Pope Saint Gelasius I (492-496)

A pope of transition between Antiquity and the Middle Ages

At Gelasius’s death, the Western Roman Empire had ceased to exist for twenty years. Italy was governed by Theodoric the Goth, who arrived in Ravenna in 493. The Eastern Emperor, Anastasius I, discreetly supported the anti-Chalcedonians and sought to rally Rome to the union formula of his predecessor Zeno.^[10] Gelasius was therefore the pope of a world where Rome no longer had an emperor, where the papacy had to conceive its own authority without the support of a Christian Western state, and where the Church risked being absorbed by an Eastern imperial chancery for whom “dogmatic peace” often meant “silence on Chalcedon.”

It is in this context that Gelasius forged formulas destined to structure centuries of reflection on Church and world: the distinction between auctoritas and potestas, the title of Vicarius Christi, the rooting of Roman primacy in the Christic promise to Peter, and the sovereignty of the Church in sacramental communion.

The theorist of the two powers

The letter Famuli vestrae pietatis of 494 is regarded, according to Encyclopedia.com, as “the most famous document of the ancient Church concerning the ‘two powers’ on earth.”^[11] It appears in Denzinger (Enchiridion Symbolorum) as no. 347 — reference verified on the copy of the 1957 French edition (“Le double pouvoir suprême sur terre”); the correspondence with the numbering of the 2012 Hünermann edition remains to be cross-checked, so only the 1957 edition is cited here.^[12] It is not an anachronistic declaration of modern separation between Church and State; it is the first systematic formulation, in Christian Latin, of the ordered duality of two distinct powers, each received from God in its proper order.

The defender of Petrine primacy

The Roman synod of 494 clarifies Catholic doctrine on primacy. It affirms that the Church of Rome owes its rank “not to a conciliar decision, but to the evangelical word of the Lord”—that is, to “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” (Mt 16:18).^[13] It distinguishes the three Petrine sees: Rome (seat of the martyred Peter), Alexandria (by Mark, disciple of Peter), Antioch (where Peter resided before coming to Rome).^[14] It thus prepares the canonical list of accepted and rejected writings that the manuscript tradition would call the Decretum Gelasianum — a compilation whose final redaction, according to modern editors (Dobschütz 1912), postdates the pontificate (see “The Questioned Attribution” below).

Natione Afer or Romanus natus?

The Liber Pontificalis opens his notice with a now-famous phrase: “Gelasius, natione Afer, ex patre Valerio”.^[15] The official page of the Holy See simply states “Africano”.^[16] But Gelasius himself, in his letter to Anastasius, presents himself as “Romanus natus”: “sicut Romanus natus Romanum principem amo, et diligo, et colo, et sicut Christianus...”^[17]

How can these two be reconciled? The Catholic Encyclopedia leaves the debate open: for some, the natione Afer of the Liber Pontificalis means an African origin with a Roman birth; for others, natione Afer means “African by birth” and Romanus natus “born a Roman citizen.”^[18] Treccani notes the same ambiguity: the expression may refer equally to a properly Roman origin, to membership in the Roman state, or to a conscious adherence to the traditions and culture of Rome.^[19] In any case, Romanus natus designates a Roman identity — by birth, by citizenship, or by ecclesial culture — while the Liber Pontificalis preserves the memory of an African origin.

This distinction is not a detail. It reminds us that in the 5th century, the Roman Church already integrated men from across Mediterranean romanitas. The pope who formulates Petrine primacy and the doctrine of the two powers is not an “ethnic Italian” in the modern sense; he is, according to the Liber Pontificalis, an African who became Roman in the service of the See of Peter.

Deacon and Writer under Felix III

Before his election, Gelasius was already one of the main architects of pontifical policy under Pope Felix III. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that he “had been much employed by his predecessor Felix III, particularly in drafting ecclesiastical documents.”^[20] Treccani specifies that Gelasius, as a Roman deacon, was one of the writers of the pontifical decretals during the time of Felix III.^[21]

This continuity is decisive for understanding his pontificate. Gelasius’s firmness toward Anastasius is not a change of course: it is the Roman line forged during the nine years of Felix III’s pontificate (483–492), at the moment when Rome broke with Acacius to defend Chalcedon. Pope Gelasius only extends, with a more systematic formulation, what Deacon Gelasius had helped to draft.

