Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book II: On the Real Presence, from the Testimonies of the Fathers
Chapter 27: The Testimony of Theodoret and Gelasius
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book II: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord in the Eucharist, from the Testimonies of the Fathers. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Theodoret was the equal of Cyril, and survived him too, as is clear from the epistle of Theodoret to John of Antioch on the death of Cyril, which is read in the fifth Synod.
Two passages are produced from Theodoret, both by Catholics and by heretics. The former is in the first Dialogue: “Our Saviour,” he says, “changed the names, and on the body indeed imposed the name which was of the symbol and sign, but on the symbol that which was of the body.” So he. Which words the adversaries take for themselves. But a little after he thus subjoins, rendering the reason of the change of names: “For He wished that those who are partakers of the mysteries should not attend to the nature of the things which are seen, but, on account of the change of names, believe the change which is made by grace.” So he; where he says that the bread was called body, that from the change of name we might understand and believe a change of the thing. Theodoret does not, therefore (as the adversaries say), mean that the Eucharist is called body only because it represents the body of the Lord by its external species, but because in reality the bread is inwardly changed into the body.
The latter passage is in the second Dialogue: “For neither,” he says, “do the mystical signs recede from their nature after the sanctification; for they remain in their former substance and figure and form, and can be seen and touched as before; but they are understood to be that which they have been made, and are believed, and are adored, as being that which they are believed to be.” So he. The former part of this passage the heretics seize, the latter the Catholics.
But it must be observed that this passage in appearance indeed helps somewhat the cause of Luther, who thought the true body of Christ to be joined with the true bread, but utterly destroys the cause of Calvin, Peter Martyr, and the other Sacramentarians. For Theodoret in this place most plainly asserts the presence of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist, when he says that the body of the Lord is understood, believed, and adored in the Eucharist; and that it is therefore understood, believed, and adored, because the bread of the Eucharist, that is, the consecrated bread, is truly that which is understood, believed, and adored. Add that in the same place Theodoret was unwilling to speak openly, fearing lest there be present among the hearers someone uninitiated: “It is not fitting,” he says, “to speak openly; for it is probable that some uninitiated are present.” But of the Eucharist, as the Calvinists now understand it, he could have spoken most plainly to any unbelievers whatever, since there is nothing marvelous in it, nothing arduous. Finally, Theodoret wishes to prove in all those dialogues that in Christ there are truly two natures, and this by the example of the Eucharist, where we truly believe that with the symbols of bread there is the body of Christ. But if he had denied the true presence of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist, he would have fought against himself for the adversaries.
But neither does he help the cause of Luther, if Theodoret be diligently considered. For when he says that the substance of the symbols remains and is not changed, he does not speak of substance as it is distinguished against accidents, and which Aristotle placed in the first category, but of the essence and nature of the accidents, which he perpetually calls symbols; in which manner other authors, Greek and Latin, everywhere take the word ‘substance’; but especially the Greek words [physis] and [ousia], which Theodoret used, embrace every essence and nature. Nor only the Greeks, but the Latins too, sometimes by ‘substance’ understand the nature of the accidents. Peter of Cluny, in his book On the Sacrifice and Transubstantiation: “Dost thou not perceive,” he says, “that, besides the glacial hardness, besides the stony firmness (as far as pertains to the species or transparency of the aforesaid element), nothing at all of the substance is taken away?” Where by ‘substance’ he understands the nature of the external figure and transparency, which remain when ice is changed into crystal.
This, then, Theodoret teaches: that the nature of the symbols, that is, of the sensible accidents which are in the Eucharist, was also before the consecration. That he speaks thus is clear. First, because in the second Dialogue the heretic urged, from the common faith, the change of the bread into the body of Christ, that thence he might prove his error concerning the change of one nature into another in the mystery of the Incarnation. But the Catholic does not deny that some change of the bread into the body of Christ is made—which certainly he ought to have done if the opinion of the Lutherans were true. Nay, he rather ought to have argued from the Eucharist against the Eutychian. For if it were true, which the Lutherans say, that in the Eucharist the bread and the body remain without any real change of the bread, the example of the Eucharist would not have helped the Eutychians at all, not even in appearance. The Catholic, then, in the Dialogue of Theodoret, because he could not deny the change of the essence of the bread, has recourse to the external symbols, and says that the nature of the symbols is not changed, and that in this manner there are in the Eucharist two natures unmingled. Secondly, because he so explains himself. For where he had said that the nature of the symbols remains, he proves it because we see and touch the same color, the same figure and form, which we saw and touched before. Thirdly, because otherwise he would fight with himself. For he says that the symbols are both changed and not changed; and that the symbols are indeed seen and touched, yet the body of the Lord is understood and believed; which do not cohere, unless we say that they are changed as to the internal substance of the bread, not changed as to the external nature and properties of the accidents. Fourthly, because it is in no way credible that Theodoret wished to repugn so openly Chrysostom, Ambrose, Cyril, and others, who deny that bread remains in the Eucharist; for these authors he cites most frequently in those Dialogues, and Theodoret was especially most devoted to Chrysostom.
