LonQ. r 3Q V\/ Wd/Ct",,1 
fa --H1 e Ch 1,)</1 -. 

A1)l 7 7 ,;;t. 

~ 7-'"31 

Is the Church Arrogant? 

By 

WILLIAM I. LONERGAN, S.J. 

Associate Editor, "America" 

The Other Pamphlets in this Series are: 

I. Is the Church Intolerant? III. Is the Church 

Un-American? IV. Is the Church Officious? 

V. Is the Church a National Asset? 

Second Printing 

Fifteenth Thousand 

PRICE 5 CENTS 

THE AMERICA PRESS 

New York, N. Y. 



INTERRACIAL JUSTICE 
by JOHN LA FARGE, S.J . 

• 
FIRST COMPLETE treatment of the interracial 

question from the Catholic viewpoint. A course 

of constructive practical action in accordance with 

the traditions of the Church and the desires of the 

Holy Father. 

CONCISE language, logical arrangement, working 

bibliography, make this volume ideal for study-

clubs, teachers and students of ethical questions, 

pastors and curates, social workers, and a" who 

wish to inform themselves on the race question, 

~specia"y as it concerns the Negro in the United 
States. 

$2.00 

THE AMERICA PRESS 

53 Park Place New Yark, N. Y. 

Imprimi potest : 

Nihil obstat: 

Imprimatur: 

May 2, 1929. 

-

Dtaetdtfled 

EDWARD C: PHILLIPS, S.J., 
Provincial Maryland-New York . 

ARTHUR J. SCANLAN, S.T.D., 
Censor Librorum. 

+PATRICK CARDINAL HAYES, 

Archbishop of New York . 

Copyright, 1929 

THE AMERICA PRESS 



Is the Church Arrogant? 

IN another pamphlet 1 we asked ourselves the question, "is the Catholic Church intolerant?" Briefly, our answer was 
yes and no :-yes, so far as faith and morals are concerned; 
no, on every other score. Assuming the correctness of the 
claims of CathoQicism to be the one true Church of Christ, 
logically she cannot put up with religious dogmas and doc-
trines at variance with her own and must be intolerant of 
every other creed. On the other hand, precisely because 
her one reason for existence is to apply Christ's saving graces 
to all mankind without exception, she is not and may not be 
intolerant of any person or individual. With that simple 
distinction the question is answered. 

What is popularly refeNed to as the Church's intoler-
ance is, when rightly understood, but the honorable fulfil-
ment of her Divine mission and a failure basely to swerve 
from the path of duty. Because she is the custodian of a 
set of unchangeable principles, because she has no authority 
to substitute human vagaries for the infallible truths re-
vealed by the Man-God, because she cannot compound with 
error, doctrinally or morally, she may not be a "Liberal." 
This, however, far from being anything for Catholics to be 
ashamed of or offering reasonable grounds to those outside 
the Fold for fault-finding, is a glorious tribute to her per-
petual indefectibility. 

A further popular contemporary charge against Holy 
Mother the Church is that she is arrogant: she makes claims 
for herself that no other institution on earth has ever made. 
There are many counts to the indictment. 

THE CHARGE 

The Catholic Church, we are told, claims that she is the 
only true Christian Church; that all others, so-called, are 

1 This is the second of a series of pamphlets by Father Lonergan 
under the title , "The Modern Indictment of Catholicism." The 
others are: I. Is the Church Intolerant? III. Is the Church Un-
American? IV. Is the Church Officious ? V. Is the Church a National 
Asset? 



2 IS THE CHURCH ARROGANT? 

false. The Catholic Church claims that she is infallible; 
that the Pope, her Head, is Christ's Vicar and, in his official 
capacity, also infallible in matters of faith and morals. The 
Catholic Church claims that outside of her there is no salva-
tion. The Catholic Church claims that her priests can actu-
ally forgive sins, and change bread and wine into the sacred 
Body and Blood of Christ Jesus. The Catholic Church 
claims that she has absolute control over Christian marriage. 
In fine, the Catholic Church claims that she is the ultimate 
arbiter of what men must believe and do to be saved. 

