J. P. Minge, Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, [1865], Patrologiæ Græcæ, Tomus LXXIX, S. Nili, Epistolarum Lib. I, Caput XLIV - Philippo Scholastico, Col. 104). Here Trans. (John Harvey Treat, The Catholic Faith; Or, Doctrines of the Church of Rome Contrary to Scripture and the Teaching of the Primitive Church, [1888], p. 182). Here

Appendix C:

The Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.):

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [coessential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us. 

(Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, Vol. II., II. Symbolum Nicæno-Constantinopolitanum, III. Symbolum Chalcedonense [The Symbol Of Chalcedon], Oct. 22d, 451.). Here

~ Soli Deo Gloria