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.
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.
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.