Whatever is coming up, the Catholic Church should have no part in it, in fact the Catholic Church ought to be liquidated and the full amount given to the people of the Earth. It is not right what this church has got away with in the alleged name of God. The liquidation should start tomorrow!
During the first three centuries AD we know already that the ‘Christian movement’ consisted of a diverse mass of sects, all of which defined themselves as followers of Christ despite their wildly varying doctrines and contradictory beliefs.

At one end of the scale there were those like the Gnostics who rejected the Old Testament, interpreted the New Testament allegorically within a dualist framework, did not believe that Christ had been born in the flesh (or crucified), allowed the greatest possible latitude for individual revelation and inspiration, and had no wish to impose dogma on others. Although they claimed to be the original Christians, guarding the true apostolic succession, they were interested not in coercion but in a process of personal inquiry and experience that would lead their initiates to a saving knowledge of the truth. They did not believe that there was just one exclusive path to this gnosis. As such, blind obedience to any form of dogma, together with intolerance for the beliefs of others, were rejected by all the Gnostic systems.

At the other end of the scale were Drake’s ‘militant Christians’, the Catholics and their bishops who established their primary power centre in Rome in the early fourth century AD after they had won Constantine’s favour. They too claimed to be the original Christians, guarding the true apostolic succession, and it was on the exclusive basis of their doctrines and beliefs that what we now think of as ‘the Christian Church’ took shape during the decades that followed. They accepted the Old Testament, interpreted the New Testament with adamant literalism, believed in Christ’s incarnation, crucifixion and bodily resurrection (and that all humans would experience bodily resurrection too), rejected dualism, allowed no latitude whatsoever for individual revelation and inspiration, and felt it was their duty to impose their beliefs on others. Their interest was in obtaining the complete and unquestioning faith of their congregations in the infallibility of the doctrines that they taught. As such, dogma, the enforcement of blind obedience and violent intolerance for the beliefs of others, were, from the beginning, their stock in trade.

Why did the militant wing prevail? The answer that Drake gives to his own question is in a sense a tautology. The militant wing of the once broad Church of Christianity prevailed because it was militant and because it was the first to acquire access to the coercive apparatus of the state. As a simple and universal function of human organization, Drake suggests ‘there are persons in every mass movement who are willing to coexist with variant beliefs and others who see such nonbelievers as outsiders and as a threat that must be neutralized’. 62
https://exploringrealhistory.blogspot.com/2023/01/part-3-talisman-knowledge-of-true.html