An essential element of the ‘age of criticism’ was the methodological process that allowed scholars to conduct empirical research in order to question existing statements and evidence critically, and to prove hypotheses for their readers. Early modern historians, such as Paolo Sarpi and the Bollandists settled in Antwerp, showed the potentialities of this approach by arguing against Rome's appropriation of power and by revisiting Catholic dogma through a critical examination of the criteria of sainthood.

Yet this alliance between criticism and historiography came at a cost. As recent research has shown, throughout the early modern period, the papacy not only sought to affirm its theological supremacy but, above all, tended to build an all-comprehensive Konfessionskultur capable of imposing general cultural markers not only for every science but for several aspects of everyday life. The works of Sarpi, Papebroch, and other historians of the time inevitably collided with the Roman Curia's claim to exclusive interpretation of a consolidated confessional culture and its truths. Hence, both the Index Congregation and the Holy Office repeatedly examined and occasionally condemned their works throughout the seventeenth century. Yet the history of such prohibitions has not always been so clear-cut. The simplicity of the succession of censorship and prohibition obscures the plurality within early modern Catholicism, for the Curia was not the universally recognized, central power judging all things Catholic; instead, historians have come to consider it as one interpretive community among many. It had to consider other interests and to accept other views, within reason.