Admittedly these are tremendous claims for any organi-
zation to make and non-Catholics feel that they are extrava-
gant, that they can have their roots only in pride and arro-
gance. Arrogance, however, is an undue and unwarranted 
assumption of position or authority. Note those words 
undue and unwarranted. One is arrogant only when one 
makes groundless claims. Hence the fairness or unfairness 
of the anti-Catholic challenge hinges entirely on the further 
interrogatory, "Is the Church Divine or a fraud? Has she 
or has she not the powers she claims for herself, for the 
Pope, for her clergy?" 

Is the Catholic Church, in the first place, the one true 
Church of Christ, to the exclusion of every other? Abso-
lutely and categorically, yes: she certainly is. 

PAGANISM AND JUDAISM FALSE 

At the outset, so far as Paganism or Judaism being true 
religions are concerned, the weakness of their position is 
readily demonstrated. The one point to be established 
against them is the Divinity of Christ which they all re-
ject. Is Christ Divine? Nothing is more indisputable. 

To be certain that Abraham Lincoln was once President 
of the United States, or Napoleon Bonaparte Emperor of 
France, or Pontius Pilate Governor of Judea one has mere-
ly to inquire if there be any authentic evidence to prove 
that Lincoln, Bonaparte and Pilate respectively claimed 
those dignities, exercised the prerogatives of those offices, 
and were acknowledged as President, Emperor and Gov-
ernor by their contemporaries. 



IS THE CIWRCH ARROGANT? 3 

Testing Christ's Divinity by these same norms we must 
as logically conclude that He is the Son of God. Opening 
the Gospels at random we note that Jesus Christ constant-
ly arrogates to Himself Divine nature and Divine attributes 
-eternity, omniscience and omnipotence; that He vindi-
cates His position by employing that Divine power and that 
Divine knowledge to utter a long series of prophecies and 
perform a variety of stupendous miracles; and that His very 
foes, to say nothing of His friends, confessed His claims. 
Yes, Christ is Divine, and with this fact established, the 
claims of Paganism and Judaism to being true religions must 
be thrown out of court. 

At a luncheon meeting sponsored by the National Re-
publican Club in New York City, in the spring of 1929, 
the question was mooted, "How can we have religious co-
operation without uniformity?" In the course of the dis-
cussion a distinguished local Rabbi made a stirring plea 
for the Christian Churches to discontinue sending mission-
aries among the Jews to attempt their conversion. 

"We leave you alone," the metropolitan press quoted 
him as saying, "and organized Christianity can leave us 
alone. I think the organized Church should leave every 
other Church more or less free. Let each one work out its 
own salvation its own way." 

Certainly no Christian denomination that is sincere 
about its own beliefs, much less Catholicism, can fall in 
with such a suggestion. It matters not that the Jews "are 
not heathens, but a spiritual people with the highest ideals." 
Christ's mission was to establish a more perfect way of 
worshiping the Father and to give mankind a more com-
plete revelation. In consequence Christianity may not be 
indifferent to the conversion of the children of Israel. It 
would be to ignore its commission to carry Christ to the 
world and to prove recreant to its duty. 

CATHOLICISM vs. PROTESTANTISM 

When we pass from a consideration of Pagansim and 
Judaism over to Christianity, Protestants and Catholics are 
agreed that our Divine Lord established some sort of a 



4 IS THE CHURCH ARROGANT? 

Church. It is the Catholic position, however, that the 
Catholic Church is that Church; that the others are not 
the genuine article; that they are spurious. Certainly this 
is arrogance if those claims are groundless. Are they? 