A Swift Election in March 492

Felix III died between February 25 and March 1, 492. Gelasius was elected on March 1, 492, without delay or competition from other candidates. The speed of this election signals one thing: in Rome, there was no hesitation. The clergy knew who should continue the late pope’s line, and Gelasius appeared as the obvious successor.^[22][23]

The political context was sensitive. Odoacer died in 493; Theodoric settled in Ravenna; Anastasius became Eastern Emperor in 491. Gelasius had no luxury of a slow transition: he had to immediately notify Constantinople of his election, and he had to do so without compromising on the condemnation of Acacius, who died in 489 but whose name continued to be read in the diptychs.

The Legacy of Felix III

The Acacian schism is the constant backdrop of the pontificate. It began in 484 when Felix III excommunicated Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople, who had received Peter Mongus of Alexandria into communion based on Zeno’s Henotikon—a formula of union that silently bypassed Chalcedon. This rupture lasted until 519, under Pope Hormisdas and Emperor Justin I.^[24]

Gelasius thus inherited a conflict of more than eight years, already firmly entrenched. The new Patriarch of Constantinople, Euphemius, was himself a convinced Chalcedonian and desired peace with Rome. But he refused to remove Acacius from the diptychs, out of loyalty to his see and political calculation. For Rome, this refusal made communion impossible: “to pray publicly with a name is to signify communion,” as ancient liturgical practice already reminded us.^[25]

The Refusal to Compromise with Anastasius

Emperor Anastasius I, who ascended the throne in 491, attempted to draw Rome into compromise. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes Gelasius’s firmness:

“His firmness in dealing with the partisans of Acacius [...] he would make no peace that would compromise, even to the slightest degree, the rights and honor of the Chair of Peter.” — Ambrose Coleman, Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 6 (1909)^[26]

Gelasius responded to the emperor, Patriarch Euphemius, and the Eastern bishops with a cascade of letters all repeating the same demand: as long as the names of Acacius, Peter Mongus, and their compromised successors remained in the diptychs, Rome could not celebrate the same liturgy as them. This was not a whim; it was the ancient logic of ecclesial communion: the list of commemorated names is the visible signature of real communion.

The Tomus de anathematis vinculo (495)

In 495, Gelasius published the Tomus de anathematis vinculo (“Treatise on the Bond of Anathema”), where he developed a fundamental canonical doctrine: the emperor cannot absolve a bishop excommunicated by the Apostolic See.^[27] The power to bind and loose comes from Christ and was entrusted to Peter (Mt 16:19), not to the emperor.

“It is perfectly clear to all who think rightly that a priest absolutely cannot be bound or absolved by secular power.” — Saint Gelasius I, Tomus de anathematis vinculo, § 12, circa 495^[28]

This assertion extends the letter to Anastasius but shifts it onto a juridical plane. Anastasius, as a Christian emperor, may desire the peace of the Church; he cannot create it by unilaterally lifting a canonical condemnation. Catholic communion is not an act of civil power.

The Synod of 495 and the Reinstatement of Misenus

In 495, Gelasius convened a synod at the Lateran to absolve and restore Misenus of Cumae to his see, one of the two legates Felix III had sent to Constantinople in the Acacian affair and who, compromised in 484, had been condemned that same year for participating in a liturgy where Peter Mongus was named in the diptychs.^[29][30] Sources diverge on the exact date and numbers: Treccani retains March 13, 495 with forty-five bishops (besides numerous clergy and laity), the acts transmitted by The See of Peter are dated May 13, 495 and mention fifty-five bishops, while Wace speaks of a synod of forty-six bishops that same year.^[31][32][33]

Before receiving absolution, Misenus had to pronounce a solemn formula condemning by name Dioscorus, Timothy Elurus, Peter Mongus, Peter the Fuller, Acacius, “and all their successors, accomplices, and adherents, and all who have communed with them.”^[34] The synod did not merely restore a man; it published the list of anathematized errors so that Rome’s communion would remain unambiguous.

It was at this 495 synod that, according to Britannica, the earliest preserved attestation of the title Vicarius Christi (Vicar of Christ) applied to a bishop of Rome is found.^[35][36] Formulas of vicariate are already found in his predecessors (Leo I), and the title was not then reserved to the bishop of Rome alone: the novelty of 495 is the explicit synodal acclamation of the full title for Gelasius.^[37] The title, which would become that of the pope in medieval theology, appears here in a specific context: that of a see claiming to act in the name of Christ, against an imperial chancery that wished to manufacture doctrinal peace by decree.

