"The question is, who do we think we are? Bloggers, arm-chair theologians, canon-lawyers, historians and politicians. What possesses us to offer an opinion on the acts of the pope?...
...When you don't assume the best it is because you assume you know better, which means you do not think very highly of the person in question, or, even worse, you think quite highly of yourself."
--Colin Kerr in his post Piety towards the Pope
Just a friendly reminder: Rorate Caeli is the "Traditional" blog that on the very heels of the election of Pope Francis posted "The Horror" as their reaction. They thought it was funny or witty or something. To my knowledge they never made any public apology stating their filial obedience and charity towards our Holy Father. Therefore, anything they write, post, disseminate, can be immediately dismissed out of hand by faithful Catholics as unworthy of trust whatsoever without second thought or any self-recrimination.
Colin Kerr's post articulates stuff that I have been thinking about. I remember reading sarcastic caustic comments from priests about Pope Francis in the comment boxes of certain blogs. I think to myself, what's going through your mind during Mass when during consecration you say the words "together with ______ our Bishop and Francis our Pope..."?
Gives me the creeps.
If as a Catholic, layperson or religious, your primary stance towards the Pope is one of questioning suspicion which you then use as the basis for articulating what constitutes real orthodoxy and traditionalism...yeah, you might want to take that to confession.
That is, take it to confession - not take it to Fr. Z after hyperventilating into a paper bag.
People writing to Fr. Z after every single thing Pope Francis says or does...it's like Fr. Z is their little pope.