Pope Francis Positive Towards SSPX

In an interview with Regina Einig for the German Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost (March 17, 2017), Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, reviewed the progress made by the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) toward reaching a reconciliation with Rome since Pope Benedict XVI issued the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum in July 2007, almost ten years ago.

Archbishop Pozzo said that the Holy Father intends to maintain a “positive constructive attitude” in the dialogue with the SSPX.  If the Society agrees to a “Doctrinal Declaration” formulated by the Holy See, it may very soon receive from Rome a canonical mission within the structure of a personal prelature. This would enable the Society to keep its “spiritual, theological, liturgical, disciplinary and pastoral identity”.

Archbishop Pozzo admitted that he first heard from the media the rumor that the Society of Saint Pius X planned to purchase the Church of Santa Maria Immaculata on the Esquiline Hill. With gentle irony he noted that it is not his job to negotiate the sale of real estate.

With regard to the ambiguous formulations of the conciliar documents concerning ecumenism, dialogue with non-Christian religions, Church-State relations pertaining to religious liberty, etc., Bishop Bernard Fellay stated in an interview in 2016 that the SSPX reserves the right to denounce what it views as ambiguities and errors, but that it is up to the authorities in Rome to clarify and dispel the misunderstandings on these critical points.

The remainder of the interview with Archbishop Pozzo is given below in English translation:

…I think that even after the reconciliation these misgivings and difficulties that the Society points to should be kept in mind, so as to arrive at a clarification, a more in-depth and subsequently more precise understanding of these points. Moreover the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has intervened repeatedly over the last forty years to elucidate and rectify certain false interpretations or misunderstandings of the conciliar teachings. I do not see why this work of clarification and answering doubts and misgivings cannot continue, if they are presented in an ecclesial and not a polemical spirit.

To what extent do you observe agreement already?

There is complete agreement with the Society of Saint Pius X on one absolutely fundamental point: The Magisterium of the Church is not above the word of God, in Scripture or Tradition, but rather serves it by teaching nothing but what is handed down (cf. Dei Verbum, 10). The Magisterium, for its part, to which Christ entrusted the preservation, defense and interpretation of the deposit of faith, has the task of explaining and elucidating the earlier documents of the Magisterium too—including the documents of the Second Vatican Council—authentically in light of the unbroken Tradition, which certainly advances in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost, yet never with any novelty that contradicts what went before, but rather with a better understanding of the deposit of faith “within the same dogma, the same meaning, and the same judgment” (cf. Vatican I, Dei Filius, 4 and Vatican II, Dei Verbum, 8). This principle must be applied also to the documents of Vatican II, which should be read and understood in the light of Tradition and in agreement with the constant Magisterium of the Church, as Archbishop Lefebvre himself acknowledge in 1981 in a letter to Pope John Paul II.

So that means…?

That means, if an interpretation or an understanding or an implementation of Vatican II is suggested that represents a discontinuity or a break with the Catholic doctrine previously defined or taught by the Magisterium, the interpretation must be rejected as false or inappropriate. The problem is therefore not the Second Vatican Council as such, but rather a certain way of understanding, applying and implementing the Council: the so-called “spirit of the Council”. Pope Benedict XVI spoke about a “true Council” and a “virtual Council”, whereby the latter is the product of the power of the mass media, of modernistic currents in theology, in other words of the “conciliar ideology” that was superimposed on the authentic “mens” [mind, understanding] of the Council Fathers.

In the current issue of the magazine Courrier de Rome published by the Society of Saint Pius X, the authors designate the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI as “Holy Mass.” Can this terminology be taken to mean that the validity of the new Missal has meanwhile been accepted within the Society?  *

As far as I know, the Society never called into question the validity of the rite of Holy Mass according to the liturgical books promulgated by Paul VI and John Paul II. As early as 1988, in the protocol prepared by then-Cardinal Ratzinger with the consent of Archbishop Lefebvre, the validity of Holy Mass celebrated according to the Novus Ordo was acknowledged. Because of other matters, then, there was no constructive sequel to the protocol. The Society’s misgivings with regard to the Novus Ordo seem to me to refer to some aspects of the Novus Ordo (for example the Offertory prayers, Communion in the hand, etc.) and also to the manner of celebrating the Eucharist which de facto can be observed in various localities and is often characterized by dogmatic errors and liturgical abuse. But this too can be discussed profitably and clarified. As long as the attitude is constructive, and not polemical or marred by prejudices, discussion about the aforementioned topics can contribute to greater clarity and more detailed definitions, so as to promote the correct, integral doctrine and to avoid the errors, misunderstandings and deficiencies or partisan, superficial interpretations that have been and unfortunately still are characteristic of a particular propagation of the Second Vatican Council and also of the praxis resulting from it in terms of discontinuity and a break with Catholic Tradition.

