The Church's Charism of Infallibility and the Real Presence of the Eucharist

Many Catholics today realize how important Chapter 6 of the Gospel of St. John is to our understanding of the Eucharist. Many Protestants realize this importance as well, but it seems so hard for them to understand this clear doctrine because of other reservations regarding the Church founded by Christ. Those other reservations which make the road block to acknowledging the Real Presence even more inaccessible include the authority left to the Church by Christ Himself, and what the redemption on the Cross means to our salvation as Christians. The hierarchy of the Church is indispensable. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that ""In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the Apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in His own infallibility." This is why when we rely solely on the Bible instead of the Bible and Sacred Tradition, we as Christians can fall into the errors of not acknowledging the Real Presence, or believe that salvation is a one-time thing, i.e., the mistaken notion of “once saved, always saved.”

Some Protestants believe that the arguments Catholics use for an infallible church are invalid. They may acknowledge that Christ said He would build His church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it, but the “how” part may be a stopping point for such Christians, going as far as to think that, as I’ve heard claimed before, there is no good reason to believe that an infallible church is necessary to the construction of that Church, given that Christ is the builder of it.

It’s thus reasoned that if the Church is “supposedly” infallible, then all the people of God, such as bishops and priests, are infallible. Therefore, in order for the Church to be infallible, once saved always saved must be a true doctrine. Otherwise, the gates of hell do prevail against the Church since those people have fallen away due to the lies of the prince of this world.

Unfortunately for these non-Catholic Christians, there is no evidence to back up the claim that the Catholic Church’s arguments for its infallibility is invalid. They misunderstand what Christ meant said that “the gates of hell will never prevail” against the Church. This fallacy stems from a mistaken notion of what Catholics believe infallibility to mean. It’s apparent that God has worked through fallible people during the course of history, and still does today. This very fact does give us very valid reasons to believe an infallible Church is necessary to the building of that Church. Here are some reasons why.

For one, to say that the Church is infallible is not meant to imply that all its members are individually infallible. There are a number of Catholics, including the ordained, who often have mistaken and sometimes downright wrong and immoral views on things. However, this does not take away from the infallibility of the Catholic Church as a whole. Neither does the fact that some of those in the Church may fall into sin and be cut off from the True Vine. As I’ve heard one priest say, if one commits mortal sin, that doesn't mean the gates of hell prevail against the Church, which remains on its way to glory. It simply means that that person is a grave sinner. So when a Protestant asks, “What does it mean for the Church to be infallible?” a good answer would be to respond that it is in faith and morals that the Church is infallible. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia on its entry on infallibility, here is what the Church means when she says that she is infallible:

-that Christ founded His Church as a visible and perfect society;

-that He intended it to be absolutely universal and imposed upon all men a solemn obligation actually to belong to it, unless invincible ignorance should excuse them;

-that He wished this Church to be one, with a visible corporate unity of faith, government, and worship;

-and that in order to secure this threefold unity, He bestowed on the Apostles and their legitimate successors in the hierarchy — and on them exclusively — the plenitude of teaching, governing, and liturgical powers with which He wished this Church to be endowed.

Second, it should be obvious that the reason to believe in an infallible Church is that if Christianity is divinely revealed to us as doctrine (that is, that we must have faith in and accept Christ to be saved), which mankind must believe to avoid eternal separation from God (hell), the charism of infallibility is absolutely necessary to the Church. If the Church that Christ founded was capable of erring at all, then that Church could err at any point. The flock would have no guarantee of any truth whatsoever. Christ's words of remaining with us always would mean nothing. The Reformation is a case-in-point. As Charles G. Herbermann says: "Divided into various sections and parties, they [the Protestant churches] are the scene of never-ending disputes; and by the nature of the case they are cut off from all hope of attaining to certainty." This doesn't sound like the "one body" that Christ built upon St. Peter. With the infallible charism of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, we can be confident that we as Christians will not be led into error.

