3.13. Haven’t we had bad and immoral popes before? Why not just stay in the Church and pray for a better one like Catholics have always done?

Yes — of the 266 claimants to the papacy, less than 10 were notoriously immoral or corrupt.

Importantly, none of these “bad popes” ever taught heresy in their official capacity as pope, which distinguishes them radically from the post-Vatican II antipopes.

They may have sinned grievously in their private lives — even scandalously — but they did not alter Catholic doctrine, change the Mass, or lead souls into doctrinal error. The Church, in her infallibility, remained untouched by their personal failings.

Here are a few often-cited examples of popes who reigned, committed scandal but did not promulgate heresy:

1. Stephen VI: 896–897

   Dug up and put his predecessor, Formosus, on trial (the “Cadaver Synod”). A grotesque abuse of office, but not heretical.

2. John XII: 955–964

   Accused of fornication, murder, and simony; died in disgrace. But he taught no error in faith or morals.

3. Benedict IX: 1032–1048

   Elected young, sold the papacy, and lived immorally. Yet he never proposed doctrinal error.

4. Alexander VI: 1492–1503

   Famous for nepotism and fathering children; a scandal to Rome. But he upheld Catholic teaching.

5. Leo X: 1513–1521

   Lavishly funded art, sold indulgences unwisely — but he condemned Martin Luther’s heresies, upholding orthodoxy.

None of these popes invented new rites, redefined the nature of the Church, or approved sin under the guise of mercy.

By contrast, the post-Vatican II claimants (John XXIII through Leo XIV) have:

• Publicly taught religious liberty, universal salvation, and false ecumenism (errors already condemned by the Church);

• Approved interfaith worship, sacrilegious disciplines, and blessing of same-sex couples;

• Changed the Mass, introducing a Protestantized liturgy with doubtful form and intention;

• Oversaw or defended changes to all seven sacraments, in form, meaning, and intent.

These are not personal moral failures, but doctrinal revolutions, made publicly and officially, which directly contradict what the Catholic Church has infallibly taught. Such men cannot be true popes — because a public heretic is not even a member of the Church, let alone her head (cf. Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, Pope Paul IV; Satis Cognitum, Pope Leo XIII).

So no — this is not like the past. We are not dealing with sinful popes; we are dealing with a false hierarchy promoting a false religion. The Catholic response is not to “ride it out,” but to separate from error, hold fast to Tradition, and await the restoration of the true hierarchy.

“They have the buildings — we have the Faith.”

— St. Athanasius during the Arian crisis

Further reading:

• The Vatican II Crisis - A True Drama of Spiritual Warfare

• The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita - A Masonic Blueprint for the subversion of the Catholic Church

• A Conspiracy against the Catholic Church? The True Popes Speaks

• Freemasons And The Conciliar Church

• Smoke Signals: The White Smoke of Oct. 26, 1958

• Former FBI Consultant Claims: U.S. Intel Docs show Cardinal Siri elected Pope Gregory XVII in 1958

• Watch Papal Impostors

• Watch The Vacancy: The Catholic Church since Vatican II

• Watch other videos for those new to this topic