* [Editor’s Note: The interviewer is mistaken. The use of the expression “Holy Mass” in Italian is the conventional manner of speaking about Mass generally – the text is a translation of Critina Siccardi and therefore cannot neither be attributed to the SSPX. The use of this expression in the SSPX publication Courrier de Rome and other Italian publications to refer to the Missal promulgated by Paul VI should in no way be interpreted as approval for this deficient form of the liturgy. A further discussion of the deficiencies of the Novus Ordo Missae is contained below.]

Source – 1 April, 2017

Comments invited…

Pope: Take Risks With Your Salvation?

In his homily at Casa Santa Marta, Pope Francis explained what paralyzes Christians with a very graphic example.
POPE FRANCIS
“‘Not taking risks, please, no… prudence…’ ‘Obeying all the commandments, all of them…’ Yes, it’s true, but this paralyzes you too, it makes you forget so many graces received, it takes away memory, it takes away hope, because it doesn’t allow you to go forward. And the present of a Christian, of such a Christian, is like when one goes along the street and an unexpected rain comes, and the garment is not so good and the fabric shrinks… Confined souls… This is cowardliness: this is the sin against memory, courage, patience, and hope.”
He also added that pusillanimity and fear of everything are two sins contrary to giving up one’s life in service to others, as Christ asks.
SUMMARY OF PAPAL HOMILY IN ENGLISH
(Source: Vatican Radio)
“‘Brothers, call to mind those first days’: the days of enthusiasm, of going forward in the faith, when you began to live the faith, the anguished trials… You don’t understand the Christian life, even the spiritual life of each day, without memory. Not only do you not understand: You can’t live in a Christian way without memory. The memory of the salvation of God in my life, the memory of my troubles in my life; but how has the Lord saved me from these troubles? Memory is a grace: a grace to ask for. ‘Lord, may I not forget your step in my life, may I not forget the good moments, also the ugly; the joys and the crosses.’ The Christian is a man of memory.”
 
“Hope: Looking to the future. Just as one cannot live a Christian life without memory of the steps taken, one cannot live a Christian life without looking to the future with hope… of the encounter with the Lord. And he uses a beautiful phrase: ‘just a brief moment…’ Eh, life is a breath, eh? It passes. When one is young, he thinks he has so much time before him, but then life teaches us that those words that we all say: ‘But how time passes! I knew this person as a child, now they’re getting married! How time passes!’ It comes soon. But the hope of encountering it is a life in tension, between memory and hope, the past and the future.”
 
“‘Not taking risks, please, no… prudence…’ All the commandments, all of them… Yes, it’s true, but this paralyzes you too, it makes you forget so many graces received, it takes away memory, it takes away hope, because it doesn’t allow you to go forward. And the present of a Christian, of such a Christian, is how when one goes along the street and an unexpected rain comes, and the garment is not so good and the fabric shrinks… Confined souls… This is faintheartedness: this is the sin against memory, courage, patience, and hope. May the Lord make us grow in memory, make us grow in hope, give us courage and patience each and free us from that which is faintheartedness, being afraid of everything…  Confined souls in order to save ourselves. And Jesus says: ‘He who wills to save his life will lose it.’”   Source
Comment:
Am I misunderstanding what the Pope is saying here?  IS he belittling the danger of breaking the Commandments? There is, believe it or not, a “Theology of Risk” (Google if you don’t believe me) but surely this is not what Pope Francis is advocating? You tell me…

Current Pontificate: Crisis Worsens

by Christopher A. Ferrara
January 27, 2017

Pope Francis celebrates the Assumption Day mass in the Castelgandolfo's central square on August 15, 2013. AFP PHOTO / POOL/ ALESSANDRO BIANCHI (Photo credit should read ALESSANDRO BIANCHI/AFP/Getty Images)

From this Fatima perspective, the rising crisis of the current pontificate brings not surprise but recognition. Have we not known for quite some time that, as Cardinal Ciappi revealed, the Third Secret of Fatima pertains to an apostasy that “begins at the top“?

