Supposedly, there was a very heretical Pope during the Middle Ages, but he was not thought to be a heretic until after his life. Also, during the Renaissance or later Middle Ages, there was at least one extreme pervert occupying the seat of Saint Peter. Supposedly, if every Pope is legitimately selected, instead of allowing for the idea of manmade errors to creep into the Catholic Church, why were there heretical or even apostate Popes, at all? Aren't the gates of Hell not supposed to overcome the Catholic Church, even once? Also, what's with the retcons in the Vatican I and Vatican II councils? Supposedly, it was OK to not strictly believe in the ascension of Mary, but now, one goes to Hell for it, even if actual saints made it to Heaven believing otherwise, before.
>>16547621I'd put these into four categories. First off, you have the non-Roman Popes, such as those under Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy and others. There is a person claiming to be Pope in Alexandria. You could extend this category to all kinds of small-scale or minor cults and it wouldn't in principle be any different, including those in America such as Elron Hubbard or Joseph Smith, and also gnostic heresies, state cults of personalities, anything else that has one leader who wants to put the entire world under his religious/ideological authority, since all such groups are equally illegitimate.Anyway, that's the first category of a kind of Pope that might slip through the cracks. The three others would be: 1) guys that were outright skipped or never existed due to mis-numbering (there were a few of these in the Papal States history). There is no John XX for instance. The number was apparently skipped due to misunderstanding history. Also, the whole history gets murky before Emperor Constantine. Then, 2) supposed "anti-popes," which are people who disputed the specific right to rule the Papal States before it was turned into Vatican City. The major and minor contenders are countless. At one point there were three major contenders in the 1300s. At this time, depending on which country you were in, the official line of Popes differed due to politics. Sometimes, an institution would change its recognition(s) later as well. With some of the more prominent anti-popes, this got to the point of being quite confusing due to the differing views that developed from the split recognition. There are individuals who, during their lifetime they were treated as anti-popes by some countries, but later those countries promoted him to Pope long after his death or vice versa, sometimes only centuries later. It's possible that some people or countries will change their recognition of who they believe was "rightfully in charge of Rome" in the future based on unknown contingencies.
>>16547987The fourth category which remains would be those Roman Popes whose existence many would prefer to forget, and for that reason they slipped through the cracks, which is probably what you alluded to. Before around 1059-1075, the Bishop of Rome was more like the post of a semi-autonomous vassal of the Holy Roman Emperors. During the 900s, the aristocracy of Rome was very openly hedonistic, and women connived to get their offspring into the bishopric post under what was called the "pornocracy." One man, numbered John XII, was known for calling upon the devil for help while playing dice, and he was killed by a man while caught red-handed in the act of adultery. It is reported that the title was also openly exchanged for money later on in the year 1045. Many of the holders of the title of Bishop of Rome during this time were basically hedonists. This trend also existed at other times as well, but it is best not to dwell on this since as Paul wrote in Ephesians, "For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret." (Ephesians 5:12)