The very same reasoning holds of the opinion of Gelasius in his book On the Two Natures. For whoever that Gelasius was (for it is not sufficiently established who he was) teaches altogether the same as Theodoret, and to confirm the same thing; for he says that the nature of the bread remains in the Eucharist, and yet in the same place says that it is changed, the Holy Spirit accomplishing it, into the divine substance; and that the Eucharist is a divine thing, so that by its reception we are made partakers of the divine nature.
Where in passing it must be noted that this Gelasius was not the Roman Pontiff, as the adversaries impudently boast. For Kemnitz, part 2 of the Examen of the Council of Trent, session 13, chapter 4, marvelously triumphs from this testimony, as of a Roman Pontiff. But that it is not of a Roman Pontiff can be shown by a most certain argument: that, although he says he wishes to relate the testimonies of all the Fathers, he makes no mention of Jerome, Augustine, Leo, and the like, who were most well known to Pope Gelasius. Besides, that this Gelasius adduces many testimonies from Eusebius of Caesarea; which Pope Gelasius would never have done, since he reprobated the books of Eusebius in his decree on authentic and apocryphal books. Add that this Gelasius seems to have written before the Council of Chalcedon, and to be the very one whom Theodoret cites in the third Dialogue, and whom Jerome mentions in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers, namely Gelasius, bishop of Caesarea, who could not but have been very old when he wrote that book against the Eutychians. But whoever at length he was, he does not differ from the other Catholic writers, as we have now shown.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXVII. Testimonium Theodoreti et Gelasii. Theodoretus sequalis Cyrilli fuit, et ei etiam supervixit, ut patet ex epist. Theodoreti ad Joannem Antiochenum de obitu Cyrilli, qua; legitur in V. Synodo. Duo loca proferuntur ex Theodoreto, tum a Catholicis, tum ab haereticis. Prior est in primo Dialogo : « Servator, inquit, noster nomina commutavit, et corpori quidem id, quod erat symboli, ac signi nomen impo¬ suit : symbolo autem quod erat corporis. » Ikec ille. Quae verba pro se accipiunt adver¬ sarii. Sed paulo post ita subjungit, reddens mutationis nominum : « Volebat enim, in¬ quit, eos, qui sunt mysteriorum participes, non attendere naturam eorum, qua; videntur sed propter nominum permutationem muta- tationi, quae fit ex gratia, credere» . Haec ille ; ubi dicit, panem vocatum esse corpus, ut ex nominis mutatione, intelligeremus, et crederemus rei mutationem. Non ergo vult Theodoretus (ut adversarii dicunt) Euchari¬ stiam vocari corpus, solum, quia repraesentat externa specie corpus Domini ; sed quia re¬ vera interius mutatus est panis in corpus. Posterior locus est in secundo Dialogo : « Neque enim, inquit, signa mystica post sanctificationem recedunt a sua natura, ma¬ nent enim in priora substantia, et figura, et forma, et videri, et tangi possunt, sicut prius : intelliguntur autem ea esse, quae facta sunt, et creduntur, et adorantur, ut quae illa sint, qua; creduntur. » Haec ille. Hujus loci prio¬ rem partem arripiunt hseretici, posteriorem Catholici. Sed observandum est locum istum in spe¬ cie quidem juvare nonnihil causam Lutheri, qui putavit cum pane vero conjunctum esse corpus Christi verum : at causam Calvini et Petri Martyris, et aliorum Sacramcntariorum penitus destruere. Nam apertissime asserit hoc loco Theodoretus praesentiam corporis Domini in Eucharistia, cum dicit, intelligi, credi, et adorari corpus Domini in Eucha¬ ristia, et ideo intelligi, credi, et adorari, quia panis Eucharistia;, id est, panis conse¬ cratus, est vere id quod intelligitur , cre¬ ditur , et adoratur. Adde , quod ibidem nolebat Theodoretus aperte loqni, metuens ne adesset inter auditores aliquis non initia¬ tus : « Non oportet, inquit, aperte dicere; est enim verisimile adesse aliquos non ini¬ tiatos » . At de Eucharistia, ut jam intelligunt Calvinista;, potuisset quibusvis infidelibus apertissime loqui, cum nihil in ea mirabile, nihil arduum sit. Denique probare vult Theo¬ doretus in illis omnibus dialogis, in Christo vere esse duas naturas, idque exemplo Eu¬ charistia;, ubi vere credimus cum symbolis panis esse corpus Christi. At si negasset ve¬ ram praesentiam corporis Domini in Eucha¬ ristia, contra