For too long, however, recognition of the reality of our situation has been largely confined to circles unjustly derided as “Fatimist” or “traditionalist.” Under Francis, however, there has been a radical change for the good as more and more members of the “mainstream” Catholic press are coming to recognize what is indisputable: the current pontificate represents a clear and present danger to the Church.

Perhaps these new voices have yet to recognize that Francis merely represents the end point on a downward trajectory that began after 1960, the year the Third Secret was to have been revealed because, as Sister Lucy said, “it will be clearer then.” But it is imperative that these new voices of the “mainstream” be heard because their awakening will provoke the awakening of vast numbers of Catholics who might otherwise have remained asleep. 

Consider, for example, Phil Lawler’s just-published column on “The Ideological Purge at the Vatican,” appearing on the website of catholicculture.org. This was a subject I had already aired repeatedly on these pages, as one can read here, here and here, but Lawler’s contribution is worthy of note and praise.

Writing in the wake of Francis’ brute-force intervention into the affairs of the Knights of Malta, effectively destroying its centuries-old status as a sovereign political entity, Lawler rightly warns that “the unprecedented papal intervention into the affairs of that venerable body fits into a pattern that should, at this point, worry all faithful Catholics.”

The pattern to which Lawler refers is not a purge of wayward theologians who undermine the doctrines of the Faith, of which the Modernists loudly complained during the reigns of John Paul II and Benedict XVI even though the purge never really happened.  Rather, the purge now in progress is something quite the opposite: “Now a crackdown really is occurring — instigated by the Pontiff who famously asked, ‘Who am I to judge?’ And the objects of the current crackdown are not theologians who question established doctrines, but Catholics who uphold the traditional teachings of the Church.”

Consider the implications of this assessment, coming as it does from a commentator who can hardly be dismissed as a “Fatimist” or “radical traditionalist.”  Lawler now recognizes that the current Roman Pontiff is actually conducting a purge of the orthodox. It began, Lawler notes, with “Cardinal Raymond Burke, who was exiled from the Roman Curia soon after Pope Francis took office, and given a mostly ceremonial post as patron of the Knights of Malta. It is ironic — and perhaps not coincidental — that the latest incident involves his new charge.”

In addition to the forced resignation of the Knights’ head, Matthew Festing, Lawler mentions the following stages of the purge already discussed on these pages:

“The wholesale replacement of the prelates on the Congregation for Divine Worship: another unprecedented move, producing an entirely new panel that will be more friendly to the preferences of Pope Francis, and less supportive of the tradition-minded prefect, Cardinal Robert Sarah.

“The abrupt dismissal of three clerics on the staff of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. No explanation for the firings was given, and according to published reports, the Pope made a point of saying that he was not obliged to give an explanation. But reliable Vatican sources explain that the clerics had been accused of making unflattering comments about Pope Francis — not in public, but in private conversations with colleagues.

amoris-laetitia-main-site“The contemptuous treatment of the four cardinals who submitted dubia about Amoris Laetitae, by people who are perceived as surrogates for the Pope. And for that matter, the Pontiff’s own studied refusal to answer questions from prelates who should be his trusted advisers.”

Lawler is clearly angry, and justly so. For his is the righteous anger of a faithful Catholic who can no longer remain silent while our beloved Church is scourged in this manner.  His conclusion could not be stronger:

“All these incidents have occurred in a Vatican where the climate has already been formed by the Pope’s tongue-lashings of the Roman Curia, by the blatant manipulation of the Synod of Bishops, by the Pontiff’s daily denunciations of ‘doctors of the law’ and ‘rigid’ clerics. A clear picture emerges: of a Roman Pontiff determined to impose his own will on the universal Church.”

Nothing I have written here is any harsher than the truth Lawler so courageously enunciates from a position in the so-called mainstream — from which it is much more difficult to speak frankly.

