Such was and is your argument.
All those countries have also rebelled against the one holy catholic and apostolic Church;
Meaning your unholy modern church which is populated by liberals and provided a liberal official American Bible and elected your liberal pope. Rome requires obedience to the pope in more than just infallible teaching, and devotion to the pope today means devotion to such liberal causes as Climate Change.
It is true the devotion to historical Catholic teaching would prevent the devotees being morally liberal; however, in Catholicism the one duty of the laity is to follow their pastors as docile sheep, and not ascertain the validity of teaching by their own judgment of what conforms to historical church teaching, which is what evangelical do (with historical church teaching being the NT). And thus, when leadership goes South - which Scripture never does - then so do its followers, as seen past Catholic history and now in the present.
Meanwhile, the same argument of rebellion (as explaining moral declension) applies to those countries which once grow in Godliness in proportion to their devotion to Scripture, and thus such are the most conservative today, thereby nullifying the argument against devotion to Scripture as supreme (based on another generation rebelling against it).
By your own logic since the Kingdom of Judah followed the Kingdom of Israel into rebellion and apostasy, the unbroken chain of God's servants would be trashed even though they spoke the word of the LORD to those kingdoms.
What are to talking about? It was leadership overall - which in Catholicism the laity is to submit to as docile sheep - which fell into apostasy, not doing as Josiah did, while those leadership rejected - which dissidents in Catholicism you are to reject - were the remnant who spoke the word of God.
Unless there is a new vernacular translation that substitutes reading for hearing,
A false argument against the written word, for what hear what was read is hear the word of God, which hearing is what the king did, with the point being that it was not oral tradition (which by definition is not written) that preserved the Truth of God and brought revival, but the written word and the hearing of it.:
And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. (2 Kings 22:10-11) :
And the king went up into the house of the Lord, and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of the Lord. And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant. (2 Kings 23:2-3)
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
A hypocritical misuse of Scripture , for there is no hypocrisy on my part here in correcting your fallacious argument, which would be the case if I impugned esteem of Scripture since people rebelled against it, while if like a liberal, you want to condemn judging in general then it leaves you guilty of doing so.
I warned you against trying to defend your fallacious argument and thus digging yourself a deeper pit, and now look what you have done. Shall we continue?