Dang! I always miss the good stuff! ;-)

That's all right.

It's wonderful how so many generous, thoughtful people have made this site a center for sharing their ideas, experiences, compositions, and counsels.

And yes, I did drop some perfectly innocent comments, but in the situation, I considered it best to remove the whole exchange. It was all off-topic anyway.

@JennyH

+1 your comment.

I will be honest, to me, Rorate Caeli often seems like a bunch of whiny traddies. Sorry, that's just the vibe I usually get when I occasionally stop by.

I think I'm repeating myself, but it bears repeating: I'm not in a panic because of what I think Francis will do. I'm in a panic because of what he will embolden others to do.

Case in point, I just got home from a meal with colleagues in a neighborhood known as the gay part of town. After some energetic conversation about the new pope, we were approached by a friendly gay couple who said they were interested to overhear us talking about religion. As we parted ways, one of these men smiled and said to us "Just watch - Pope Francis will change EVERYTHING!"

Will this guy get anything he wants from this pontificate? No way. Is it going to change how HE exercises his own faith? Yep. It's also going to affect how people like him expect US to exercise our ministries. And a lot of those people are in positions of power.

Somewhere, there's a parish council member taking note of Francis's simpler vestments - and a priest who doesn't like the solid-color poncho the church has had for 30 years. Or a priest noticing that Francis doesn't sing his prayers - and a music director who is trying to introduce chant via the dialogs.

So yes, excuse me while I panic. This really does matter.

Guess I drank the Kool Aid, I was happy with BXVI.

This seems for all the world like an ad hominem attack on a blogger whose perceptions and insights are respected among traditional Catholics and widely-read (if his being quoted in L'Osservatore Romano is any indication).

This too is an ad hominem, though not an attack. I would further submit that RC's content in the last 2 weeks has greatly diminished his respect and credibility in the Catholic blogosphere at large.

Pedro wrote:

The blog has a relatively liberal policy regarding comments.

Does it? I gave up commenting there after finding my submissions were not published.

That's not to diminish the value of the information that is often presented there.

Also, the current liturgical and musical renewal needs to be able to stand on its own two feet. Sure, it's helpful if the pope is taking an active hand in it, but if the renewal cannot stand on its own, then it is a week renewal indeed.

Agreed. There are still bishops and lay cabals out there determined to stamp out good liturgy in favor of therapeutic fluff, but they were still doing this mostly unchecked with B16 in office. The only thing that our new pope means is that in those places, winter continues. Everywhere else there are plenty of signs of improvement and if that can't be kept growing, it says more about us than about the Holy Father.

Once again, Fr. AWR, welcome to a forum that accepts divergent views, and, for the most part, doesn't tolerate its editor determining the course and winding of the conversational thread. It seems to me that you and Rita have an understood pact to silence any criticism that discredits either of your own opinions when they do, and THEY DO, cross the moral lines of common courtesy, not to mention the ecclesiastical bonds we laity have in not discrediting the ordained in a blasphemous manner. Long live Pope Francis. Blessings, Charles

Charles, there is no question that Fr. Ruff sometimes deletes comments by more 'conservative' participants for ideological reasons, and this has been well documented by Matthew Bellisario and many others. However, that's his prerogative as moderator of his own blog.

On the other hand, I do not agree that this somehow ought to prohibit him from posting here. I think of the CMAA forum as a warm and welcoming place where all views are accepted. Years ago, David Haas tried to post here, and he got offended and left. I thought that was unfortunate, at least from my perspective, because I enjoyed reading his comments.

I do 'feel your pain' as a while back I had tried to post a very polite and innocuous comment on PT in support of the Church's traditional teaching on marriage. It was promptly deleted, and I think that's the last time I visited that site.

I am not sure what Paul Inwood means. John Paul II appointed a group of Cardinals to study the question, and they agreed it was not abrogated.

Just watch - Pope Francis will change EVERYTHING!

Pope Francis, from what I read, is staunchly conservative in theology. And even--perish the thought--if he isn't, the Church has outlived some of the worst popes in history, and Pope Francis most assuredly is not one of them.

Wishful thinking for that couple. Unfortunately (for them), it is only their wishes, not God's.

Melofluent, if you drank a lot of kool-aid, then I have been happily inebriated for the last eight years.

I love Benedict, always have, always will. When he first appeared on the Loggia, I felt a sense of safety and reassurance. Now, I am not so sure.

Gavin, I agree with the concerns that you listed. Already there is a chilling effect down here, especially with the Mandatum. Even though the CDWDS clarified who's feet were to be washed, I fear that Pope Francis' past and present actions will roll back whatever small gains we made down here.

The only thing that I can do is crawl to my happy place and ponder the beautiful liturgies that Benedict gave us as an example.

NB: I haven't posted much because I am still very much in mourning over Benedict. My brain accepts Pope Francis because I have no other choice but to stay with Peter. But, I do have fears about the liturgical direction the new Holy Father is taking. Humility also means accepting the new role one has been given and not be in such a rush to implement one's own style and peculiarities. This could turn it into a hermeneutic of rupture.

I hope I did not violate any forum rules. It has been a very frustrating 12 days so far. While he is a good preacher, some of the changes have caused me concern.

Benedictgal and Melofluent,

Lemme assure you that despite my attempts to make cautious remarks in the past few weeks, I have had to drink my own kool-aid (both actual, or rather generic version thereof) and spiritual/psychological.

PdA

I suspect Cdl Bergoglio has been used to "por todos los hombres" in the Spanish institution narrative (though I am aware there are different Spanish translations of the Roman Missal in South America, I've not read that they differ on this point, but perhaps someone can provide more color on it).

"parallel usage of that nature is not part of the Church’s previous history."

My own experience of the author of that assertion (whether publishing under his own name or one of his various pseudonyms) is that the more strongly he asserts something the more likely it is to be only part of the truth or plain wrong. In this case, not only can we point to use of the Eastern Rites in parallel with the Western, but also to the Council of Trent, which permitted the continued use of any form of the Latin Rite which had at least a two-century history. Hence the Ambrosian, Carmelite, Dominican, Bragan and other forms (and but for the King's need of a male heir, the Sarum Rite might well have survived in England). Opposition to such diversity tends to come from those with a desire to control and to impose their own views; it's at odds with both tradition and the spirit of Vatican II.

Speaking of "parallel usages," this is an example of "liturgical experts" who have apparently not studied the history of liturgy prior to 1963. What were the Ambrosian,
Mozarabic, Sarum, etc. rites? It was my impression that they were considered valid local usages of the Roman liturgy. Am I misinformed?