Context of the Letter to Anastasius

The letter Famuli vestrae pietatis (letter 12 in the Thiel edition, Ep. 8 in the Patrologia Latina), dated 494, responds to imperial initiatives: Anastasius wished for Rome to cease demanding the removal of Acacius from the diptychs and to accept a modus vivendi that would allow universal communion. Gelasius replies no, but he does so in a letter whose tone is neither invective nor diplomatic: it is a doctrinal explanation, clear, dense, and deferential on the civil level.^[38]

Gelasius does not deny imperial dignity. He explicitly honors it: « sicut Romanus natus Romanum principem amo, et diligo, et colo » — “as one born a Roman, I love, cherish, and revere the Roman prince.”^[39] Gelasius’s firmness is not directed against the person of Anastasius; it concerns the limit of imperial competence in the sacred order.

The Central Passage: Duo sunt

Then comes the formula destined, according to Encyclopedia.com, to become “the most famous document of the ancient Church concerning the two powers on earth.”^[40]

“There are, august emperor, two powers by which this world is chiefly governed: the sacred authority of the pontiffs and the royal power.” — Saint Gelasius I, Famuli vestrae pietatis, § 2, 494^[41]

Latin: « Duo quippe sunt, imperator auguste, quibus principaliter mundus hic regitur : auctoritas sacrata pontificum et regalis potestas. »^[42]

Two vocabulary words are crucial: auctoritas and potestas. Auctoritas designates, in Roman law, the legitimate foundation, guarantee, recognized origin of a decision. Potestas designates the power of coercion, the capacity to enforce. In Roman civil language, the Senate possesses auctoritas; the magistrates possess potestas. Gelasius uses this grammar familiar to any Roman reader to characterize the relationship between Church and emperor: the Church has the founding authority; the emperor has the power of civil execution.

Gravius est pondus sacerdotum: Why the Priesthood Weighs More

The following explains why, in this duality, the priesthood is “of a heavier weight”:

“Of these two powers, that of the priests is all the heavier because they will have to give account, at the divine tribunal, even for the kings themselves.” — Saint Gelasius I, Famuli vestrae pietatis, § 2, 494^[43]

The reasoning is eschatological, not sociological. Gelasius does not say that bishops are “superior” to emperors in the sense of civil command. He says that bishops, because they answer before God for the spiritual life of the kings themselves, bear a heavier responsibility. It is a logic of divine judgment, not a logic of political hierarchy.

A Distinction, Not a Separation

Modern reader, beware of projection. Gelasius does not invent the contemporary separation of Church and State, conceived as two independent orders where faith would have no public visibility. He proposes an ordered distinction: two powers received from God, each in its own proper order, which must cooperate without confusion.

“For if, regarding the order of public discipline, the bishops themselves obey your laws, knowing that sovereignty has been granted to you from above [...] with what zeal, I ask, ought you not to obey those who have been appointed for the distribution of the venerable mysteries?” — Saint Gelasius I, Famuli vestrae pietatis, § 2, 494^[44]

The bishop obeys the emperor in the civil order. The emperor receives the sacraments in the sacred order. The duality is not symmetrical: in each order, legitimate authority is different. But in neither of the two can one absorb the other.

A Formula for the Following Centuries

The historian Walter Ullmann, in his classic study Gelasius I (492-496) (1981), shows how this formulation would structure Latin political theology throughout the Middle Ages.^[45] The Council of Constance, the investiture controversies, the theories of the ordo coronationis, the treatises of Bellarmine and Suárez on indirect spiritual power: all trace back to Duo sunt. The Second Vatican Council continues the same intuition when it teaches that “the political community and the Church are independent of each other and autonomous in their own fields” and that “both, though under different titles, are at the service of the personal and social vocation of the same men” (Vatican II, Gaudium et spes, 76, § 3; cf. CCC § 2245, which cites § 2).^[46]

The Roman Synod of 494 and the Three Petrine Sees

In the same year as Famuli vestrae pietatis, Gelasius presided over a synod in Rome that produced a decree in several parts: doctrine of the Holy Spirit, scriptural canon, doctrine of the Petrine sees, recognized ecumenical councils, approved patristic writings, and a list of rejected apocryphal works.^[47][48] While the final drafting of the “Decretum Gelasianum” as transmitted by manuscript tradition likely dates to the early 6th century, the Gelasian core of 494 on primacy and the Petrine sees is firmly attributed to Gelasius.^[49]

Rome Not by Conciliar Decision, but by Divine Institution

The decree formulates primacy as follows:

“The first see of the Apostle Peter is the Roman Church, without stain or wrinkle.” — Roman Synod of 494 under Gelasius^[50]

Latin: “Est ergo prima Petri apostoli sedes Romana Ecclesia, non habens maculam, neque rugam, nec aliquid hujusmodi.”^[51]