Lawler ends on a note that should be echoed by every Catholic worthy of the name.  Noting the arch-liberal Fr. Thomas Reese’s frank admission that he would have been outraged if John Paul II or Benedict XVI had stacked the College of Cardinals as Francis is now doing, Lawler remarks:  “Outrage would have been a reasonable response then, if those earlier Popes had restricted promotions to men who shared their personal opinions [as opposed to sound orthodoxy]. It is a reasonable response now.”

Indeed it is.  It is, in fact, the only reasonable response for a Catholic who cares about the state of the Church today. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

Comments invited… 

Traditional-Leaning Priests Mentally Ill… Mgr Loftus (Echoing Papa Francis)

funny-mental-illness-cartoonfamily-sufferIt’s been a while since we’ve reported on the dreadful writings of Monsignor Basil Loftus, whom we dubbed “Mgr Leftus” because he has, without doubt, abandoned the Catholic Faith of 2,000 years for the newer, if manifestly fewer, modernist version. I haven’t read his column for ages, but this morning, Sunday, 22nd January, a reader insisted that I take a copy of  his latest offering, because it really is, literally, a very nasty piece of work.  Having read today’s claptrap, I thought I’d post some extracts for discussion, knowing full well that there’s no point in writing to his bishop (Diocese of Aberdeen and Diocese of Leeds – as if we don’t have enough heretics of our own up here, they brought him up from England) because both bishops totally ignored the Open Letter we sent to them, some years ago.  True to type, they have allowed him to continue, unchallenged, to attack Catholic Faith and Morals, to the great scandal of many of the faithful. Shame on them. 

You’d think, wouldn’t you, that at a time when society is emphasising that we must de-stigmatise mental illness, the Pope and Mgr Leftus would think twice about using it as a term of abuse. Wouldn’t you? But no. Far from it. 

The good Monsignor spends most of today’s column citing, with obvious approval, Pope Francis’ assertion that young men who apply for seminary “with the intention of adhering to a pre-Vatican II liturgy” (i.e. the traditional Mass) are undesirables (if not deplorables!)

Stretching back to 2015, Mgr quotes the Pope addressing a meeting of priests in the Diocese of Rome: “to ordain these types of seminarians is like placing a mortgage on the Church”  and cites the Pope’s warning to bishops a short time later that they must “think twice” when a young man is ‘too confident, rigid and fundamentalist’ telling them to beware when admitting candidates to the seminary, because ‘there are mentally ill boys who seek strong structures that can protect them, such as the police, the army and the clergy.’ [All quotes taken from Francis’ concern over liturgical young fogeys, The Catholic Times, 20 January, 2017] 

Speaking to bishops, says Mgr L, Pope Francis opined that “Tridentine-rite liturgies celebrated by priests who had never known the Church under the old rite were ‘a manifestation of moral and psychological imbalances.’  And, a delighted Mgr L goes on, the Pope warned newly appointed bishops in 2015:  “Be careful when a seminarian seeks refuge in rigidity – because underneath this there is always something bad.”

cartoonhearingvoices

The traditional Mass is described as “its own shop window” in today’s savage attack,  not to be”reinforced”  in seminaries “or by the use of outdated episcopal carnival-costumes” (that is this terrible priest’s standard way of describing the sacred vestments). 

The entire article exudes evil. As one American bishop said (and I quoted him, with source, in our newsletter at the time) “To be indifferent to the old rite is one thing; to hate it comes straight from Hell”. 

Now, there’s a thought for the good Monsignor.  Instead of blethering on about “rigid fundamentalism” he ought to try it sometime. Would make much more interesting reading that the baloney he churns out week after week in the Anything-But-Catholic Times.  

Comments invited… 

Rocky Road From Dublin: Irish Bishops In Rome – seeking end of celibacy?

The Irish Bishops are in Rome for their ad limina visit

shamrockBelow, report from The Irish Catholic…

The Irish hierarchy will not ask Pope Francis to consider permitting priests who left to get married to return to ministry at a meeting in Rome next week after failing to reach a consensus, The Irish Catholic can reveal.

However, Bishop Leo O’Reilly, who first brought the proposal for discussion with his fellow Irish bishops, said the issue may well come up during a series of meetings the Irish bishops are due to have with the Pontiff and senior Vatican officials in coming days.

The possibility of married men being ordained to the priesthood in Ireland may come up in next week’s meeting between the bishops and Pope Francis, according to the bishop who in 2015 said the idea should be considered.