So now we know what infallibility means, but what about impeccability? This is what non-Catholic Christians usually mean when they claim that all of the Catholic Church's bishops and priests should be infallible. These two words, infallibility and impeccability, have different meanings. As pointed out already, people in the Body of Christ don't have to impeccable. Only Christ Himself and the Blesed Virgin Mary can claim to be that! No one alive on this Earth today is, since we are all fallen. But the Church itself is indeed infallible, even through erring human beings. What is taught by Holy Mother Church is infallible. The messengers may not be. Have we perhaps forgotten about St. Peter's denial of Christ? A man who authored books in the inspired Scriptures?

As to what the word "church" means when reading it in the contexts of Scripture and Christ’s Bride, “church” does occasionally refer to an assembly of the people of God in the New Testament. However, this is not the only meaning of the word. "Church" comes from the Greek "ecclesia", which in turn is the equivalent of the Hebrew word "qahal", i.e., the entire community of the children of Israel viewed in their religious aspect. Two Hebrew words are employed in the Old Testament to signify the assembly, or congregation, of Israel, "qahal 'êdah". In the Septuagint, these words are rendered respectfully as "ecclesia" and "synagogue", meaning two different things. Look at the distinction between the two in Proverbs 5:14: "in the midst of the church and the congregation", the Greek rendering is "en meso ekklesias kai synagoges." In the New Testament, "ecclesia" is used in a few different ways, but is also used to describe those exercising the office of teaching and ruling the faithful (i.e. the Magisterium of the Church). Thus, the name "church" which belongs to the whole is also applied to a part. This can be plainly seen in such Scripture passages as Matt. 18:17 and Acts 20:28. St. Robert Bellarmine gives a great definition of what the Church is defined as, referring to BOTH the parts AND the whole, in direct opposition to your definition of what "church" means in the New Testament:

"[The Church is] A body of men united together by the profession of the same Christian Faith, and by participation in the same sacraments, under the governance of lawful pastors, more especially of the Roman Pontiff, the sole vicar of Christ on earth".

So if one rejects that this “body of men” is infallible, then they will often reject that its teachings on the sacraments should also be rejected. This is why the refusal to submit to the doctrine of the Real Presence has its roots in a deliberate rejection of the Church’s infallible authority on faith and morals. To believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist is a matter of faith. Rejecting that belief is just one of the next steps following the rejection of the Church’s charism of infallibility. So let’s step back into this debate on the Real Presence, as I lined out in previous essays. I’ve already demonstrated in this essay why the Church is infallible in her teachings on faith; so why should we believe her interpretation on the Eucharist is one of those infallible teachings? Firstly, the Magisterium (or teaching authority) of the Church is able to infallibly interpret Scripture. That’s the charism of the Holy Spirit mentioned earlier, and should be reason enough. Unfortunately, we all know that’s not the case with many of our Protestant brethren. When one doesn’t have the Church as their guiding authority, Christ’s words of “This is My body" and "This cup is the New Testament in My blood." can be misconstrued to make the word “is” mean a representation or a symbolization. This is why we see so many Protestants trot out the examples of Jesus saying, "I am the good Shepherd," and, "I am the Door." This is supposed to be proof that in the same way He did not mean He literally, physically became either a Shepherd or a Door, there is no reason to believe He meant bread and wine became His Body and Blood through transubstantiation.

This charge is easily dismissed, and anyone who brings up the examples of “the vine” and “the door” in relation to the Eucharist obviously hasn’t read Scripture very closely. St. John clearly tells us that Christ referring to Himself as a door is a figure of speech in John 10:6: "This figure Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them."

St. John says no such thing regarding the Eucharist in his Gospel. Jesus is "like" a door because men come through Him to come to the Father. And He is "like" a vine because he is the source of all life for Christians. If He was talking figuratively about eating His Body and Blood, this would make no sense, as the Hebrew figure of speech "to eat the flesh or drink the blood" means to violently assault or persecute someone. We see this used as a figure of speech in Psalm 27:2, Isaiah 9:18-20, Rev. 17:6, 16, and in other places. So if we take Christ's words as a figure of speech in John 6 (as many Protestants want us to), then what Christ really means is "whoever persecutes or assaults Me will have eternal life". That is utterly ridiculous.