More importantly, the decree explains the origin of this primacy:

“The holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church obtained primacy not by the decrees of any synod, but by the evangelical word of our Lord and Savior: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’” — Roman Synod of 494 under Gelasius^[52]

This statement is doctrinally decisive. It declares that Roman primacy is not a concession of councils (and therefore cannot be revoked by conciliar decision), but a divine institution rooted in the promise of Mt 16:18. This is the language that will be echoed more than a thousand years later in the definitions of Vatican I on papal primacy.^[53]

The Three Petrine Sees

The decree then distinguishes three “Petrine” sees according to different modes:

This hierarchy is not Gelasius’s invention: it follows the practice of ancient councils (Nicaea 325, canon 6). But Gelasius systematizes it within an explicit Petrine logic. The place of Alexandria and Antioch is not political; it is canonically anchored in Peter’s mission.^[54]

The Rejection of Constantinople as “Second Rome”

Canon 28 of Chalcedon (451) had recognized Constantinople, the “new Rome”, a second rank in honor. Leo the Great had refused to approve this canon. Gelasius takes the same line: he refuses to elevate Constantinople above Alexandria and Antioch in the ecclesiastical hierarchy.^[55]

“Gelasius rejected the imperial claim that Constantinople was the ‘New Rome’ in any sense other than political, even refusing to grant it second place in ecclesiastical honor before the venerable metropolitan sees of Alexandria and Antioch.” — Henry Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography^[56]

For Gelasius, primacy has no political foundation. An imperial capital does not create an apostolic see. Constantinople may be the capital of an empire; it cannot replace a see founded by an apostle. This Roman line, formulated by Gelasius, will later be one of the roots of the dispute between Rome and Byzantium.

Vicarius Christi: A New Title

Britannica presents Gelasius as the first pope called Vicarius Christi (“Vicar of Christ”) — the earliest preserved attestation of the title for a bishop of Rome, at the Roman synod of 495.^[57] Before him, popes were called “successors of Peter”, “bishops of the Apostolic See”, “vicars of Peter”. The title Vicarius Christi adds a new dimension: the pope, in the exercise of his ministry, acts in the name and place of Christ.

The title is not a self-proclamation by Gelasius. It is a conciliar acclamation by the Roman bishops, in a specific context: when Rome must tell Constantinople that Catholic communion is not negotiable with an emperor. The title doctrinally expresses the ecclesiastical sovereignty that the Tomus de anathematis vinculo defends juridically.

A Persistent Sect in the Capital

At the end of the 5th century, Manichaeism — a dualistic religion founded by Mani in the 3rd century — still survived clandestinely in Rome. The Manichaeans taught that matter is evil, that the flesh is the work of Evil, and therefore that wine (derived from a “material” fruit and associated with blood) must be avoided. For them, communion with bread alone was acceptable; communion with the chalice would mean touching an impure substance.^[58]

Gelasius seized upon this doctrinal peculiarity to make it a disciplinary measure of discernment. He reminded that in Rome, Eucharistic communion is received under both species, bread and wine. Refusing the chalice was not a pious option: in the Roman context, it was a sign of Manichaean affiliation.

Communion Under Both Species as a Disciplinary Measure

The Catholic Encyclopedia presents this Roman prescription as the means adopted by Gelasius to identify the Manichaeans: those who refused the cup revealed themselves, while those who accepted it confessed in deed the unity of the flesh and blood of the incarnate Word.^[59]

“To acknowledge that the consecrated wine is also the blood of Christ is to confess that matter is not evil, and that the Word truly became flesh by assuming a real body.” — Summary of the Roman position under Gelasius^[60]

This pastoral measure, specific to a particular moment, was later abandoned when the context changed. It does not establish a dogmatic doctrine on the absolute necessity of communion under both species for the laity: it illustrates a more enduring principle, the Church’s sovereignty to adapt sacramental discipline in defense of the faith.

Books Burned in Public

Gelasius also ordered the confiscation and public destruction of Manichaean books found in Rome.^[61] This act, which may surprise a modern reader, must be understood in its context. In Rome, Manichaean books were tools of clandestine evangelization: their public destruction responded to their secret dissemination. The Bishop of Rome was, for the still partly Christian civil authorities, a guarantor of religious peace.

A Reform Later Abandoned

When Roman Manichaeism disappeared, this disciplinary measure lost its pastoral purpose. Latin discipline evolved, from the 12th–13th centuries onward, toward communion under the species of bread alone for the laity (Council of Constance 1415), while maintaining Catholic doctrine: Christ is fully present under each species (Council of Trent, Session XXI, 1562). Gelasius’s measure is therefore not a dogmatic doctrine on the necessity of the chalice; it is a circumstantial discipline that fulfilled its role.

