I'm not sure that it's entirely right to say that the Catholic Church doesn't teach that Jesus is "truly present in the bread and wine." The Council of Trent states that the Lord Jesus is "truly, really, and substantially contained in the august sacrament of the Holy Eucharist." So the language of Jesus being "truly" in the bread and win…
I'm not sure that it's entirely right to say that the Catholic Church doesn't teach that Jesus is "truly present in the bread and wine." The Council of Trent states that the Lord Jesus is "truly, really, and substantially contained in the august sacrament of the Holy Eucharist." So the language of Jesus being "truly" in the bread and wine actually seems to track more closely the language of Trent than the language of "actually become" which was present in the 2019 Pew survey.
I don't think JT's issue is the "truly", but the "bread and wine." Saying "Jesus is present in the bread" implies that there is bread and that Jesus is inside it; in actuality the consecrated host is only Jesus, and not bread at all.
But we also have Trent talking about the Lord being “contained in the august sacrament of the Holy Eucharist under the appearance of those sensible things [the bread and wine].” And so the language of Jesus being “truly present in the bread and wine” wouldn’t seem to be a clear description of Impanation.
A clearer description of Impanation would either be something like “Jesus is present *with* the bread and the wine” or perhaps “the Lord has become the bread [N.B. the distinction between this and transubstantiation in that with Impanation, Christ has become the bread, whereas in transubstantiation there’s no more bread: only Christ]”.
Those two seem to say very different things to me though. Here's how I read them:
A) "Jesus is truly present in the bread and wine": There exists bread and wine, and Jesus is present within them.
B) "Jesus is contained in the august sacrament of the Holy Eucharist under the appearance of those sensible things": There exists the sacrament, the sacrament appears to be bread and wine, and Jesus is contained in the sacrament.
The way I end up reading A is as impanation, and B as transubstantiation.
I'm not saying that (A) is as well-worded as it could be, but I don't think that saying that "Jesus is truly present in the bread and wine" automatically amounts to impanation (partly due to the wide semantic range of "in"). For example, in his first encyclical "Deus Caritas Est," Pope Benedict XVI in paragraph 13 talks about Jesus "giving his disciples, *in the bread and wine,* his very self, his body and blood as the new manna [suis discipulis in pane et vino se ipsum tradens, suum corpus suumque sanguinem tamquam novum manna]" (emphasis mine). I don't think that Pope Benedict was teaching impanation there.
And if even Benedict XVI could slip into such language, then I don't know if Joe Schmeux Catholic can be faulted too hard.
I'm not sure that it's entirely right to say that the Catholic Church doesn't teach that Jesus is "truly present in the bread and wine." The Council of Trent states that the Lord Jesus is "truly, really, and substantially contained in the august sacrament of the Holy Eucharist." So the language of Jesus being "truly" in the bread and wine actually seems to track more closely the language of Trent than the language of "actually become" which was present in the 2019 Pew survey.
I don't think JT's issue is the "truly", but the "bread and wine." Saying "Jesus is present in the bread" implies that there is bread and that Jesus is inside it; in actuality the consecrated host is only Jesus, and not bread at all.
But we also have Trent talking about the Lord being “contained in the august sacrament of the Holy Eucharist under the appearance of those sensible things [the bread and wine].” And so the language of Jesus being “truly present in the bread and wine” wouldn’t seem to be a clear description of Impanation.
A clearer description of Impanation would either be something like “Jesus is present *with* the bread and the wine” or perhaps “the Lord has become the bread [N.B. the distinction between this and transubstantiation in that with Impanation, Christ has become the bread, whereas in transubstantiation there’s no more bread: only Christ]”.
Those two seem to say very different things to me though. Here's how I read them:
A) "Jesus is truly present in the bread and wine": There exists bread and wine, and Jesus is present within them.
B) "Jesus is contained in the august sacrament of the Holy Eucharist under the appearance of those sensible things": There exists the sacrament, the sacrament appears to be bread and wine, and Jesus is contained in the sacrament.
The way I end up reading A is as impanation, and B as transubstantiation.
I'm not saying that (A) is as well-worded as it could be, but I don't think that saying that "Jesus is truly present in the bread and wine" automatically amounts to impanation (partly due to the wide semantic range of "in"). For example, in his first encyclical "Deus Caritas Est," Pope Benedict XVI in paragraph 13 talks about Jesus "giving his disciples, *in the bread and wine,* his very self, his body and blood as the new manna [suis discipulis in pane et vino se ipsum tradens, suum corpus suumque sanguinem tamquam novum manna]" (emphasis mine). I don't think that Pope Benedict was teaching impanation there.
And if even Benedict XVI could slip into such language, then I don't know if Joe Schmeux Catholic can be faulted too hard.