The bishop’s observation comes against a background of rumours that the Pope is willing to allow married former priests to return to ministry in Brazil on a phased and experimental basis, and as Ireland’s bishops are due to make their first ad limina visit  to Rome in a decade.

In June 2015, Kilmore’s Bishop Leo O’Reilly said he was liaising with other bishops about setting up a commission to discuss the possibilities of ordaining married men and of appointing female deacons, saying that the Pope encouraged individual bishops and bishops’ conferences to be creative in looking at ways to do ministry in the future, and that Ireland bishops must “consider all options”.

Saints are used to handling snakes...

Saints are used to handling snakes…

However, Dr O’Reilly told The Irish Catholic, no decision was made when he raised the matter with his fellow bishops in 2015. 

“There was a discussion about it at the bishops’ conference, and it was inconclusive – there was no decision taken at that point, and that’s where it rested,” he said.

“Where it came from originally was the diocesan pastoral plan,” he said, highlighting how it had arisen following an 18-month listening process in his Kilmore diocese which had led in turn to a diocesan assembly and a new diocesan pastoral plan to tackle such challenges facing the Church as the declining number of priests.

“The request of the plan was that I would bring it to the bishops’ conference, which I have done,” he continued. “I don’t know whether there is anything more that I could do on it.”

At the same time, he said, there was a chance that the proposal could be raised at next week’s ad limina visit of the Irish bishops to Rome. “I’d say it’s possible,” he said, “because I would have sent in the pastoral plan as part of the submission of the report to the Vatican.”  Source

Comment…

Well.. will Catholic Irish eyes be smiling at the end of this ad limina d’ye think, at all, at all? 

Pope Francis: Merciful or Authoritarian?

My own research has shown that this incident occurred at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), and that it was Cardinal Gerhard Müller himself who now has to obey these peremptory new orders. Additionally, I was able to discover that the three priests involved are, respectively, of a Slovakian-American, French, and Mexican nationality. (One of my sources is a friend of one of these three theologians.) However, the last of these three might now, after all, be able to remain a little longer in his current position at the Congregation.

Let us now consider some of the specific details of what Marco Tosatti himself has perceptively gathered for us. He starts his article with a reference to Pope Francis’ usual rebuke of the Roman Curia at his Christmas address to the Curia and detects the pope’s obvious anger in his words and gestures. When looking over to the Curia itself, however, Tosatti perceives something else than a reciprocal anger to be present among the curial members: “It is not about their resistance, but about their fear, their discontent, and a kind of feeling that belongs to another context altogether.”

Tosatti then refers to a credible source who told him several recent episodes occurring at the Vatican. Two of them appear to be of great importance and might also give us some additional glimpses into Pope Francis’ own authoritarian methods as well as his somewhat indirect way of ruling the Church. But, we should now first concentrate on the new personnel matter at the Congregation for Doctrine, which Tosatti himself says is “decisively sadder.” Here is Tosatti’s report:

“The head of a dicastery has received the order to remove three of his employees (all of whom have worked there for a long time), and it was without any explanation. He [the Prefect] received these official letters: “….I request that you please dismiss ….” The order was: send him [each of them] back into his diocese of origin or to the Religious Family to which he belongs. He [the Prefect of the Congregation] was very perplexed because it was about three excellent priests who are among the most capable professionally. He first avoided obeying and several times asked for an audience with the pope. He had to wait because that meeting was postponed several times. Finally, he was received in an audience. And he said: “Your Holiness, I have received these letters, but I did not do anything because these persons are among the best of my dicastery… what did they do?” The answer was, as follows: “And I am the pope, I do not need to give reasons for any of my decisions. I have decided that they have to leave and they have to leave.” He got up and stretched out his hand in order to indicate that the audience was at an end. On 31 December, two of the three [men] will leave the dicastery in which they have worked for years, and without knowing the why. For the third, there seems to be a certain delay. But then, there is another implication which, if true, would be even more unpleasant. One of the two had freely spoken about certain decisions of the pope – perhaps a little bit too much. A certain person – a friend of a close collaborator of the pope – heard this disclosure and passed it on. The victim received then a very harsh telephone call from Number One [i.e., the pope]. And then soon came the dismissal.” [emphasis added]

In this passage, Tosatti piercingly speaks about an “autocratic fever that seems to have broken out in the Vatican.” [my emphasis] And he concludes his report with the following words:

“Thus it is not so astonishing when the atmosphere behind the walls and in the palaces is not really serene. And one may now ask oneself what kind of credit this fact gives altogether to all the elaborate and sustained fanfare about mercy.” [my emphasis]

Thus Tosatti adds another piece of the puzzle concerning Pope Francis’ manner and methods of governance through which he seemingly aims at removing – or marginalizing – orthodox prelates, priests, and laymen from positions of formative influence in the Vatican.

