Wanting to be sure I’m not totally misled in thinking that the leaders of the Church were unanimous in their view (at least basically) of the Eucharist, I came across a certain objection. Now, please note, such objections as “Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria and Theodoret” and so and so held to a figurative view of it are easily dispelled, for me at least, by going back to the original sources. So I’m trying to do this “on my own” before I ask.
However, there's something I've come across that I'm not able to track down to the original source. I found this on [this web site]("http://www.studytoanswer.net/rcc/rvb_mass.html#notes"). Here's the quote:
**Gelasius I (d. 496 AD)**
"The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries."30Perhaps most embarrassing of all for Catholic apologists is the revelation that even Gelasius, touted as one of the greatest early “popes”, quite openly refers to the bread and wine as a “similitude”, meaning a figure, a picture, of what they represent. He also pointedly rejects the transubstantiation of these elements into the literal body and blood of Christ. He says that the bread and wine remain just that: bread and wine.
That site references the work at the bottom of the page. I think I read somewhere else that it was from his work titled “On the Two Natures of Christ.”
Ok, what do you say? I’ve got a little more to add, but I’ll do it in a second post.