Stupid response, since you admit you don't know what you're talking about. If you don't read the opinions of those with whom you disagree, what makes you think you have the right to decide those opinions are wrong?
Of course you would respond that the Pope's word alone is good enough for you. Fine. But it's a dumb response just the same since the Pope is often wrong. Not only is he often wrong, but he is often in contradiction with himself.
If you don't want to look into this, that too is fine. But it reveals your shallow understanding of what's at stake. It is not simply that the Pope is the supreme authority in the Church and should be obeyed--that is not disputed. But the real issue is whether that authority has limits, whether the Pope is the servant of the Tradition he has received, or whether he is master over it and may oppose that Tradition any time he wishes.
If he is servant, as the SSPX believes, then his commands need to be resisted when they aim at destruction of Catholic Tradition. If he is master, then the faith is whatever the Pope himself says it is and the Pope may do as he wishes. The problem with this notion is that it is in direct contradiction to the First Vatican Council which mandated unequivocally that papal power is given primarily to GUARD what has been transmitted. Vatican I also explicitly denied that papal novelties had divine protection. This limited absolutist notions of papal power. Despite this, papal absolutism is the vain belief you profess over and over on these threads. It is your only argument and it is false.
I suppose I would be regarded as a deep thinker if he deluded myself out of the Roman Catholic Church by embracing your sad little schism and your thoroughly excommunicated leaders and dead excommunicated Marcel. No thanks.
Also, I don't need to pay Michael Moore money to view Fahrenheit 9/11 to know that he is wrong and deserving of derision. And I won't pay him or pay attention to his arguments any more than I will make believe that the SSPX schism has anything to say to actual Catholics loyal to the Vicar of Christ on Earth. For the same reasons of non-credibility.
The difference between the Michael Moores and the SSPX is that if people fall for SSPX's schismatic nonsense they may well suffer eternal consequences. If they fall for Michael Moore, they simply reveal that they are haplessly gullible earthly windtunnels which may not have eternal consequences.
The stewardship of this or any pope will be judged by God and by God alone. Last time I checked, God was neither you nor Marcel nor SSPX nor any of dead and excommunicated Marcel's sycophants. Your claim (necessarily given the apostasy) is that any Catholic in communion with the Holy See (therefore disagreeing with you and your revolutionary schismatic mentors) must be "dumb" or "stupid" or "shallow."
You also assume the right to decide what Catholicism is (in opposition to the pope), what constitutes "tradition", what constitutes "novelty", etc. That is beyond your job description to the extent that you claim to be Catholic.
If you do not dispute that the pope is to be obeyed and that he is the supreme earthly authority in the Church, fine. Then stop insulting him. Stop reviling him. Stop despising him. Start obeying him and act as though you mean what you said on the subject. Of course your last paragraph, as usual, states the escape clause which is that you and your fellow schismatics get to sit in self-appointed judgment over the pope. Why should anyone pay attention to the lengthy propaganda from the Angelus or whatever from people with the same impious and apostasized belief systems. I don't read The Story of O, Fanny Hill, the Tales of Maria Monk, or Jack Chick Comix and I don't read regurgitated Angelus propaganda. Repent and return while time remains.