Moreover, with specific regard of the Congregation for Doctrine, another source had told me the following, more than a month ago:

“One source in Rome says that all those who work for the Holy See are afraid to talk about anything for fear of being chopped because of the presence of informants everywhere. He compared it to Stalinist Russia. He said two priest friends of his, good men, have been fired from the CDF because they were accused of being critical of Pope Francis.”

This same Rome source, who is personally very honest and well informed, reports that these two priests here mentioned (who do not seem to be the same ones who are involved in the recent three personnel cases) fear that they will not be the only ones to be removed. They see their own removal to be just the beginning of a “massive overhaul” [my emphasis] within the Doctrine Congregation, “not unlike what happened recently to Cardinal Sarah’s Divine Worship Congregation.” (Here we might be reminded of the fact that it was Marco Tosatti himself who had earlier called these recent changes at the Congregation for Divine Worship a “Purge.”)

We have also recently reported about the pope’s earlier decision to remove the members of the Pontifical Academy of Life, which is widely known for its strong stance in defense of human life. Here is what one well-informed source had reported to me then about this incident:

“At the end of 2016 the Pontifical Academy for Life was closed and all its members dismissed. The Academy will be reconstituted in 2017 with new statutes and the Academy will be repopulated. The process for naming new members of the Academy is not known.”

We also have repeatedly reported on the atmosphere of fear that now increasingly permeates the Vatican, as did a recent report from the co-founder of LifeSiteNews.

During this forthcoming year of 2017 – the centenary of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima – may the Blessed Mother increasingly be our help and our trustworthy refuge. May she help us with those graces we shall need to defend the truth more fully and to manifest Christ’s love, as well, even in the face of fear.  Source

Comments invited… 

Is Doubting The Faith No Longer A Sin?

quote-about-faith-st-elizabeth-ann-seton

VATICAN CITY – Everyone experiences doubts about the faith at times – “I have” many times, Pope Francis said – but such doubts can be “a sign that we want to know God better and more deeply.”

“We do not need to be afraid of questions and doubts because they are the beginning of a path of knowledge and going deeper; one who does not ask questions cannot progress either in knowledge or in faith,” the pope said Nov. 23 at his weekly general audience.

Pope Francis said that although the Year of Mercy has concluded, he still wanted to continue his general audience reflections on the corporal and spiritual works of mercy.

With fewer than 10,000 pilgrims and visitors present and with rain forecast, the Vatican moved the audience indoors to the Vatican audience hall.  Click here to read more

Comment:

Am I alone is not having experienced “doubts” about the Faith? Maybe I was taught, too thoroughly, that wilful doubt is one of the chief sins against the Faith (Scottish Catechism of Christian Doctrine, Chapter XXVIII, The First Commandment – Section 1: the Worship of God, # 541)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), # 2088 teaches that the first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith: Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness. End of extract from CCC

I was taught that God cannot deceive, and thus, we are obliged to accept, in the spirit of Faith, what He has revealed. Obviously, such Faith is accepted in the context of learning about the nature of Church, that the authority of the Catholic Church comes from God, and that, thus, there is no need for “doubts”. Of course we should continue to study and read about the Church, but not in a spirit of asking God to prove Himself to us.  It has become a fashion to doubt, the implication being that unless we entertain doubts we are somehow less intelligent that those who do. The opposite is, in fact, true. It is entirely against the nature of true Faith to entertain doubts. The legitimate questions which arise, and to which we seek answers, are not “doubts” so it is a pity that Pope Francis is using the word and encouraging the idea that it is a good thing to doubt. 

Personally, I think that Pope Francis is confusing the duty to keep ourselves educated in the Faith through study and prayer, with doubting, which is, as indicated above, one of the chief sins against the Faith.  What do you think?