A Pagan Festival That Survived

The Lupercalia was one of the oldest religious festivals of Rome, celebrated every February 15. Nearly naked young men, the luperci, ran through the city striking passersby with a whip made of goat skin to ward off female infertility. The festival combined rites of purification, fertility, and mythical foundation (Romulus and Remus suckled by the she-wolf in the lupercale).^[62]

By the end of the 5th century, Rome had been officially Christian for over a century. Yet part of the baptized senatorial aristocracy continued to financially support and attend the Lupercalia — out of civic tradition, identity nostalgia, and fear of the social consequences of abrupt abandonment. Gelasius judged this ambiguity unacceptable.

Andromachus and the Ambiguous Christian Aristocracy

The tract Adversus Andromachum, preserved in the Collectio Avellana and edited in the Sources Chrétiennes collection (vol. 65, Cerf, 1959), is addressed to the senator Andromachus and “other Romans” who wished to maintain the Lupercalia.^[63] The most probable dating is 495 or 496.

The immediate occasion is revealing. A plague ravaged Campania, and Andromachus, like other senators, attributed it to the suspension of the Lupercalia: without the ritual run of the luperci, the gods would allow the plague to settle.^[64] The argument is typical of ancient civic paganism: the festival guarantees public health, so suppressing it endangers the city.

The Plague Argument: A Revealed Superstition

Gelasius dismantled the argument with irrefutable logic. If the Lupercalia protected Rome from plague, how to explain all the plagues that occurred when the Lupercalia were fully celebrated? If they guaranteed fertility, how to explain past infertility? The pagan argument is unverifiable and not verified by history.

“If the Lupercalia guaranteed Rome’s prosperity, Rome would never have suffered. But history shows that neither plagues, nor famines, nor wars are linked to their celebration or suspension. What you call state religion is but a vile superstition to which even your ancestors did not seriously give credence.” — Summary of Gelasius’s argument in Adversus Andromachum^[65]

Historian Roger Pearse, citing the critical edition, notes that Gelasius calls the remaining participants in the Lupercalia the “vile rabble” and demonstrates, by Roman sources themselves, that the festival had lost all real religious significance.^[66] The strength of the tract lies in that it does not invoke only Christian faith: it uses classical culture to show that the pagans no longer believe in what they defend.

The Myth of Saint Valentine as a Replacement

A persistent myth, popularized in the 19th century, claims that Gelasius “replaced” the Lupercalia with Saint Valentine’s Day (February 14) or with the Presentation at the Temple / Candlemas (February 2). The investigation by Jack B. Oruch and the synthesis by Roger Pearse show that this substitution is a retroactive invention, mainly due to Cardinal Cesare Baronio in the 16th century.^[67]

The historical reality is more sober:

• Gelasius abolished the Lupercalia in 495.
• The Presentation at the Temple (February 2) is attested in Jerusalem as early as the 4th century (Egeria’s account) before being introduced in Rome — with no direct connection to the Lupercalia.
• Saint Valentine has been commemorated on February 14 from very early on as a local martyr, with no established link to the pagan festival.

Gelasius’s abolition therefore does not “replace” anything: it simply suppresses a civic cult that had become empty, without introducing a substitute feast. The argument of pagan “continuity” in Christianity rests, on this precise point, on a legend.

What Really Remains?

The tract Adversus Andromachum is preserved in the Collectio Avellana and remains one of the most valuable sources on the religious mentality of the Roman aristocracy in the 5th century. It shows a baptized elite still hesitating between Christian identity and pagan tradition; it shows a Bishop of Rome who no longer tolerates this ambiguity. From 495 onward, the Lupercalia disappear from Rome’s official calendar.

Structure in Five Chapters

The text traditionally transmitted under the name Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis ("Decree of Gelasius on books to be received and not received") is presented in five parts:

1. The Holy Spirit and Christological titles
2. The complete scriptural canon (books received from the Old and New Testaments)
3. The three Petrine sees (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch)
4. The received ecumenical councils (Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon) and approved patristic writings
5. The list of rejected apocrypha (Gospel of Thomas, Acts of Peter, Acts of Andrew, Apocalypse of Peter, etc.)^[68]

The Biblical Canon Almost Identical to That of Trent

The biblical canon of the Decretum is very close to that fixed by the Council of Trent in 1546:

• Old Testament: all the Hebrew books, plus the deuterocanonicals (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, 1-2 Maccabees, Baruch in some variants).
• New Testament: four Gospels, Acts, fourteen Pauline epistles (including Hebrews), seven Catholic epistles, Apocalypse.^[69]

This continuity shows that the Latin Catholic canon was stabilized by the end of the 5th century, well before the Protestant controversies of the 16th–17th centuries. The ancient councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), as well as the Vetus Latina and Jerome’s Vulgate, had already received these books as inspired.

