On July 10, Diane Montagna published a follow-up to her previous article, EXCLUSIVE: Official Vatican Report Exposes Major Cracks in Foundation of Traditionis Custodes (July 1, 2025).
Her most recent article is titled:
New Evidence Confirms CDF Report, Erodes Vatican Narrative on Traditional Latin Mass Restrictions
I invite readers to read both of Montagna’s articles via the hyperlinks provided.
Those interested in my response to the first of these articles can access it HERE. Long story short, it seems quite obvious to me that, based on an objective reading of the information contained in her July 1st article, breathless claims about how, “Pope Francis lied!” regarding his motives for issuing Traditionis Cojones are baseless.
Montagna’s July 10 article offers no new revelations that would suggest otherwise, in fact, on the contrary: The “new evidence” that she provides only serves to confirm that the BOMBSHELL is, in fact, empty.
Now, that is not to say that Montagna’s most recent treatment provides nothing of value.
For one, it directly and effectively refutes Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni’s pathetic attempt to cast doubt on her July 1st report concerning Ecclesia Dei’s “overall assessment” of the pre-Traditionis survey results.
Specifically, Montagna posted several images of CDF documents that confirm the authenticity of her initial reports, among them, the cover page to the Final Report, which includes an official Vatican Protocol Number.
For my part, although Montagna (and others) drew what I consider to be false conclusions, I never doubted that she did, in fact, have the documents that she claimed to have in hand. At this, let me repeat, I appreciate the valuable work that Diane Montagna does in reporting from the heart of the conciliar cesspool.
My interest at present concerns the degree to which certain tradservative media charlatans are leveraging the Francis lied! accusation for all its worth, doing their best to capitalize on the emotional frenzy that they themselves are instigating.
I’m not just talking about mistaken conclusions here (e.g., as drawn by Diane Montagna), but rather outright lies that are being told by Bergoglio’s accusers, men who most certainly know better, presumably in order to grow the size of their naïve audience (read: donor base).
If the first person that comes to your mind at this point is former U.S. Presidential Candidate Taylor R. Marshall, Founder of the Christ the King Party, then color me not surprised.
Speaking of Montagna’s most recent revelations, which we will discuss in some detail momentarily, Marshall had this to say:
So, this is apparently the outcome of the questionnaire of Pope Francis which he said was negative, but it’s actually positive. And that’s why today’s title of today’s podcast is “Did Pope Francis lie?”
The only way, by the way, to correct this is to say, “Oh, oh, um, yeah, that protocol number that says the Traditional Mass and Summorum Pontificum are awesome, Five-Star review, we love everything about it.” That was an early one, and even though we put a protocol number on it and presented it, um, we actually realized it was wrong for some reason and threw it in the trash.
And then we did another questionnaire in the next few days and, through all the bishops, and then we heard back, and it was actually opposite. Everything was negative. Everyone is schismatic, uh the communities are dysfunctional. Um, they’re constantly bickering with the bishop and, um, they hate the Church, and they’re all just foaming at the mouth sedevacantists and the Traditional Latin Mass has just been a horrible experiment, Holy Father, and Summorum Pontificum is just a complete, um, blemish on the pontificate of Benedict XVI, and you need to intervene and take care of it.
That’s how you fix the problem. Otherwise, it just looks like Pope Francis lied.
You need to produce whatever Pope Francis says he was looking at when he said, “I have to intervene and restrict the Traditional Latin Mass because it’s bad for the Church.”
How many outright lies and over-dramatizations did you count? Let’s review:
– … the questionnaire of Pope Francis, which he said was negative, but it’s actually positive.
Here’s what Francis actually wrote in Traditionis Custodes in reference to the questionnaire:
… the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith carried out a detailed consultation of the bishops in 2020. The results have been carefully considered in the light of experience that has matured during these years. At this time, having considered the wishes expressed by the episcopate and having heard the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I now desire…
In his Explanatory Letter to the Bishops, he writes regarding the questionnaire:
The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me and persuades me of the need to intervene.
We’ll return to the “situation” to which Francis refers in a moment. Notice, however, that nowhere did he offer a broad assessment of the entire questionnaire, declaring that the outcome was entirely “negative.” Much less is there any indication to be found anywhere in Diane Montagna’s reports that the responses indicate:
– “… the Traditional Mass and Summorum Pontificum are awesome, Five-Star review, we love everything about it.”
No one, certainly not Diane Montagna, ever suggested that the questionnaire resulted in a “Five-Star review” of the Latin Mass.
This is pure histrionics on the part of a man who has shown a willingness, without any hint of moral compunction, to make pretend for personal gain (e.g., the Pachamama farse, the Presidential campaign that wasn’t). In this case, he’s using extreme exaggeration as a tool for inciting an emotional response on the part of his low IQ viewers, presumably in the expectation that it will somehow serve his cause, one that has nothing to do with disseminating truth.
Nor did Francis or anyone else even suggest that the bishops’ responses included the following:
– Everything was negative. Everyone is schismatic, uh the communities are dysfunctional (and on and on).
In this, Marshall, the consummate phony, is doing his damnedest to pour gasoline on the tradservative fire. He’s encouraging his impressionable viewers to join him in insisting that it is incumbent upon the CDF to produce concrete proof that the bishops collectively condemned Summorum Pontificum along with Traditional Mass goers. Apart from this, he suggests, the man that he and they call “Holy Father” had no business issuing Traditionis Custodes, and this even though Bergoglio never pointed to the questionnaire results as the solitary reason for his decision.
