IMPANATION
a term used by divines to signify the opinion of the Lutherans with regard to the eucharist, who believe that the species of bread and wine remain together with the body of our Saviour after consecration.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
impanation
(Latin: in, in; panis, bread)
A word coined, like Incarnation, to express the heretical opinion that as Our Lord is God in the flesh, Incarnate, so in the Holy Eucharist He is God in the bread, without change of the substance of the bread into His substance. It was never held by any large number of adherents without variations, and is clearly opposed to the doctrine of transubstantiation. See also: consubstantiation .
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Impanation
An heretical doctrine according to which Christ is in the Eucharist through His human body substantially united with the substances of bread and wine, and thus is really present as God, made bread: Deus panis factus. As, in consequence of the Incarnation, the properties of the Divine Word can be ascribed to the man Christ, and the properties of the man Christ can be predicated of the Word (communicatio idiomatum), in the very same way, in consequence of the impanation — a word coined in imitation of incarnation — an interchange of predicates takes place between the Son of God and the substance of bread, though only through the mediation of the body of Christ. The doctrine of impanation agrees with the doctrine of consubstantiation, as it was taught by Luther, in these two essential points: it denies on the one hand the Transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and on the other professes nevertheless the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Yet the doctrines differ essentially in so far as Luther asserted that the Body of Christ penetrated the unchanged substance of the bread but denied a hypostatic union. Orthodox Lutheranism expressed this so-called sacramental union between the Body of Christ and the substance of bread in the well-known formula: The Body of Christ is “in, with and under the bread” — in, cum et sub pane; really present, though only at the moment of its reception by the faithful — in usu, non extra usum. The theologians of the Reformed Churches, calling this doctrine, in their attack against the Lutherans, impanation, use the term not in the strict sense explained above, but in a wider meaning.
If we search for the historic origin of the term, we must go back to the controversies against the disciples of Berengarius of Tours at the end of the eleventh century. Guitmund of Aversa (died before 1195), in his work “De corporis et sanguinis Christi veritate in Eucharistiâ” (P. L., CXLIX, 1427 sqq.), distinguishes two classes of disciples of Berengarius; those who absolutely deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and those who, though they admit that the Body and Blood of Christ are really (reverâ) present in the Eucharist, reject the doctrine of Transubstantiation and explain Christ’s Real Presence by a kind of impanation (Christum quodammodo impanari). Guitmund thinks this to be the essence of Berengarius’s doctrine (hanc esse subtiliorem Berengarii sententiam). This teaching, however rightly or wrongly attributed to Berengarius, evidently does not profess impanation in the strict sense of the term; it rather coincides with the above-mentioned doctrine of consubstantiation as taught by Luther. Alger of Liège (1131), in his work, “De sacramento corporis et sanguinis Christi”, I, 6 (P. L., CLXXX, 439-845), without mentioning any definite names, points out and opposes the errors of some (errantes quidam) who say that “Christ’s Person is impanated in the bread, just as God is incarnated in the human flesh” (dicunt ita personaliter in pane impanatum Christum sicut in came humanâ personaliter incarnatum Deum). He calls this a heresy, which ought to be utterly rooted out, because it is an absurd novelty (quia nova et absurda). Who was it that introduced this new heresy? For a long time the well-known Abbot Rupert of Deutz (1135) was suspected. Cardinal Bellarmine (De Euch., III, xi, xv), Baronius (Ann. Eccl.: ad annum 1111, n. 49), Suarez, and Vasquez thought they could trace back the doctrine of impanation to him (cf. his work “De div. officiis”, II, 2 and 9), and recently P. Rocholl (“Rupert v. Deutz”, Gütersloh, 1886, 247 sqq.) repeated the same charge. Others, however, acquit him of this error, as Alexander Natalis, Tournely, and especially Gerberon in his “Apologia Ruperti Tuitiensis” (Paris, 1669); and, amongst modern writers of the history of dogmatic theology, J. Bach (“Dogmengeschichte des Mittelalters”, I, Vienna, 1875, 412 sqq.) and Schwane (“Dogmengeschichte”, III, Freiburg, 1882, 641). They seem to be right, for a critical examination of all the passages bearing on the subject shows that Rupert, though at times he used ambiguous expressions, nevertheless believed in the Transubstantiation of the substance of bread into the Body of Christ. However this be, it cannot now be decided whether Alger of Liège cited Rupert as an advocate of impanation, since it remains unknown whether Rupert had already published his ambiguous expression at the time when Alger wrote his attack.