Obviously and even to one examining the problem su-
perficially and cursorily, all the so-called Christian sects and 
denominations cannot be Christ's. Historically many of 
them did not appear till long after His death. As for their 
teachings, they are often mutually exclusive and contra-
dictory, though truth is always essentially one. One Church, 
for example, teaches the immutability of dogmas, another 
denies it and stands for an evolution of dogma; one de-
mands that the Christian Church have a hierarchy and a 
priesthood, another rejects these ; one supports a sacra-
mental system, another ridicules it; one stresses such doc-
trines as purgatory and hell, another repudiates them; one 
upholds honoring the Virgin Mother of God, another con-
siders that honor a sort of blasphemy. And so with other 
things. The divergencies between them are many and 
marked. 

It is the Catholic contention, justified by the Scriptures, 
Protestant as well as Catholic, and by the traditional prac-
tices of the first Christian centuries, that Christ entrusted 
to the Church which He founded a body of very definite doc-
trines and moral principles which were to be transmitted 
unimpaired to His followers, until the end of time; that He 
gave that Church a very specific form of organization; that 
He instituted f.or it a complete sacramental system and a 
rather detailed program of worship. It is her further con-
tention that today, as throughout the centuries, only she 
measures up to the Divine plans and specifications; that 
the others, whatever they be and however called, Pres-
byterian, Congregational, Anglican, Episcopalian, Lutheran 
and what-not, lack a Divine c,harter; they are not juridi-
cally linked up with apostolic times; they have not the 
earmarks of the genuine article; they are false. 

Open Holy Writ and you will read such pronounce-
ments as these from the lips of our Divine Lord: "Unless a 
man be born again of water, and the Holy Ghost he cannot 
enter into the kingdom of God." "Whose sins you shall 



IS THE CHURCH ARROGANT? 5 

forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall 
retain , they are retained." "Unless you eat the flesh of the 
Son of Man and drink his) blood, you shall not have life in 
you." "What, therefore, God hath joined together, let no 
man put asunder." "It is better for thee to enter into life 
maimed than having two hands to go into hell, unto un-
-quenchable fire, where their worm dieth not and the fire 
is not extinguished." Now, in all fairness we may ask, 
where today is there a Church that safeguards all these 
·dicta, that teaches the utter necessity of baptism, that de-
fends the Real Presence and the obligation of sacramental 
'Communion, that upholds the absolute indissolubility of 
'Christian matrimony, that maintains a tribunal to absolve 
from sin, that preaches the eternal terrors of hell? Where? 

Outside of Catholicism the so-called Christian sects are 
well-nigh in utter chaos. In a sermon at Lausanne the late 
Protestant Bishop Brent stated: "The Christ in one church 
,often categorically denies the Christ in the neighboring 
,church. It would be ludicrous if it were not tragic. The 
~situation is suicidal." 

FUNDAMENTALISM AND MODERNISM 

Nominally there are still amongst us all the old Euro-
pean varieties of Protestantism and some extra vintages of 
American growth. Practically, however, there are but two 
:great camps in the churches, Fundamentalists and Modern-
ists. Neither measures up to the Gospel test of Christ's 
'Church. Both make total shipwreck of His religion. As a 
Protestant divine in MontFeal admitted a couple of years 
;ago, "Our divisions and bickerings are proof of the absence 
ofl the Spirit of Christ." 

By teaching and upholding most extravagant theories 
based on a literal, private interpretation of the Bible, Fun-
,damentalism makes Christianity look ridiculous. It ranges 
iitself against commonsense and all scientific progress. The 
Dayton monkey trial that intrigued the country a few sum-
;mers ago showed how silly the whole thing was. To main-
tain that Genesis limits God's creative work to one hun-
dred and forty-four hours, in other words, that the six days 
:mentioned in the Mosaic account were of twenty-four hours 



6 IS THE CHURCH ARROGANT? 

each, is to make the inspired writer appear to talk nonsense, 
while to interpret the account of the heavenly Jerusalem 
depicted in the Apocalypse as literally one great jewel pal-
ace, or as one spacious orchestra pit or choir loft where 
everybody is harping on a harp or singing the newest 
songs, stultifies religion and converts the hereafter into a 
mere prolongation of our present materialistic existence. 

