I have found through experience that some people will only believe those histories that they want to believe, that support their own already pre-conceived ideas of how things were. By going to primary sources or secondary sources that remain unbiased, we can get a good idea of the history. But I personally don't care much for such scholarship made with the intent in mind already to disprove the Church (or any other historical claim). Before becoming Christian, I learned this in my study of military history. One could manipulate history to make it read what they wanted - so it was necessary to look at the source - is the "historian" trying to prove something? Or are they trying to look at the facts in an unbiased manner, presenting what is there?
It appears anachronistic thought is alive and well, by the looks of those "anti-Catholic" historians trying to resurrect the Gnostic heresies.
Yes. I quite agree.