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 "givi…
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 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.