Try again. Post 334 was defending the position that the Vatican had bound itself to a treaty in 1871 and was receiving sovereignty from Italy in exchange for lauding Mussolini. The issues under discussion are the Italian law of 1871, the agreement of 1929, and Vatican Sovereignty. They do indirectly influence the discussion of the issues that you raise in your “response” but all the issues that you raise post-date what is under disussion.
The Hitler angle has been amptly dealt with on this thread—but you butted into a discussion on Papal sovereignty from 1871-1929. Leo XIII and his three successors, far from being inept, were brilliant. Rome did not receive sovereignty from Mussolini, an assertion that started this line or argument, because Rome had been careful never to cede sovereignty.
So, read post 334, which you praised in post 350, read post 346 with links so that you will get an idea of what is being discussed, and then defend what you have praised. I trust that the recent link will aid you in navigating these three posts. My computer skills aren’t all that they might be.
lol. Thanks, but I’ll pass on your endless affidavits as to Rome’s “brilliance.”
You have yet to answer any of the objections raised against Pacelli.
As usual, in absence of any defense, the subject is changed, deflected, lost in a garble of inconsequential nit-picking.
This is typical. It’s a game.