The List of Rejected Apocrypha

The fifth part of the decree enumerates a large number of apocryphal writings circulating in late antiquity: Gospel according to Thomas, Gospel according to Matthias, apocryphal Acts of several apostles, pseudepigraphal Apocalypses, etc. This list still serves today as a reference inventory for historians of early Christianity.^[70]

The Questioned Attribution

Modern editors (notably Ernst von Dobschütz in 1912) have shown that the final redaction of the Decretum as we have it cannot be strictly Gelasian, because it cites Fathers later than 496.^[71] The dominant hypothesis among scholars today is:

• The core of the decree (sections on the Holy Spirit, Petrine primacy, and councils) dates from the Roman synod of 494 or 495 under Gelasius.
• The final list of apocrypha was probably expanded and stabilized in the first half of the 6th century.
• The transmitted form is a Gelasian compilation, not a pontifical autograph.

Why the Decree Remains Gelasian in Spirit

Even if the final redaction is slightly later, the decree remains “Gelasian” in a strong sense: it codifies the spirit of Gelasius’s pontificate, which sought both to fix the Catholic canon, assert the Roman primacy of divine origin, and distinguish Catholic communion from Eastern heresies and heterodox writings. Whether the final editor was Gelasius himself or one of his immediate successors does not change the fundamental doctrinal attribution.

A Traditional Attribution, a Complex History

The Latin liturgical tradition calls the “Gelasian Sacramentary” (Sacramentarium Gelasianum) a liturgical book transmitted by several manuscripts, the oldest of which (Vatican Reg. lat. 316) dates from the mid-8th century. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that this sacramentary in its transmitted form “properly belongs to the following century”—that is, the 6th or 7th century, not the time of Gelasius.^[72]

Authentic Gelasian Hymns, Prefaces, and Collects

But this does not mean Gelasius composed nothing liturgically. The Catholic Encyclopedia states that “he composed hymns, prefaces, and collects, organizing a standard Mass book.”^[73] Part of this authentic Gelasian material survives, integrated into later layers of the so-called “Gelasian” sacramentary.

Gelasus’s liturgical work is therefore real but filtered through transmissions of the 6th–8th centuries. It is up to liturgists to identify, through philological and theological analysis, the strictly Gelasian layers from the later Frankish or Carolingian strata.

Gelasian Liturgical Reform

The pontificate is also marked by disciplinary decisions on Roman liturgical life: ordinations on the Ember Days, fourfold division of ecclesiastical revenues (for the poor, churches, bishop, lower clergy), penitential discipline in the suburban dioceses of Italy.^[74] All these decisions fit within a general reform of the governance of the Roman Church, at a time when Italy no longer had a Western emperor and the Apostolic See had to consolidate its own structures.

Lavish Charity Toward the Poor

During his pontificate, Gelasius distinguished himself by a lavish charity toward the poor of Rome. The Catholic Encyclopedia relies on the contemporary testimony of Dionysius Exiguus (letter to the priest Julian, PL 67, 231) to describe him as “a true father to the poor, dying empty-handed as a result of his lavish charity.”^[75] The Roman Martyrology (2004, on November 21) confirms this portrait: Gelasius is celebrated there as having died in extreme poverty to help the needy.^[76]

The Portrait as Transmitted by Dionysius Exiguus

Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian monk who came to Rome shortly after Gelasius’s death, offers in his letter to the priest Julian (PL 67, 231) a vivid portrait of the late pope. The Catholic Encyclopedia conveys the essence in a formula that has remained famous — which is its own, not a literal quotation of Dionysius:

“a true father to the poor, dying empty-handed as a result of his lavish charity.” — Ambrose Coleman, Catholic Encyclopedia (1909), after Dionysius Exiguus^[77]

This verdict is invaluable. Dionysius Exiguus was no court panegyrist: he was the humble organizer of the “Paschal cycle” and the inventor of the Christian era (Anno Domini). When the contemporary tradition he transmits shows Gelasius dying with empty hands from giving so much, it provides a credible contemporary testimony to the pope’s ascetic character, his genuine charity toward the Roman poor, and the inner dimension of a pontificate that political historiography has sometimes reduced to its disputes with Constantinople.

