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.
334 was about Pius XI. You are the one who raised Pacelli changing the subject.
And I am sure, since you are so against the tactic of changing the subject, that you will go back and demonstrate from the actual 1929 agreement which is linked in post 334 that Rome was receiving back sovereignty that it had surrendered in 1871. That was the disputed point that 334 addressed to your satisfaction, but not to mine.