“To be fair, though, it should mention how the Catholic Church opposed, under penalty of death, the common person reading God’s Word, and did execute an untold number for that reason.”
Show me the law. I dare you to show me the law from a Catholic ecumenical council or pope which says that the Church “opposed, under penalty of death, the common person reading God’s Word”. Show it to me. What you’re claiming is an outright falsehood, a fabrication, and I DARE YOU TO SHOW ME EVEN ONE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OR ONE POPE who EVER said people should be put to death for reading the Bible.
Now, for you to prove your claim you must provide the following evidence:
1) You’re making a claim about a law, or a canon law, even if you don’t use the term, for you are claiming it had the force of law. After all people could be threatened with the loss of their very lives unless the law was behind it somehow. You had better post a law or canon law then.
2) It had better say the following: COMMON MEN can be or will be EXECUTED for READING God’s Word. Now, the COMMON MAN was not a heretic so your proof should not in any way be related to heresy or even it prosecution. Don’t like that? Tough. Name for me anyone who was ever executed for translating a Bible by the Catholic Church. (The answer is no one ever was).
3) If this was a Catholic practice, or something that could be laid at the feet of the Catholic Church, a huge body spread through many countries, then it had better be something that is representative of Catholic teaching and practice for many places and many times. In other words, a particular bishop’s opinion is meaningless. What the Bishop of East Podunk thought is meaningless toward your claim. What a local synod did or wanted to do is meaningless toward your claim. What a regional council did was meaningless toward your claim.
When you fail, and you will, I suggest you think long and hard about spreading fabrications on the internet. And don’t think for a second that my demanding you present evidence is the problem. You problem is you have no evidence for your claim.
Vladimir, I will only defend *my* actual words. I will *not* defend the position you seemed to very carefully create for me which would no doubt “vindicate” the Catholic Church. We haven’t even touched on the events that caused me to write my words, but I’m willing to discuss those and also what I actually said in my comment.