Some significant news: the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew, is to attend the inauguration of Pope Francis [here]
It seems the Archbishop of Canterbury will not, but will be represented by the Archbishop of York [here] ; his own enthronement at Canterbury takes place only two days later and he will be in retreat or at the end of his 'prayer pilgrimage.' All change - interesting times indeed.
Perhaps the best reports on the first few days of the new pontificate can be found here
The Ordinariates in the U.K and U.S.A. respond to a reported comment about the new Pope's view of the necessity of their foundation [here] Perspectives may and do change, of course. Advice from an outsider: 'Keep calm and carry on' - always.
It's also amusing to see the most unlikely people scrambling to discover their inner Jesuit... and their inner 'Poverello.' Even those who express publicly the hope the new Archbishop of Canterbury will serve better wine than his predecessor? Hmm... Champagne and a certain kind of 'socialism' have never exactly been strangers.
And 'those allegations': the cardinals should obviously have run their choice past the BBC and The Guardian before making it public .... on the other hand the cardinal electors wanted a Catholic Christian...
A strong rebuttal from the Holy See Press Office here
Again, it's not so much that the majority of those who work for western news organisations actively hate Christianity; they have simply never questioned their historically and geographically insular left-liberal, secular assumptions*, one of which is the irrelevance of all religion for the ' modern' world, and, as they are themselves accountable to no one and have, at least here in Britain, no competitors who offer another view, we hear only the monochrome, negative messages ....
Back to 'my' reality: serving better wine or not, the new Archbishop of Canterbury will have his work cut out to prevent this from being the future on our side of the Atlantic [from Anglican Mainstream]
(* admitted here by a former Director General of the BBC - but it's not so much that the bias, as he implies, is a matter which belongs to the past)