When you deal with doctrinal disputes, especially those of a differing theological heritage within Christendom, it may be helpful to remember a couple of things in line with Ezekiel 18.

1. Those who differ with you are not responsible for any alleged sins committed by their theological ancestors. Witch burnings (when there were any), other forms of executions, terrorist incidents, or massive wars to respond to those alleged incidents, etc, were all committed by people who have long since passed on. Calvinists aren’t guilty of anything regarding Servetus, Jesuits have no bloodguilt, modern pacifist anabaptists cannot be accused of bloodshed just because there were revolutionary anabaptists centuries ago. No one is guilty for what was done in the past.
2. You do not get to take credit for the alleged virtuous deeds of your theological ancestors. If the Reformed were wonderful martyrs, that doesn’t mean you’re not a fat comfortable American. The heroism of people in your own theological tradition does not accrue to you.
3. Finally, theological heritages do not transmit rights against others. The Saint Bartholemew’s massacre does not entail grudge-rights on the part of modern-day Protestants against modern-day Roman Catholics, etc. All those crimes were committed by other people long dead against other people long dead. They are completely irrelevant to present doctrinal disputes.
4. So there is almost never any rational point in bringing up such history when dealing with doctrinal disputes. Resorting to such things is a way to fan flames of prejudice and passion, not produce helpful debate.

That, at any rate, is how it seems to me.