Bowler,

Didn't Adesto say that in a thread regarding that sting operation to get abortion laws passed in Brazil?

That's the same story we heard in the N.O. regarding Pope John Paul II, whenever changes happened which went against the Traditional teaching of the church., ie altar girls, communion in the hand, etc., in the conservative circles it was stated he had no control - his enemies in the church where making changes without his knowledge.

It needs to be repeated over and over because silence is the friend of the enemy - the corrupt Church leaders.

Now that you think about it, a Pope could declare that any politician who is pro-abortion is, by his actions, automatically excommunicated.  He could even announce this in the most broad format so the word would get out to the public at large.

It's necessary to be charitable to those not as informed as us. We must pray for them, give them books, pamphlets, a dvd, a cd with a good sermon, conference etc etc. Great emphasis on doctrine and social teachings are key.

I'm not claiming to be an expert as I'm learning along the way also. Our type of people should educate and inform others.

For the average novus ordite in the pews, you're right.

Most of the disapproval is directed at N.O. bloggers and N.O. mouthpieces.

This subject reminds me of this snip from: Who Shall Ascend?

...........Within the souls of those who reflexively shy away from ascribing any fault to the pope, there is a great sentimentalism.  He is not only never to be blamed for anything, but he is to be given boundless sympathy, the reason being he is so weighed down with "the burdens of his office."  So heavy, indeed, are these burdens, that it is right and Catholic to assume that no matter what emanates of the Holy See, if it is good, the pope deserves the credit; it it is bad, it it seems not good or unfortunate, then the pope is not responsible.  

(1)  HE IS A PRISONER!:  Who are they who are holding him prisoner?  Liberals?  Communists?  Masons?  The Cardinals?

(2)  He signed the bull without having read it:  In the business world, one would lose one's position, would be forced to resign for a blunder of this sort.  Are not the pope's papers more important than those of chairmen and executive officers?
 
(3)  He was forced into signing these papers:  By whom?  It is of the existence of these "whom," that this book professes certitude.  But we can find no evidence of any force being threatened or applied, nor can anyone else.  Is it wrong that we should expect the pope to suffer martyrdom itself for the Church and its Faith, as many of his predecessors have?  In truth, however, we see clearly that the Conciliar Popes have been the most willing players of them all.

(4)  He has so much to do, that he cannot know everything that goes on:  Really?  How does the speaker know this?  This suggests that there is a kind of rush to get things done.  What is the hurry?  Would it be excusable for the pope to injure the Church through hastiness or mismanagement?  

(5)  The man whom we see on television is not the real pope:  Again, who are they who have managed this?  Does the speaker say this only because he cannot accept the fact that the pope could very deliberately work against the welfare of the Church?  Or is he one of those "conservatives," who thinks that the Doctrine of the Papacy means that it is an impossible thing for the office of pope to be taken for explicitly evil purposes?  There is no such Catholic doctrine.

The pope, it seems, is the only chief executive officer in the whole world who is not to be held accountable for what happens in the institution which he is in charge of.  In any corporation, large or small, the man at the top gets the credit and the blame for what happens:  If the company makes money, he is congratulated and paid more money to stay on.  If the company loses money, he is the one who must explain why this is -- and what he intends to do about it.  And, even if he is not altogether responsible -- e.g., he cannot control the markets--he may very well be voted out for the obvious reason that the man the board of directors wants, the man the company must have, is the man who, no matter what the circuмstances, will put the company in the black.  ...........

This subject reminds me of this snip from: Who Shall Ascend?

...........Within the souls of those who reflexively shy away from ascribing any fault to the pope, there is a great sentimentalism.  He is not only never to be blamed for anything, but he is to be given boundless sympathy, the reason being he is so weighed down with "the burdens of his office."  So heavy, indeed, are these burdens, that it is right and Catholic to assume that no matter what emanates of the Holy See, if it is good, the pope deserves the credit; it is bad, it seems not good or unfortunate, then the pope is not responsible.  

(1)  HE IS A PRISONER!:  Who are they who are holding him prisoner?  Liberals?  Communists?  Masons?  The Cardinals?

(2)  He signed the bull without having read it:  In the business world, one would lose one's position, would be forced to resign for a blunder of this sort.  Are not the pope's papers more important than those of chairmen and executive officers?
 
(3)  He was forced into signing these papers:  By whom?  It is of the existence of these "whom," that this book professes certitude.  But we can find no evidence of any force being threatened or applied, nor can anyone else.  Is it wrong that we should expect the pope to suffer martyrdom itself for the Church and its Faith, as many of his predecessors have?  In truth, however, we see clearly that the Conciliar Popes have been the most willing players of them all.

(4)  He has so much to do, that he cannot know everything that goes on:  Really?  How does the speaker know this?  This suggests that there is a kind of rush to get things done.  What is the hurry?  Would it be excusable for the pope to injure the Church through hastiness or mismanagement?  

(5)  The man whom we see on television is not the real pope:  Again, who are they who have managed this?  Does the speaker say this only because he cannot accept the fact that the pope could very deliberately work against the welfare of the Church?  Or is he one of those "conservatives," who thinks that the Doctrine of the Papacy means that it is an impossible thing for the office of pope to be taken for explicitly evil purposes?  There is no such Catholic doctrine.

The pope, it seems, is the only chief executive officer in the whole world who is not to be held accountable for what happens in the institution which he is in charge of.  In any corporation, large or small, the man at the top gets the credit and the blame for what happens:  If the company makes money, he is congratulated and paid more money to stay on.  If the company loses money, he is the one who must explain why this is -- and what he intends to do about it.  And, even if he is not altogether responsible -- e.g., he cannot control the markets--he may very well be voted out for the obvious reason that the man the board of directors wants, the man the company must have, is the man who, no matter what the circuмstances, will put the company in the black.  ...........

You will find many things written against Cardinal Ratzinger by The Remnant, Catholic Family News, Fatima Crusader, and the Angelus, and such, however, since he became pope, they no longer write anything negative about him. Why? Because they would lose over 90% of their subscribers. That is why they came up with the excuses delineated above by Fr. Watham in Who Shall Ascend?

The point of this thread bears repeating, since no Catholic writer with an appreciable audience is saying it:

Nothing happens without the approval of the pope. Vatican II, and all of the changes that came with it, all of the progressivists bishops deeds, everything, would not have occurred had the pope not approved it. Just look at the SSPX,  they were eliminated from their very beginning. Compare that to all of the progressivists, not a one eliminated, in fact they are promoted. Everything of the conciliar church would never have seen the light of day, had the pope not promoted it.

The point of this thread bears repeating, since no Catholic writer with an appreciable audience is saying it:

Quote

Nothing happens without the approval of the pope. Vatican II, and all of the changes that came with it, all of the progressivists bishops deeds, everything, would not have occurred had the pope not approved it. Just look at the SSPX,  they were eliminated from their very beginning. Compare that to all of the progressivists, not a one eliminated, in fact they are promoted. Everything of the conciliar church would never have seen the light of day, had the pope not promoted it.

Yes, this toes the same line as well intentioned people who write their Bishop when they see a New "mass" performed that is just "too abusive"  - - - - -for some reason they think the Bishop is clueless, they also have no idea that more often than not, it is the Bishop who mandates such atrocities.