Vatican II ratified every part of the Council of Trent, and the atrocities that were done to innocent people were done in obedience to the Council of Trent, so the RCC has never apologised or made any effort to show repentance for the wholesale slaughter of women and children during its dominance. The execution of Christian people was not because they broke any of the Ten Commandments, or it was not on moral grounds. It was because a person wouldn't pray to Mary, or helped translate the Bible into English, or decided not to accept the authority of the aduterous rat-bag pope of their time. It was under the Council of Trent that a whole city of 70,000 men in the South of France, women and children was totally wiped out with every inhabitant cruelly butchered by the crusaders appointed by the pope to clean out every man, woman and child who would not recognise his authority over them. That is a fact of secular, unbiased history of the time.
These are facts that are carefully hidden from the rank and file members of the RCC. Most of the parish priests during the time of the Council of Trent were so ignorant of the Bible that they could not name any more than around four of the Apostles, and all they knew was to perform the basic ceremony of the Mass and little more. And if the priests were that ignorant, then the ordinary church member knew nothing except what the priest told him or her. It was only when a member questioned praying to Mary or praying to the box in which the wafer was stored, that they discovered how cruel the RCC was as he or she found being bound to the stake and burned alive.
This is why thousands of people, when they find out the truth about the RCC, they are leaving it in droves.
But you don't document your false histories, nor do you give reliable sources, you just assert them. The JW's and the SDA's do the same thing as you.
By "reliable source", I mean any recent Ph.D. in history, secular or Protestant, who would agree with your bigotted myth making. I don't accept so called historians before 1960, because scholarship has matured past 18th century propaganda that flooded the world. What has been discovered in archives all over the world does not support your hate speech. Proper documentation is your enemy.
By "documentation", I mean primary and secondary sources, which you never use. You don't even provide a link that verifies your false assertions because that would expose the biased source. You give no name to this woman allegedly burned alive, no date, no place, no ecclesiastical directive, and no eye witnesses yet you have repeated this fabrication twice.
Primary, secondary and tertiary sources are broadly defined here as follows: Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic or event. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is an example of a primary source. The Bible and the Early Church Fathers are primary sources. A tertiary source is an index or textual consolidation of primary and secondary sources. Some tertiary sources are not to be used for academic research, unless they can also be used as secondary sources, or to find other sources.(wiki) This you never do. Anything printed that bashes Catholicism you accept as fact.
What you hate doesn't exist. Just cardboard caricatures.
The author of this book is a sociology professor and not even Catholic:
BOOK REVIEW
Anti-Catholicism has a long history in America. And as Philip Jenkins argues in The New Anti-Catholicism, this virulent strain of hatred--once thought dead--is alive and well in our nation, but few people seem to notice, or care.
A statement that is seen as racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, or homophobic can haunt a speaker for years, writes Jenkins, but it is still possible to make hostile and vituperative public statements about Roman Catholicism without fear of serious repercussions. Jenkins shines a light on anti-Catholic sentiment in American society and illuminates its causes, looking closely at gay and feminist anti-Catholicism, anti-Catholic rhetoric and imagery in the media, and the anti-Catholicism of the academic world.
For newspapers and newsmagazines, for television news and in movies, for major book publishers, the Catholic Church has come to provide a grossly stereotyped public villain. Catholic opinions, doctrines, and individual leaders are frequently the butt of harsh satire. Indeed, the notion that the church is a deadly enemy of women--the idea of Catholic misogyny--is commonly accepted in the news media and in popular culture, says Jenkins. And the recent pedophile priest scandal, he shows, has revived many ancient anti-Catholic stereotypes.
It was said that with the election of John F. Kennedy, anti-Catholicism in America was dead. This provocative new book corrects that illusion, drawing attention to this important issue.
Another non-Catholic author:
As we all know and as many of our well established textbooks have argued for decades, the Inquisition was one of the most frightening and bloody chapters in Western history, Pope Pius XII was anti-Semitic and rightfully called “Hitler’s Pope,” the Dark Ages were a stunting of the progress of knowledge to be redeemed only by the secular spirit of the Enlightenment, and the religious Crusades were an early example of the rapacious Western thirst for riches and power. But what if these long held beliefs were all wrong?
In this stunning, powerful, and ultimately persuasive book, Rodney Stark, one of the most highly regarded sociologists of religion and bestselling author of
The Rise of Christianity (HarperSanFrancisco 1997) argues that some of our most firmly held ideas about history, ideas that paint the Catholic Church in the least positive light are, in fact,
fiction. Why have we held these wrongheaded ideas so strongly and for so long? And if our beliefs are wrong, what, in fact, is the truth?
In each chapter, Stark takes on a well-established anti-Catholic myth, gives a fascinating history of how each myth became the conventional wisdom, and presents a startling picture of the real truth. For example,
- Instead of the Spanish Inquisition being an anomaly of torture and murder of innocent people persecuted for “imaginary” crimes such as witchcraft and blasphemy, Stark argues that not only did the Spanish Inquisition spill very little blood, but it was a major force in support of moderation and justice.
- Instead of Pope Pius XII being apathetic or even helpful to the Nazi movement, such as to merit the title, “Hitler’s Pope,” Stark shows that the campaign to link Pope Pius XII to Hitler was initiated by the Soviet Union, presumably in hopes of neutralizing the Vatican in post-World War II affairs. Pope Pius XII was widely praised for his vigorous and devoted efforts to saving Jewish lives during the war.
- Instead of the Dark Ages being understood as a millennium of ignorance and backwardness inspired by the Catholic Church’s power, Stark argues that the whole notion of the “Dark Ages” was an act of pride perpetuated by anti-religious intellectuals who were determined to claim that theirs was the era of “Enlightenment.”
In the end, readers will not only have a more accurate history of the Catholic Church, they will come to understand why it became
unfairly maligned for so long.
Bearing False Witness is a compelling and sobering account of how egotism and ideology often work together to give us a false truth.