seipsum pro adversariis pu- gnasset. Sed nec Lutheri causam adjuvat, si dili¬ genter consideretur Theodoretus. Nam cum dicit, substantiam symbolorum remanere, et non mutari, non loquitur de substantia, quae distinguitur contra accidentia, et quam in prima categoria posuit Aristoteles, sed de essentia, et n altura accidentium, quae ipse perpetuo symbola appellat, quomodo alii auctores Graeci et Latini passim accipiunt vocabulum substantiae : sed maxime Graecae voces cpuffi; et ouata, quibus Theodoretus usus est, omnem essentiam et naturam amplectun¬ tur. Nec solum Gra;ci, sed Latini etiam in¬ terdum per substantiam intelligunt naturam accidentium. Petrus Cluniacensis in libro de sacrificio, et transubstantiatione : « Annon cernis, inquit, praeter glacialem duritiam, praeter lapideam firmitatem ( quantum ad speciem, vel perspicuitatem jam dicti ele¬ menti pertinet ) nihil utique substantiae de¬ tractum? » Ubi per substantiam intelligit naturam externae figurae et perspicuitatis, quae manent, quando mutatur glacies in cry¬ stallum. Hoc igitur Theodoretus docet, naturam symbolorum, id est, accidentium sensibilium, quae sunt in Eucharistia, fuisse etiam ante consecrationem. Eum ita loqui patet. Primo, quia in Dialogo secundo haereticus ex com¬ muni fide urgebat mutationem panis in cor¬ pus Christi, ut inde probaret suum errorem de mutatione unius naturae in alteram in mysterio Incarnationis. Catholicus autem non negat mutationem aliquam panis in corpus 422 LIBER II. Christi fieri, quod certe facere debuisset, si esset vera sententia Luth eranorum. Imo ipse potius debuisset ex Eucharistia argu¬ mentari contra Eutycliianum. Si enim -verum esset, quod Lutherani dicunt, manere in Eucharistia panem et corpus sine ulla reali mutatione panis, exemplum Eucharistia; ni¬ hil omnino, ne quoad speciem quidem Euty- chianos juvisset. Catholicus ergo in Dialogo Theodoreti, quia non poterat negare muta¬ tionem essentiae panis, confugit ad symbola externa, ac dixit, naturam symbolorum non mutari, et eo modo esse in Eucharistia duas naturas impermixtas. Secundo, quia ita se ipse explicat. Nam ubi dixisset naturam sym¬ bolorum manere, probat, quia videmus, et tangimus cumdem colorem, eamdem figuram et formam, quam antea videbamus et tange¬ bamus. Tertio, quia alioqui pugnaret secum. Nam ipse dicit mutari, et non mutari sym¬ bola ; et videri quidem ac tangi symbola, tamen intclligi, et credi corpus Domini ; quee non cohaerent, nisi dicamus mutari, quoad internam substantiam panis, non mutari quoad exteriorem naturam, et proprietates accidentium. Quarto, quia non est ullo modo credibile, Theodoretum tam aperte repu¬ gnare voluisse Chrysostomo, Ambrosio, Cy- rillo et aliis, qui negant panem manere in Eucharistia : hos enim auctores in illis Dia¬ logis frequentissime citat, et praecipue Chry¬ sostomo Theodoretus addictissimus fuit. Eadem prorsus ratio est de sententia Gela- sii in libro de duabus naturis. Nam quicum¬ que fuerit is Gelasius (neque enim satis con¬ stat, quis ille fuerit) idem prorsus docet, quod Theodoretus, et ad eamdem rem confirman¬ dam : dicit enim manere naturam panis in Eucharistia, et tamen ibidem dicit mutari Spiritu sancto perficiente in divinam sub¬ stantiam; et esse Eucharistiam rem divinam, ita ut ejus perceptione efficiamur clivina) consortes natura). Ubi obiter est notandum, Gelasium istum non fuisse Romanum Pontificem, ut adver¬ sarii impudenter jactant. Nam Kemnitius 2. par. Examinis Tridenti ni Concilii sess. xm. cap. 4. mirabiliter triumphat ex hoc testi¬ monio, tanquam Romani Pontificis. At non esse Romani Pontificis , argumento certis¬ simo esse potest, quod cum dicat se velle referre testimonia omnium Patrum, nullam mentionem facit Hieronymi, Augustini, Leo¬ nis, et similium, qui Gelasio Papa) notissimi erant. Praeterea quod multa testimonia affe¬ rat iste Gelasius ex Eusebio Caesariensi ; quod nunquam Gelasius Papa fecisset, cum Euse- bii libros reprobaverit in suo decreto de li¬ bris authenticis et apochryphis. Adde, quod videtur iste Gelasius scripsisse ante Conci¬ lium Chalcedonense, et is ipse esse, quem Theodoretus citat in m Dialogo , et cujus meminit Hieronymus in lib. de scriptor. Ec- clcs. nimirum Gelasius Episcopus Caesarien¬ sis, qui non potuit nisi valde senex esse, cum librum istum scripsit contra Eutvchianos. Sed quicumque tandem fuerit, non discre¬ pat ab aliis Catholicis scriptoribus , ut jam ostendimus.