A Bishop-Administrator of Suburban Italy

More than a hundred letters and fragments survive from Gelasius’s pontificate; the bibliography recorded by Treccani (Enciclopedia dei Papi) lists them as preserved notably in Patrologia Latina 59, in Andreas Thiel’s critical edition (Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum genuinae, 1868, pp. 285-613), in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores antiquissimi XII (1894, pp. 389-92), and in the Collectio Avellana edited by Otto Guenther (1895-1898).^[78]

These letters reveal a bishop-administrator attentive to the suburban dioceses of Italy: Lucania, Bruttium, Picenum, Sicily, Sardinia, Dalmatia. Clerical discipline, ordinations, church property, ecclesiastical judgments, restitution of slaves unlawfully ordained, return of heretics, reception of converts: Gelasius was not only the theologian of the two powers, but also the local bishop who concretely managed a Church from which the imperial state had withdrawn.

Ordinations and Basilica Foundations

The Liber Pontificalis records numbers and constructions:

• Ordinations: 32 priests, 2 deacons, 67 bishops “for various places.”^[79]
• Basilicas: Gelasius dedicated a basilica to Saint Euphemia (at Tibur, near Rome), and another to Saints Nicander, Eleutherius, and Andrew on the Via Lavicana.^[80]

His episcopal concern was practical: ordain, dedicate, build, govern. The great doctrines of the letter to Anastasius were the work of the same man who ordained 67 bishops for sees throughout suburban Italy.

Fight Against Residual Pelagianism

Gelasius devoted several letters to combating Pelagianism, which persisted in some Italian circles half a century after its initial condemnation by Innocent I (417) and its consolidation by Leo the Great. He reminded the bishops of Picenum of the Catholic doctrine of grace and the authority of the Apostolic See over the fifth-century Eastern controversies.^[81]

Died on the 19th, Buried on November 21, 496

Sources differ between November 19 (date of death retained by the Catholic Encyclopedia) and November 21 (date preserved by Treccani and the Roman liturgical calendar).^[82][83] The coexistence of the two dates is probably explained thus: Gelasius died on November 19, was buried on November 21, and the Roman calendar commemorates the day of burial as the liturgical memorial.

Burial at Saint Peter’s

The Liber Pontificalis states that Gelasius was buried in the Vatican basilica of Saint Peter, “XI kalendas decembris” (November 21).^[84] This detail is significant. His predecessor Felix III had chosen Saint Paul Outside the Walls; Gelasius returned to the Vatican basilica, near the tomb of Peter. This is consistent with his theology: the primacy of the Apostolic See is rooted in the tomb of the Apostle Peter. The pope who formulated this doctrine rests where its historical and liturgical source lies.

The Liturgical Memorial of November 21

The Roman calendar commemorates Saint Gelasius on November 21, the day of his burial.^[85] The Roman Martyrology (typical edition 2004, on November 21, no. 5) celebrates him in these terms: “At Rome, near Saint Peter’s, Saint Gelasius the First, pope, who, remarkable for doctrine and holiness, lest the imperial authority harm the unity of the Church, was the first to set forth clearly the distinct properties and mutual liberty of the two powers; moved with the greatest charity and by the needs of the poor, in order to help the needy, he died in extreme poverty.”^[86]

Did Gelasius invent the modern Church/State separation?

No. The Gelasian distinction auctoritas / potestas is not a separation in the modern sense (secularism, secularization, civil indifference to religion). It is an ordered distinction within Christendom: two powers, received from God, in a society that considers itself Christian, which must cooperate without merging. Vatican II rather speaks of the reciprocal independence and autonomy of the political community and the Church, at the service of the same human good (Gaudium et spes, 76, § 3; cf. CCC § 2245).^[87]

Modernity, belatedly, secularized this distinction: potestas became “secular power indifferent to religion,” and spiritual auctoritas was reduced to “private opinion.” Gelasius proposes nothing of the sort. His formula remains a doctrinal resource for understanding the legitimate distinction of orders, without falling into theocratic confusion or total secularism.

Is the Decretum Gelasianum a forgery?

No, it is not a forgery; it is an enriched Gelasian compilation. Scholars distinguish: (1) the core from 494-495, which goes back to the Roman synod and contains the essence of the doctrine on Petrine primacy and the canon; (2) later developments, mainly the final list of apocryphal works, which belong to the first half of the 6th century.^[88]

No part is “invented” against Rome. The decree faithfully reflects the spirit of Gelasius’s pontificate and Roman practice of his time. What changes is only the exact degree of textual attribution to the pope’s own hand. For doctrine, the Gelasian attribution remains solid.