Furthermore as noted by the author of the website Catholic Basic Training, "a grammatical difference exists between 'I am the vine' (which is impossible, as men cannot be plants) and ‘this is my body’. Jesus does not say “the bread is My body”, which would be impossible – bread cannot be someone's body (this is why consubstantiation is a false doctrine), but rather 'this is my body' while holding up what appears to be bread. Jesus is stating, very simply and directly, that whatever He is holding up is His body. When taken literally, there is no contradiction in these statements which has to be smoothed over by a metaphorical interpretation (as is contained in the statements about the vine and the door)."

So we see how one teaching of the Church is twisted once the charism of infallibility is disregarded. Let’s look at another teaching that often gets twisted from reading John 6, and this particular misunderstanding flows directly from the erroneous beliefs regarding the Eucharist. This was mentioned above, and it is the “once saved, always saved” (OSAS) doctrine used by many Protestants, mainly Fundamentalists. In light of OSAS, these Christians may see a contradiction with Catholics and Orthodox Christians using John 6 as a reference to the Eucharist, as Christ says in verses 53-54, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” If this makes participation in the Eucharist necessary for salvation, the charge from Protestants then becomes that if someone participates in the Eucharist once in his life, he is saved. Neither faith nor works are necessary.

Catholics (as well as Orthodox and many mainline Protestants) know that the above conclusion is wrong. This is a total twisting of Catholic theology, and in effect makes those who subscribe to OSAS to scream “See! Your faith in the Real Presence proves too much!” That is not so. It's a complete misunderstanding of what Christ is saying here regarding the Eucharist.

You can't have one event or one verse dictate a theology of salvation, as many do with John 3:16. Instead, one has to look at the Scriptures in its entirety! There are many other places in the New Testament which deal with how we are saved and how we gain eternal life besides John 3:16 and John 6:54. Mark 16:16 is a great example: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." So let's see; that passage says we have to believe in Christ (which even the demons do) and be baptized. But wait, there's more; much more that we must do in order to be saved and justified. This list was compiled by the great folks over at Three-Minute Apologetics:

We are saved by declaring with our mouths: (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9);

We are saved by keeping the commandments (Matt 19:17);

We are saved by our words (Matt 12:37);

We are saved by the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6);

We are saved by baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5);

We are saved by repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9);

We are saved by grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8);

We are saved by coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26);

We are saved by works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24);

We are saved by Christ's blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22);

We are saved by Christ's righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1).

Look at all these different ways that add up to our salvation! There are many different things we must do, many different actions we must perform in order to be saved. This is why the train of thought above ("if someone participates in the Eucharist once in his life, he is saved. Neither faith nor works are necessary ") is wrong. The type of theology that hinges on OSAS says that that one line, John 3:16, contains the whole totality of what a human must do to be saved. Therefore, faced with the clear words of John 6:54, Fundamentalists have created a false dilemma. There is no contradiction between Christ, Paul and James. It's not an either/or situation in regards of salvation. It's both/and. Actually, it's both/and/and/and..., as seen from the list of verses I’ve just given.

No Catholic or Orthodox Christian believes they are saved by only receiving the Eucharist. And no Catholic or Orthodox believes they are saved by faith alone. Catholics and Orthodox believe (as did the Apostles and the Church throughout history since its founding by Christ) that we are saved only by God's grace through our faith and works. If we were still under the old law, we'd have no hope of being saved and our works (like professing our faith, eating the Eucharist, etc.) would condemn us. But under the system of grace, God can look at us with mercy and love, forgive us our sins, and allow us to please Him by our faith and works. This selection from the Council of Trent plainly shows what the Church believes as far as salvation goes, and proves why the false dilemma pitting Catholic teaching on the Eucharist and John 6:54 given does not work:

"...when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification.

