The Anti-Catholic Bible

Well, the research on a cold battle for supremacy by our Christian Relics of the Major divisions of Christianity leads us here to an argument about The Anti Catholic Bible that may have been in world circulation for close to like a decade. After compiling and reading through these notes, I find myself being a little confused and ask; what did Roman Catholics do to deserve all these Abuse.
Hmmmmmm, we leave every-every in The Lords hands as he definitely would bring everything to light in the last days. 
This book is the origin of much of what professional anti-Catholics distribute. It can be called, to use a phrase that might rankle some, the "Bible" of the anti-Catholic movement. At first glance Roman Catholicism seems impressive. Its 460 large pages of text are closely packed with quotations. The table of contents is broken down into dozens of categories, and the indices, though skimpy, at least are there. But a careful reading makes it clear that the author’s antagonism to the Catholic Church has gravely compromised his intellectual objectivity. 
He Swallows Them Whole
The book suffers from a serious lack of scholarly rigor. Boettner accepts at face value virtually any claim made by an opponent of the Church. Even when verification of a charge is easy, he does not bother to check it out. If he finds something unflattering to Catholicism, he prints it. When the topic is the infallibility of the pope, Boettner quotes at length from a speech alleged to have been given in 1870 at the First Vatican Council, where papal infallibility was formally defined. The speech, attributed to "the scholarly archbishop [sic, bishop] Strossmeyer," claims that the "archbishop" read the New Testament for the first time shortly before he gave the speech and found no mention at all of the papacy. The speech then concludes that Peter was given no greater authority than the other apostles. The trouble is that the speech is a well-known forgery. Bishop Strossmeyer did not make that speech, and, in fact, when it was being circulated by a disgruntled former Catholic, the bishop repeatedly and publicly denied that it was his and demanded a retraction by the guilty party. A glance at the Catholic Encyclopedia