Did Gelasius really replace the Lupercalia with Saint Valentine’s Day?

No. This legend, popularized by Cardinal Baronio in the 16th century, has no solid historical foundation. The investigation by Jack B. Oruch (“St. Valentine, Chaucer, and Spring in February,” Speculum, 1981) and the synthesis by Roger Pearse show that the Christian Saint Valentine was not created to “replace” the Lupercalia, and that the Presentation at the Temple (February 2) is attested in Jerusalem independently of Rome.^[89]

Gelasius abolished the Lupercalia without introducing a substitute feast. The “replacement” Christian feast is a modern construction, retrospectively projected onto the 5th century.

Why stubbornly refuse communion with Constantinople?

Because ancient communion was not a façade diplomacy. As long as the names of Acacius, Peter Mongus, and their compromised successors remained in the diptychs of Constantinople, Rome publicly acknowledged that it did not share the same liturgy. Erasing these names was not a posthumous personal humiliation; it was the visible correction of a falsely displayed communion.

Gelasius did not refuse communion out of harshness of temperament. He refused to proclaim a unity that did not really exist. This pedagogical intransigence paid off: it made possible the true reconciliation of 519, under Hormisdas, with the “Formula of Hormisdas” which unambiguously affirmed Roman primacy and the doctrine of Chalcedon.

Should Gelasius be seen as a precursor of the theocratic Middle Ages?

No, not in a caricatural sense. Gelasius does not claim that the pope politically governs the empire; he says that the emperor receives the sacraments of the Church and obeys doctrine in the spiritual order, without ceasing to be sovereign in the civil order. The theory of “plenitude of power” (plenitudo potestatis) as developed later by Innocent III or Boniface VIII in the Middle Ages goes beyond Gelasius and constitutes a distinct medieval elaboration.

Gelasius provides the grammar (auctoritas / potestas) and the theological justification (the priesthood answers before God for the souls of kings). He does not provide the medieval construction of a pontifical power “above” all civil powers. This “hierocratic” reading of the late Middle Ages is an interpretation, legitimate or contestable depending on context, but it does not correspond exactly to Gelasius’s text.

Was Gelasius a genuine saint?

Yes. What is proven is that the Roman calendar preserves his liturgical memorial on November 21, the anniversary of his burial.^[90] The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that his personal memory is marked by “a spirit of prayer, penance, and study,” and by charity such that he “died with empty hands” (Coleman’s phrase after Dionysius Exiguus, PL 67, 231).^[91] The title of saint is preserved by Roman tradition, the martyrology, and the official list of the Holy See.^[92] His sanctity is therefore not a mere administrative convention: it is attested by contemporaries, popular devotion, and continuous liturgical transmission.

Saint Gelasius I is one of the rare popes of late antiquity whose doctrinal density rivals his institutional influence. In four and a half years, he forged, or helped forge: the doctrine of the two powers (Duo sunt), the rooting of Petrine primacy in the word of Christ, the list of the three Petrine sees, the title of Vicarius Christi, the defense of ecclesiastical sovereignty in the Tomus de anathematis vinculo, the abolition of the Lupercalia, the fight against the Manichaeans, and the Roman biblical canon close to that of Trent.

His firmness toward Anastasius is not psychological rigidity. It is the conviction that the peace of the Church cannot be manufactured by an imperial edict, and that Catholic communion is not a civil act. His charity toward the poor of Rome is not an isolated sentiment. It is the concrete expression of a priesthood that “answers before God, at the divine tribunal, even for kings.”

The following centuries would draw from Duo sunt the grammar of their own debates. Vatican I would formulate papal primacy in a language whose foundations Gelasius laid. The contemporary Catechism (CCC § 2245) still inherits from it. Saint Gelasius is not a transitional pope: he is a founding pope.

• Pope Saint Felix III — immediate predecessor of Gelasius, who opened the Acacian schism.
• Pope Saint Leo the Great — pope of the Tome to Flavian and the Chalcedonian definition, doctrinal source for Gelasius.
• Council of Chalcedon — confession of Christ in two natures, defended by Gelasius against the Henotikon.
• Pope Saint Simplicius — transitional pope between the declining Western Empire and the Gelasian papacy.
• Pope Saint Damasus I — the other pope often associated with the fixation of the Roman biblical canon.
• The Heresies of the Early Centuries — context of Manichaeism and Monophysitism combated by Gelasius.