This would have been unimaginable before the Second Vatican Council (1962-65)
I don't completely agree with this statement from the article. There have been times where there were two popes (or rather, two people claiming to be the legitimate pope), there have been times where the pope had concubines, there have been times when the pope bought the position (Medici pope), etc. Controversy is not foreign to the papacy or to Roman Catholicism.
That's a very common R&R argument, but it's flawed. The difference is that even those corrupt Popes were not heretics and apostates. They personally lived immoral lives and/or were very corrupt, but they still defended and taught the Catholic faith unlike the Vatican II anti-pope impostors who are modernists heretics who reject the Catholic faith. God never promised that a pope would not sin. He did promise that the gates of hell would never prevail. That means a Pope cannot teach heresy. This is why sedevacantism is the only logical and Catholic position in these times of apostasy.
In the case of the Medici pope, he bought the position so he could grow wealth by buying and selling indulgences (IIRC). I would say that is fairly heretical, at the very least scandalous
That's a very common protestant slander that the Church sold indulgences or that the Church is hoarding wealth etc. The RC Church has never approved the selling of indulgences. It can't sell indulgences. A Catholic who understands what indulgences are understands that they can't be sold. If you were to buy an indulgence it would merit you nothing.
Even if a Pope sold an indulgence it wouldn't be heretical. It would be a sin of simony. Not heresy. In order to be a heretic you have to reject a dogma of the Catholic faith.
(post is archived)