The dispute was about heresy, not corruption.
Is that an opinion or something catholics have to believe? There are some catholics who claim to be more knowledgeable than the pope. Perhaps we need their insight on this matter?
What "heresy"? I notice that you didn't bother with trying to explain just what it was, instead supplying the 'ol go play fetch my argument for me routine.
A heresy according to a pope of that era?
What a sick joke.
The office of papacy itself, as exercised by Rome, was heresy of grotesque proportions.
They have no standing to comment, and most particularly to condemn. Corrupt judges are no true judges at all, for their own self-interests in this matter preclude themselves from being unbiased and therefore fit judge. It was always that way, though the hypocrites rarely noticed...
Whatever they have to say (if not well justified from something quite beyond and removed from themselves) can not only be freely ignored -- but SHOULD BE ignored.
Which is what most all so-called 'Protestants' have been doing for the last few centuries, never bothering themselves with the garbage of Rome's incessant boasting for it's own 'self' other than to turn from the numerous well-practiced & polished lies that that so-called Church tells everyone about itself.
If not for being subjected to that pack of falsehoods and carefully constructed distortions here on this forum --- I would not have known just what it was that was otherwise being avoided. I can see better now why so-called 'Protestants' of past eras were for the larger extent --not convinced by the arguments put forth by Romanists, yet still found that they need not be bereft of Christ.
Rome is full of empty threats, the Good Lord not being one of "their" subjects. God is NOT subject to the Church of Rome, for He is greater than they are, and will remain forever so.