With much better reason, John of Paris (died 1306) is considered the champion of the strict doctrine of impanation. In his work, “Determinatio de modo existendi corpus [sic] Christi in sacramento altaris alio quam sit ille quem tenet Ecclesia” (ed. Peter Alix, London, 1686), he tries, in conscious opposition to the Church, to establish, as plausible at least, the hypothesis that “the bread does not remain in its own suppositum, but is assumed through the Flesh or through the Body of Christ as a part of the esse and hypostasis of the Logos” (Ego dico panem ibi manere non in proprio supposito, sed tractum ad esse et suppositum Verbi, mediante carne aut corpore parte). Consequently, he maintains that it is correct to say: “The Body of Christ is ‘impanated’, i. e. has become bread” (Corpus Christi impanatum, I. e. panis factum); still it cannot be said that “the Man or Christ has become bread” (sed hominem aut Christum non possumus dicere impanatum), an explanation which is certainly not too conspicuous for clearness and precision. Amongst the reformers, Andreas Osiander (died 1552), a fervent disciple of Luther, seems to have held the doctrine of impanation, though later Lutheran theologians have tried to acquit him of this error. It is, however, difficult to discern the real meaning of this fiery writer from his confused expressions. For this reason Melanchthon, in a letter of 22 March, 1538, to the pastor Vitus Theodorus in Nuremberg, merely expresses his suspicion that Osiander held the doctrine of impanation. Both Melanchthon and Luther were thoroughly opposed to this absurd opinion. And this for many reasons, but especially because they would have been obliged to adore in the strictest sense of the word (cultu latriœ) the bread hypostatically united with the Body of Christ, and this would have been in diametrical opposition to the Lutheran principles and practices of the Lord’s Supper. Recently, Bayma, a Catholic theologian, in a series of theses proposed a theory on Transubstantiation, which, upon critical examination, comes very close to the above mentioned teaching of William of Paris; in fact, it seems to explain the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist by impanation. He bases his theory on the proposition that the substance of bread, in consequence of the conversion, ceases to be substance, and that it receives a new subject, without undergoing interior change, having its support no longer in itself but in another suppositum (substantia panis desinit esse substantia eo solum, et absque aliâ sui mutatione, quod in alio supernaturaliter sustentatur, ita ut jam non in se sit, sed in alio ut in primo subjecto). Consequently it is the Body of Christ that supports the nature of the bread (Corpus Christi sustentat naturam panis). Of this hypothesis, which denies a real Transubstantiation entirely, or admits it only nominally, the Holy Office justly declared: tolerari non posse (7 July, 1875 — cf. Denzinger, “Enchiridion”, 1843-46, 10th ed., Freiburg, 1908). The doctrine of impanation as far as it denies the Transubstantiation of bread and wine is certainly a heresy; besides, it is also against reason, since a hypostatic union between the Word of God Incarnate, or the God-man Christ, and the dead substances of bread and wine is inconceivable. Much less conceivable is such a union if we presuppose Transubstantiation, for since the substance of bread no longer exists it cannot enter into a hypostatic union with Christ.
———————————–
SCHWANE, Dogmengeschichte, III (Freiburg, 1882), 659; FRANZELIN, De Eucharistiœ sacramento (4th ed., Rome, 1887), thes. xv, scholion; SCHMID in Kirchenlex., s. v.; CH. PESCH., Prœlect. Doqmaticœ, VI (3rd ed., Freiburg, 1908), 312 sqq.; POHLE, Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, III (3rd ed., Paderborn, 1908), 232 sq.
J. POHLE Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter Dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIICopyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Impanation
(Latin, impanatio; from in and panis, bread; otherwise assumptio), a name given to one of the many different shades of the doctrine of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. The theory was first presented in the 12th century by Ruprecht of Deutz in the following shape (Opera ed. Col. 1602, 1, 267; Comm. in Exodus 2, 10): As God did not alter human nature when he incarnated divinity in the womb of the Virgin Mary, uniting the Word and the flesh into one being, so he does not alter the substance of the bread and the wine in the Eucharist, which still retain the material properties by which they are known to our senses (sensibus subacium), while by his Word he brings them (the component elements) into combination with the identical body and the identical blood of Christ. As the Word descended from on high (a summo), not to become flesh, but to assume the flesh (assumnendo camern), so are the bread and wine, from their inferior (ab imo) position, raised into becoming flesh and blood of Christ, without, therefore, being transmuted (non mutatum) in such a manner as to acquire the taste of flesh or the appearance of blood, but do, on the contrary, imperceptibly become identical with both in their essence, partaking of the divine and human immortal substance, which is in Christ. It is not the effect of the Holy Ghost’s operation (affectus) to alter or destroy the nature of any substance used for his purpose, but, on the contrary, to add to that substance some qualities which it did not at first possess (De Opp. Spirit. s. 3, p. 21, 22). In his work De divinis Officiis (2, 9; Opp. 2, 762), he says: The Word of the Father comes in between the flesh and the blood which he received from the womb of the Virgin, and the bread and wine received from the altar, and of the two makes a joint offering. When the priest puts this into the mouth of the believer, bread and wine are received, and are absorbed into the body; but the Son of the Virgin remains whole and unabsorbed in the receiver, united to the Word of the Father in heaven. Such as do not believe, on the contrary, receive only the material bread and wine, but none of the offering. His contemporary, Alger, or Adelher, of Lttich, writing in defense of the dogma of transubstantiation (1. 3, De sacram. corp. et sarng. D. in Bibl. Max. Patr. t. 21, Lugdun. 1677), was the first to make use of the expression inpanatio in this sense (p. 251), In pane Christum impanatun sicut Deum in carne personaliter incarnatum. Before him, however, Guitmund of Aversa had, in 1190, used the same word to express the probable meaning of Berengar (Bibl. Max. Patr. Lugdun. 18:441), whose supporters are sometimes called Adessenarii (q.v.) (from adesse, to be present).
The doctrine of impanation was afterwards, in the Reformation period, but wrongly, attributed to Osiander by Carlstadt. Some Roman Catholic writers, e.g. Bellarmine (Dissert. de impan. et consubstant. Jense, 1677), Du Cange, and others, accused Luther of having revived the old error of impanation. The Formula Concordice (1577) declares that the mode of union between the body of Christ and the bread and wine is a mystery, and does not decide positively what that mode is, but only negatively what it is not. It is not a personal union, nor is it consubstantio; still less is it a union in which change of substance is wrought (transubstantiatio), nor a union in which the body and blood of Christ are included in the bread and wine (impanatio), but a union which exists only in this sacrament, and therefore is called sacramsentalis. See Herzog, Real-Encyklop. 6, 644; Knapp, Theology, 146; and the articles SEE LORD’S SUPPER; SEE CONSUBSTANTIATION; SEE TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Impanation (2)
(from in pane, “in the bread”), the doctrine that Christ’s presence is in the bread in the Lord’s supper. It is synonymous with consubstantiation (q.v.).