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.
The RC Church has never approved the selling of indulgences.
Yes, I agree. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen, because it did.
In my original comment, I am stating that I believe the writer is making the case that people doing bad things in the church would never have happened prior to V2. I don't think that is correct. Many people did bad things prior to V2. that is my point. Sure, I totally agree with you that the church has never officially sanctioned sinful behavior (at least prior to pope Francis, anyway), but to state that sinful behavior was "unimaginable" prior to V2 is, in my opinion, silly.
(post is archived)