Fundamentalism, however, even at its worst, at least 
supports some form of Christianity. Modernism, on the 
other hand, robs it of every vestige of Divinity. It makes 
Christ only man; Holy Writ, a collection of symbols; re-
ligion, an experience; faith, a sentiment; the story of Divine 
creation, a myth; miracles and the Virgin Birth and the 
Easter Resurrection, absurdities. This is no exaggeration. 
So-called Christian pulpits today re-echo the most startling 
and un-Christian principles and teachings, moral as well as 
dogmatic. We have such fads as companionate marriage 
condoned, and we have birth control and the new morality, 
or rather, immorality, advocated. 

One has but to read the Monday papers for evidence 
of this. It is not so long ago that in a Methodist Episcopal 
church in New York City the pastor, not satisfied with 
asserting that Christ was "physically the son of Joseph and 
Mary," most blasphemously made Him their illegitimate 
child, destroying at one fell stroke His Divinity and Mary's 
Divine maternity and virginity. Is that Christianity? Even 
the sixteenth-century iconoclasts never went that far. 

In an otherwise convincing sermon on the Divinity of 
Our Lord, a Nashville Presbyterian robbed his whole talk 
of its efficacy by stating: "It may be as we go on that some 
day we shall discover the secret of the miracles and under-
stand how Jesus in a very natural way healed the blind ... 
but if we do the discovery will not take from Him His God-
head, for He never based His claims on the signs He per-
formed. " Is that Christianity? One wonders whether the 
preacher is ignorant that when Our Saviour was asked for 
a proof of His mission He answered, "The works [miracles] 
which I do give testimony of me." To take the miracles 
out of Scripture is t o take away from Christ His Godhead, 
for He did base His claims to Divinity upon them. 



IS THE CHURCH ARROGANT? 7 

Nor is the theology of a Methodist bishop any better 
when he is satisfied to assert that the Resurrection "is the 
only miracle that is indispensable to Christianity." What, 
one is tempted to' inquire, of the Incarnation itself? 

A Congregationalist tells his people: "The acceptance of 
a correct Creed cannot possibly be laid down as a condi-
tion previously required of those who seek to become Chris-
tians." Yet Christ most explicity states that certain truths 
must be believed. 

How far Modernists go is made plain by Mr. Donald 
McFayden: 

We can no longer entertain the conception of the Holy Spirit 
which the framers of the :Creed undoubtedly held. . . . 

The Creed seems to teach that the flesh in which one died will 
be reassembled to form the resurrection body . . . modern physiol-
ogy has made it! inconceivable. 

Finally it looks very much as if scientific history is go~ng to force 
us to abandon our inherited notion regarding the manner of Jesus' 
birth. 

Such instances might be prolonged indefinitely. There 
is an increasing number of ministers who conduct services 
at which no prayers are offered and where no reference is 
made to God. The old theological terminology is still em-
ployed but given a novel and figurative meaning. It was a 
Reformation slogan that the Bible was the one norm of 
faith . Today, we are told, it does not matter what one be-
lieves; it is what he does that counts. And, as regards 
Scripture, modern nationalism whittling away first one and 
then another part of God's word, has practically left noth-
ing of the Bible but the covers. Tested by every doctrinal 
norm, contemporary American Protestantism fails . 

ORGANIZATION OF CHRIST'S CHURCH 

But Chist not only entrusted very definite doctrines to 
His Church to be propagated. He gave it also a very spe~ 
cific form of organization. It was to be hierarchical (having 
members of different ranks) not democratic; composed of 
a teaching body and a group to be taught. From among 
His intimate followers He picked twelve and to them He 



IS THE CHURCH ARROGANT? 

:gave the command, "Going therefore ... teach ye all na-
tions ... teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I 
have taught you." 