For, if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace.” (Session 6, Chapter 8)

We can ask our Protestant brethren to think of it like this. One saying we're only saved by solely our belief in Christ is like saying, "We (as humans) are exuding a healthy lifestyle if we drink eight glasses of water a day and exercise in the morning." This is a true statement, but if we're also eating three double bacon cheeseburgers every day, then all that exercise and drinking of water will be for naught. Someone can tell you you’re living healthy in one way, without explaining the totality of healthfulness. There’s just no good reason to believe that John 3:16 can be seen as the end all, be all. Now, what it says is absolutely true, and it's a hallmark of our faith. But I don't see anyone going around saying "hey we're gonna be justified by our words... because that's what Jesus said in Matthew 12."

“Yes, and...? What else did Christ and the other New Testament writers say that we need to do?”

Well, everything that was listed above from the Scriptures. "We are saved" by God's grace through these actions of ours enumerated in Scripture.

If all this can be understood, it might lead to the question of how frequently must one receive the Blessed Sacrament in order to have eternal life? Once a day? Once a year? Once every decade? How many total times throughout life must one receive the sacrament in order to have eternal life?

Thankfully, these questions do have answers. That is, they have answers if you believe in the authority of the infallible Church founded by Christ; the Church which holds the keys given to Peter by Christ. We must receive the Eucharist at least once a year. As it says in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“The Church obliges the faithful to take part in the Divine Liturgy on Sundays and feast days and, prepared by the sacrament of Reconciliation, to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, if possible during the Easter season" (CCC 1389)

And in the Code of Canon Law: “After being initiated into the Most Holy Eucharist, each of the faithful is obliged to receive holy communion at least once a year. This precept must be fulfilled during the Easter season unless it is fulfilled for a just cause at another time during the year” (Canon 920).

Unfortunately, if one doesn't believe in the authority of the Church, then this will mean nothing. But it surely answers those questions on how often we must partake of the Supper of the Lamb. We as Catholics are obliged to fulfill this precept; if we as the faithful do not, this becomes grave matter, and leads to mortal sin, i.e., total separation from God. Truly, the Eucharist is life-giving in so many ways, and surely makes us capable of attaining eternal life, just as Christ said. The Eucharist is literally the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

It can be said that both Catholics and Protestants acknowledge words in Scripture are sometimes used literally. But let's remember how the earliest of Christians read Scripture; St. Jerome is one among many who reminds us that first principle of hermeneutics is the literal meaning of the text; all Biblical interpretation rests upon the literal sense first followed by the other typical senses, i.e., allegorical.

We know that St. John's Gospel is historical in nature and Christians of all creeds should agree that St. John was striving to preserve both the words, as well as the actions, of Jesus.

As Paul Flanagan notes, “Where John is clearly biographical, the literal sense of Scripture is emphasized by a certain linguistic psychology: multiple repetition of the message in different words. Where a literal reading is intended, intended meaning is then reinforced by recording the reaction of the people to the literal meaning without the speaker's correction.” The best way any person can make a crystal clear, literal point is repetition of the same message in different ways. We see that Jesus did this in John 6:

"I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." (Jn 6:51)

"Jesus said to them, 'Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you'." (Jn. 6: 53)

"Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day." (Jn 6:54)

"For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink." (Jn 6:55)

"Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him." (Jn 6:56)

Pretty clear, no? A rupture in hermeneutics comes from the various Protestant doctrines which try to make Christ's declaration of the Real Presence, and the change that effects the Real Presence, into some kind of allegory. Those around him clearly understood what He was saying; one needed to eat the Son of Man's Body and Blood. But being against Mosaic Law, many rejected Christ. Jesus obviously would've stooped them if it was just a misunderstanding. But Christ knew He was talking literally, so did His audience, and so did the Early Church. And thanks to the charism of infallibility, the Catholic Church today still holds fast to this most important doctrine of the Real Presence of the Eucharist.