Wrong. Supposedly decent scholarship against poor scholarship wouldn’t entail equivocating. It’s hard to inspire intellectual depth doing that.
Plus you use liberal, hyperpapalist, Ad Hominem tactics saying “ilk” showing your uncharitable lack of accompaniment and rigidity.
St. Paul opposed Pope St. Peter to his face and other examples of strong opposition to past popes has occurred. Learn something for once instead of being a popesplainer.
Marcelinius
(296-?). Was accused of pinching incense to Ceasar to avoid persecution himself. Evidence one way or the other may have been lost to history.
Benedict IX
(1032-1046)
Was foisted upon the Cardinals. Abdicated in 1044.
Returned in 1045. Abdicated later in 45.
Returned in 46.
A Council ultimately deposed him. During one of his “papacies” he may have resigned due to seeking the hand of a woman. Sylvester, after him, though said now to have been a pope was nonetheless apparently somehow simultaneously deemed to be a false pope then via an imprisonment. Pope Gregory VI, although deemed as possessing good motives in attempting to clean things up, was deemed as having engaged in simony. Resigned/abdicated?
Sylvester III
Abdicated in 1045. Imprisoned.
Gregory VI.
(1045-1046). Abdicated/resigned? Replaced by Clement II.
Benedict abdicated again in 1048 after taking the papacy when Clement II died.
Several other examples like Pope Honorious and others exist.
No doubt you would have used the same or similar talking points to defend those above had you been around back then.