Paragraph

 1 6 |     science, and that, as regards history, He must not be considered
 2 6 |         in fact intervened in the history of the human race or not,
 3 6 |         their explanation of this history, to ignore God altogether,
 4 6 |        them that both science and history must be atheistic: and within
 5 7 |           reply thus: Science and history, they say, are confined
 6 8 |          Deformation of Religious History the Consequence ~
 7 9 |          the realm of science and history yet to some extent oversteps
 8 9 |         with the ordinary laws of history. Then faith, attracted by
 9 9 |     Christ, they say, science and history encounter nothing that is
10 9 |          whatever there is in His history suggestive of the divine,
11 16|      faith and science, including history also under the name of science.
12 17|       judgments of science and of history. Further, when it is said
13 18|      rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of
14 18|            again, when they write history they pay no heed to the
15 18|         they treat of philosophy, history, criticism, feeling no horror
16 20|         is, finally, forbidden by history, which shows that such in
17 24|           alike by philosophy and history. The State must, therefore,
18 30|           the truth is that their history and their criticism are
19 30|         Agnosticism tells us that history, like ever other science,
20 30|         human element assigned to history while the divine will go
21 30| Modernists, between the Christ of history and the Christ of faith,
22 30|         between the sacraments of history and the sacraments of faith,
23 30|           faith itself and to the history of faith: thus, when treating
24 30|         not outside the sphere of history they pass through the crucible,
25 30|          crucible, excluding from history and relegating to faith
26 30|         they delete from His real history and transfer to faith all
27 30|           what they call His real history, was not God and never did
28 31|                        31. And as history receives its conclusions,
29 31|      criticism takes its own from history. The critic, on the data
30 31|     described go to form the real history; the rest is attributed
31 31|         rest is attributed to the history of the faith or as it is
32 31|         it is styled, to internal history. For the Modernists distinguish
33 31|        between these two kinds of history, and it is to be noted that
34 31|        noted that they oppose the history of the faith to real history
35 31|      history of the faith to real history precisely as real. Thus
36 32|       dominion of philosophy over history does not end here. Given
37 32|       shows how everything in the history of the Church is to be explained
38 32|        documents dealing with the history of faith and distributes
39 33|           up in its broad lines a history of the development of the
40 33|          up his pen, and soon the history is made complete. Now we
41 33|         Who is the author of this history? The historian? The critic?
42 34|          one might almost write a history of them. Indeed this history
43 34|      history of them. Indeed this history they do actually write,
44 35|          inasmuch as his theme is history - history dictated, as we
45 35|         as his theme is history - history dictated, as we have seen,
46 35|          to old methods, but real history written on modern principles
47 35|        found only in this kind of history. They feel that it is not
48 35|       faith to recognise that its history hides some unknown element.
49 35|       developing in the course of history, adapting itself successively
50 35|          explain the whole of her history - the unknown rises forth
51 36|           referring to science or history where manifest errors are
52 36|           books is not science or history but religion and morals.
53 36|      religion and morals. In them history and science serve only as
54 36|     masses understood science and history as they are expressed in
55 36|        clear that had science and history been expressed in a more
56 38|         is to be relegated to the history of philosophy among obsolete
57 38|           is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history,
58 38|          history of dogma. As for history, it must be for the future
59 38|       harmonised with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas
60 42|         were entirely ignorant of history and criticism, for which
61 43|         principles; if they write history, it is to search out with
62 43|          them like a stain in the history of the Church. Under the
63 46|        throwing the light of true history upon it. Certainly more
64 48|         show a love of novelty in history, archaeology, biblical exegesis,
65 57|       such accusations, which the history of the Christian religion