Addressing the CDF, Marshall demands (despite lacking any authority whatsoever to do so):
– You need to produce whatever Pope Francis says he was looking at when he said, “I have to intervene and restrict the Traditional Latin Mass because it’s bad for the Church.”
Marshall knows very well that Francis never said any such thing. His trusting albeit malleable viewers? Maybe not. No doubt some of those poor fools came away thinking Bergoglio actually said this.
Playing the self-appointed roles of prosecutor, judge, and jury, Marshall issued what he considers the only reasonable verdict that one can draw if the CDF doesn’t produce the evidence that he knows perfectly well does not exist.
– Otherwise, it just looks like Pope Francis lied.
By my count, that’s nearly half-a-dozen deliberate embellishments, innuendos, and outright brazen lies.
Getting into the act (also not surprisingly) was Michael J. Matt, publisher of the nation’s oldest… Oh, you know the rest. In a recent YouTube video, Matt declares of Francis:
… the pope actually claiming that the bishops of the world had demanded that he do something about that Latin Mass, which was so divisive and, of course, the poor Holy Father was left with no option but to do what the bishops wanted him to do. That’s all it was. They actually claimed this.
Michael Matt isn’t mistaken. Like former U.S. Presidential candidate, Taylor R. Marshall, he’s lying. He knows damned well that Bergoglio never claimed that the bishops “demanded” Traditionis Cojones or anything else concerning the Traditional Latin Mass.
They actually claimed this. There’s a reason Matt doesn’t tell his simpleminded viewers who “they” are. Any guesses? (HINT: See previous paragraph.)
Even so, the pot called the kettle black as Michael Matt issued his own verdict:
Now the whole world knows that Pope Francis’ Traditionis Custodes cancellation of the Latin Mass was based on lies. Lies.
Micheal Matt’s video contains many other theatrically delivered and thoroughly cringeworthy claims. If you’re in search of a mortification opportunity, go ahead and check it out. At this, let’s take a look at some of the “new evidence” provided by Diane Montagna in her latest article.
As mentioned, she posted several photographs of pages taken from the CDF’s Final Report summarizing (and quoting, in part) the bishops’ responses to the pre-Traditionis questionnaire.
The text on these pages is in Italian which, unfortunately, Montagna didn’t translate into English.
I call this unfortunate because the overwhelming majority of her readers will miss what I consider to be the most interesting parts, namely, those that run counter to the Francis lied! narrative. [NB: I am not suggesting that this is deliberate.]
For example, one of the pages includes the following:
Thus expresses the Archbishop of Milan: “I have the impression that any explicit intervention could cause more harm than advantages: if the line of the MPSP is confirmed, we will find reactions of perplexity from the clergy (and not only). If the line of the MPSP is denied, we will find new reactions of dissent and resentment from the supporters of the ancient rite.” Therefore, it is better to continue on this already undertaken path without creating further upheavals.
This quote is specifically being offered by the CDF as an example of a bishop who believes that changes to Summorum Pontificum “would cause more harm than benefits.”
Notice, however, what the Archbishop of Milan is actually saying: In his view, reaffirming Summorum will create problems, but then again, reversing course will create problems as well. In other words, he’s essentially advising Francis not to poke the bear. This hardly seems like a ringing endorsement to me.
Recall that it was Ecclesia Dei in particular that was tasked with creating the report. Their bias is obviously pro-TLM. So, one reasonably wonders, is this comment from the Archbishop of Milan the best example they could provide in support of the “more harm than good” position?
It seems so.
The most revealing quote, in my opinion, comes from my own diocese, the Archdiocese of Baltimore.
I can tell you firsthand that the FSSP appears very much at peace offering the Traditional Latin Mass at St. Alphonsus Shrine in Baltimore with, of course, the local Archbishop’s blessing. The relationship, at least based upon the tenor of the pastor’s public commentary, is very cordial and extremely supportive. In fact, Archbishop Lori even made the effort to learn the Traditional Rite of Confirmation in order to administer the sacrament at St. Alphonsus!
By all outward appearances, it would be reasonable for one to assume that Baltimore’s response to the pre-Traditionis questionnaire is likely as close as any to Taylor Marshall’s fictional “Five-Star review.” This is especially the case considering what we find in the Summary (as provided in Italian in Montagna’s latest). It reads:
The majority of bishops involved in the questionnaire, who have generously and intelligently applied the MPSP [Summorum Pontificum], ultimately declare themselves satisfied with it, particularly those who have also had the opportunity to establish a personal parish where all sacraments are administered in the Extraordinary Form and where a stable celebratory and pastoral community is formed. In places where the clergy have worked closely with the bishop, the situation has been completely pacified.
This accurately describes the situation in Baltimore where a veritable love affair exists between the Novus Ordo bishop and the TLM community. In other words, if Rome is truly interested in looking for the ideal arrangement, this is the place to go!
Right?
As revealed in the CDF summary reproduced in Diane Montagna’s latest article, the truth is very different as indicated in this quote provided by the bishop:
For some, this Mass is a form of protest against the general direction given by the Church, and for others, it is also associated with political agendas. That said, I prefer to keep such people close to the Church, asking the priests involved to correct these mistaken views (Archdiocese of Baltimore, response to question 3).
What you just read is one of the responses that Ecclesia Dei no doubt considered a point in favor of leaving Summorum Pontificum and the Traditional Latin Mass in place.
The Devil, however, is in the details.
Bottom line: The closer one looks, the more it becomes clear that Francis actually did consider the bishops’ responses to the questionnaire as part of the decision making process that led to Traditionis Custodes. What’s more, at least some of those commentators beating the Francis lied! drum know it and should be ashamed of themselves.
