PART I
THE ERRORS OF THE MODERNISTS
CHAPTER V
THE MODERNIST AS HISTORIAN AND AS CRITIC
I. APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF AGNOSTICISM
II. APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF VITAL IMMANENCE
III. APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EVOLUTION
Q. After the classification of the documents according to the date of their origin arbitrarily determined upon, is there not another operation undertaken by the critic ? What distinction necessitates, in the, eyes of the Modernist critic, this new operation ?
A. Further, a distinction must be made between the beginning of a fact and its development, for what is born in one day requires time for growth.
Q. In virtue of this distinction between the origin of a fact and its development, what new partition does the Modernist critic make of his documents ?
A. The critic must once more go over his documents, ranged as they are through the different ages, and divide them again into two parts, separating those that regard the origin of the facts from those that deal with their development.
Q. What does he do with the documents that have reference to the development of a fact ?
A. These he must again arrange according to their periods.
Q. What principle will direct him in determining this arrangement ?
A. The philosopher must come in again.
Q. What is the purpose of the principle which, according to the Modernist philosopher, dominates and governs history ?
A. To enjoin upon the historian the obligation of following in all his studies the precepts and laws of evolution.
Q. How, then, will the Modernist historian, armed with the law of evolution, treat the history of the Church ?
A. It is next for the historian to scrutinize his documents once more, to examine carefully the circumstances and conditions affecting the Church during the different periods, the conserving force she has put forth, the needs both internal and external that have stimulated her to progress, the obstacles she has had to encounter.
Q. In a word, what does the Modernist historian seek for in the documents of the history of the Church ?
A. In a word, everything that helps to determine the manner in which the laws of evolution have been fulfilled in her.
Q. After this attentive examination to discover in the history of the Church the law of her evolution, what does the historian do ?
A. This done, he finishes his work by drawing up a history of the development in its broad lines.
Q. What is the final operation that of the Modernist critic once he has, traced out for him thus, this fantastic outline of the history of the Church ?
A. The critic follows and fits in the rest of the documents. He sets himself to write. The history is finished.
Q. Since the Modernist historian and critic allow themselves to be thus dominated by the principles of the philosopher, We ask here : Who is the author of this history ? The historian ? The critic ?
A. Assuredly neither of these, but the philosopher.
Q. Why the philosopher ?
A. Because from beginning to end everything in it is a priori.
Q. And what kind of a priori ?
A. An apriorism that reeks of heresy.
Q. Are such historians not to be pitied ?
A. These men are certainly to be pitied, of whom the Apostle might well say, ” They became vain in their thoughts . . . professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” (Rom 1: 21,22)
Q. But if these Modernist historians excite our pity, do they not also rouse us, and very justly, to indignation ?
A. At the same time they excite resentment when they accuse the Church of arranging and confusing the texts after her own fashion, and for the needs of her cause.
Q. What sentiment moves them to accuse the Church of torturing the texts ?
A. They are accusing the Church of something for which their own conscience plainly reproaches them.