More than that. From among this little group He chose 
'One, Peter, to whom He promised, "Thou art Peter and upon 
this rock will I build my church and the gates of hell shall 
not prevail against it, and to you will I give the keys of 
the kingdom of heaven," a promise He unquestionably ful-
filled when after His Resurrection He commissioned him in-
dividually and personally, to feed the entire Fold, His 
lambs and His sheep. Moreover , Peter's Primacy was one 
not merely of honor or responsibility, but of jurisdiction, 
and from the first, as history unmistakably proves, he and 
others so understood it. Indeed it was this hierarchical or-
ganization and this Petrine Primacy that were to give 
Christ's Church the authority that would stabilize it. 

Look around the world today, and where do you find a 
hierarchy as established by Christ? Where do you find a 
Primacy such as He established? Where do you find' au-
thority such has He established? Absolutely no place out-
side of the Catholic Church. Externally, Episcopalianism 
comes nearest to it, b~t it lacks that dependence upon the 
successor of Peter that Christ intended should characterize 
His foundation, and like the rest of the denominations has 
no recognized final authority to serve in disputes as a court 
of appeal and last resort for the truth. A wide divergence in 
its doctrines and the recent prayer-book .episode in England, 
as well as the troubles inside the church between high 
churchmen and low churchmen, between Fundamentalists 
and Modernists in the ranks, clearly show this. 

In New York City, for example, a fashionable Episco-
pal church uptown teaches one thing while in a downtown 
pulpit doctrines quite inconsistent are often taught, and 
there is no individual or group competent or courageous 
enough to settle the dispute. This is even more true with 
most of the other sects. Which one of them claims, let alone 
actually has, an authoritative teaching body that can defi-
nitely and categorically declare and in such a way as to 
carry conviction .and gain the adherence of its members, 
this is right, that is wrong, this is true, that is false? ' Each 



IS THE CHURCH ARROGANT? 9 

minister is practically a law unto himself. And he has to 
be if Protestantism would remain consistent with its initial 
foundation principle that the Bible is the sole norm of faith 
and that the individual is its authoritative interpreter. 

WORSHIP AND THE SACRAMENTS 

Moreover, Christ bequeathed to His Church a set form 
of worship and a sacramental system. Scripture and tra-
dition make this clear. And where have we these things ade-
quately and entirely outside of Mother Church-the Mass 
and . the Sacraments? A small group of high churchmen 
affect both, though they lack a genuine priesthood with 
valid Orders, and though many of the brethren at best tol-
erate these "Romish" practices of the Episcopalian minority. 

By every test-in her doctrines, in her organization with 
its hierarchical and primatial authority, in her worship and 
in her sacramental system, the Catholic Church fully and 
completely measures up to the plans and specifications of 
the Divine Architect who conceived her. In this she stands 
alone today and has ever so stood. Hence she is not arro-
gant when she claims that she alone is the true Church of 
Christ, and that every other so-called Christian denomina-
tion is spurious. Scripture and history both justify her 
claims and it is a strange but curious fact that none of 
the leading Protestant sects deny that she is truly Christ's 
foundation. Anyone of them would be willing to admit 
her to their unity tomorrow. At most they maintain that 
she is not the only true Church. 

INFALLIBILITY 

A second count in the indictment of arrogance against 
Catholicism is that without warrant she claims for herself 
and for the Pope infallibility. Now this charge will not 
stand a logically critical test any better than the first. Holy 
Writ makes it patent that Christ linked up salvation with 
the acceptance of His teachings. For all time His doc-
trines were to be passed 'on to mankind. But without some 
'Divine safeguard human fallibilit! would have gone astray 



10 IS THE CHURCH ARROGANT? 

in transmitting those teachings. Therefore, He had to make 
His Church infallible. And He did this when He prom-
ised that He would be with His Apostles in the fulfilment 
of their mission all days even to the consummation of the 
world, and again when He assured them that the Holy 
Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, would abide with them forever. 
And what He promised all, He promised in a very special 
way to Peter. Againts the Church builded upon him, the 
rock, Christ guaranteed that the gates of hell should not 
prevail. Peter it was who was to confirm the brethren them-
selves in their faith. 

The Catholic Church is not arrogant, then, when she 
maintains that it is impossible for her to teach error, doc-
trinal or moral. Were she capable of erring Christ Him-
self would be a liar. The Faithful , even though sometimes 
they may not fully understand the Church's pronounce-
ments, unqualifiedly accept them because they know she 
cannot lead them astray. They seek explanations for her 
teachings and to have reasons for the faith that is in them; 
but that is all. 

When the Church says that the Virgin Birth or the Im-
maculate Conception or Transubstantiation or original sin 
are revealed truths they unhesitatingly assent because she 
is the channel through which God speaks to them. When 
the Church tells Oatholics, that divorce is sinful, while they 
may not like the decision, they cannot, protestant-like, set 
up their judgments in opposition and say, it is not, and not 
sin. When she says, as she has time and again, that arti-
ficial birth control is intrinsically immoral, while to abide 
by that judgment may entail personal hardship or incon-
venience, they cannot question her decision and remain loyal 
Catholics. 

OUTSIDE THE CHURCH No SALVATION 

Are Catholics arrogant when they claim that outside the 
Church there is no salvation? Not ·at all. Christ Himself 
stated this truth in unmistakable language. "He who is not 
with me," He said, "is against me." And of His Apostles, 
His official teachers, He said, "He that heareth you heareth 
me and he that despiseth you despiseth me." 



IS THE CHURCH ARROGANT? 11 

This does not mean that we Catholics anathematize and 
damn to hell anyone who differs from us in our belief. 
There are good non-Catholics, very many of them, who will 
reach heaven, but it will not be because they are Lutherans, 
Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, or the rest, for those 
are not titles to heaven, but only because of their good 
faith; because they belong, if not by external profession, at 
least implicitly, in spirit and by baptism, to Christ's true 
Church. Protestantism gives one no more right to heaven 
than a Lackawanna or Southern Pacific railroad ticket gives 
oIne a title to a ride on a Santa Fe or a New York Central 
train. If the Church is not Christ's it will no more conduct 
me to Him than a north-bound train at Buffalo will land 
me directly in New Orleans. 

Protestantism simply does not lead to heaven. It has 
not the light to show the way ; it has not the sacramental 
helps to carry one along ; it has not the key to open the gate. 
It was to His Apostles, not to Luther, Calvin, Huss, Knox 
or Cranmer that Christ said, "You are the salt of the earth 
and the light of the world." It was to them He entrusted 
the administration of His Sacraments through which grace 
flows into men's souls. It was only to Peter and his suc-
cessors that He gave the keys of the kingdom. 

PENANCE, HOLY EUCHARIST, MATRIMONY 

There is no arrogance or unwarranted assumption of 
authority by the Catholic Church when she maintains that 
her priests can forgive sins or convert bread and wine at 
Mass into the Body and Blood of the Saviour. Open the 
Gospel of St. John and read his narrative of the events of 
the first Easter night. The Apostles are gathered together 
and of a sudden Christ stands in their midst and after greet-
ing them He breathes on them and says, "Receive ye the 
Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven 
them and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." 
If that be not a commission to absolve as the Church 
through the ages in the exercise of the sacrament of Penance 
has understood it, then words mean absolutely nothing. 
Christ does not say that His priests may declare forgiven 



12 IS THE CHURCH ARROGANT? 

what He forgives or that they may beg forgiveness from 
God for sinners, but categorically, what they forgive He 
forgives, and what they retain or refuse to forgive, He re-
tains in heaven. 

The same holds with regard to the changing of bread and 
wine at Mass. After effecting this very thing at the Last 
Supper, Christ commanded His Apostles, "Do this in com-
memoration of me," and both they and He, as the history 
of the apostolic times and the early Church demonstrates, 
clearly understood that these were not personal prerogatives 
bu~ privileges to be handed on to their successors, for they 
were meant for the benefit of the Faithful for all time. 

The same may be said of the teachings of the Church 
with regard to matrimony. They are not arrogant. By 
the mere fact that our Divine Lord raised marriage to the 
dignity of a sacrament and made it a religious rite and a 
holy thing, and gave it a supernatural significance, of which, 
as St. Paul says, His union with the Church is the symbol 
He brought marriage under the wing of the Church. As 
far, therefore, as wedlock between baptized Christians is con-
cerned only Christ's Church has anything to say about its 
validity or invalidity, its lawfulness or unlawfulness; only 
she can make impediments, only she can adjudicate disputes 
and decide doubts. 

The State can regulate its civil effects, but it cannot 
touch the essence of the marriage contract or modify its na-
ture or tamper with its unity or indissolubility. So far as 
sacramental marriage is concerned the State has absolutely 
no power. What God hath joined together, Christ says, no 
human power may put asunder. The State may go through 
the external process of divorcing and remarrying Christians, 
but in the tribunal of conscience and before God, it is an 
empty formula, mere dramatics, comedy or tragedy as you 
like. 

SUMMARY 

Let us sum up briefly what has been said to meet the 
charge of arrogance against Catholicism, so that you may see 
the logic of the position of the Church and grasp the ob-
jective value of the arguments. 



. , 

IS THE CHURCH ARROGANT? 13 

I have listed five distinct counts in the indictment of 
arrogance against the Church. I reminded you that arro-
gance can only be charged if claims are unwarranted. 

She claims in the first place that she is the only true 
Church. She substantiates that claim by proving that by 
contrast with other so-called Christian sects she alone meas-
ures up to the Divine plans and specifications as they are 
drawn in Holy Writ-in doctrine, in hierarchical organ-
ization, in worship, in a sacramental system. 

She claims, secondly, that she and the Pope, her visible 
Head, are infallible. Even apart from the Gospel commis-
sions her very nature demands that this should be so in order 
that each successive generation might have a guarantee that 
they were getting Christ's undiluted doctrine. In addition, 
however, there are the actual promises that the gates of hell 
should not prevail against her, that the Holy Spirit should 
guide her, that Peter should confirm his brethren, and so on. 

She claims, thirdly, that outside of her there is no sal-
vation. This follows because the means to salvation are 
hers only: others cannot give what they have not. 

Fourthly, as for the priestly powers of forgiving sin and 
Transubstantiation, they are clear from Scripture. 

Finally, as for sacramental marriage and her exclusive 
authority over it as against the State, it flows from the 
general principle of rendering to Cresar the things that are 
Cresar's , and to God the things that are God's. The Sac-
raments are not Cresar's! 

The Catholic Church does make tremendous claims, but 
not a single one of them is arrogant or unwarranted, for she 
has a Divine charter, a Divine commission, Divine prom-
ises, Divine prerogatives, Divine guidance. Let the world 
indict us if it it will , and libel and slander and calumniate our 
claims. Christ Himself foretold that His Church would be 
the butt of opposition. There is nothing to fear from the 
persecution of men. Rather Catholics should be proud that 
they are members of the true Church. At the same time they 
must not disdain those not of the Fold. Rather let us 
pray that they may come to share our privileges . 



The Following of Christ 
as written by GERARD GROOTE 

9Vewly 
tTan s lated iTom 

The Dutoh OTiginal 

"" J oseph Malaise, S.J. 

A KEMPIS was disputed to as-
semble, edit and translate into 

excellent Latin, from the orig-

inal Dutch text, the writings 

of Gerard Groote, whom he 

revered. He issued an edition 

in 1427, and a final ed ition in 

1441 . He came to be known 

as the author of the Following 

of Christ. I nvestigations pur-

sued since 1921 leave little 

doubt about the authorship of 

this priceless spiritual docu-

ment. The author was the 

saintly deacon, Gerard Groote . 

• 
. Exquisitely Designed 

Introduction and Full Text 

334 pages 

$2.50 

THE AMERICA PRESS 

53 Park Place New York 


	829731-001
	829731-002
	829731-003
	829731-004
	829731-005
	829731-006
	829731-007
	829731-008
	829731-009
	829731-010
	829731-011
	829731-012
	829731-013
	829731-014
	829731-015
	829731-016