To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X. Protestants please restrain yourselves. No rants.
 |
“The responses (of the bishops) reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene.” So he diddled us
|
A tsunami of shock waves engulfs the Catholic world as the Church adjusts to Vaticanista Diane Montagna's revelation yesterday of Antipope Francis' pretext for suppressing the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM). It was a prevarication. He doctored the truth.
Francis said he suppressed the TLM at the request of the bishops. He didn't. Most of the bishops opined that revoking Pope Benedict's Summorum Pontificum (which restored the TLM) would do more harm than good. Even the German bishops supported the TLM.
But worldwide, bishops submitted to the error of Francis' Traditionis Custodes. Except for Bishop Joseph Strickland who was cancelled and Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano who was excommunicated. Because Francis would not brook opposition to his darling, Vatican II, and its creature, the NOM revolution. He crushed the Latin Mass because it was saving souls.
Millions of Catholics were and are bereft of the Latin Mass and the sacraments dispensed by orthodox priests, meaning quite likely their loss of eternal life. Why would a pope inflict such harm on the Body of Christ?
It's like this. The Catholic Church was infiltrated last century by Freemasons and Communists determined to demolish the Most Holy Eucharist. They advanced their satanic cause at the Second Vatican Council with Pope Paul VI's protestantised Novus Ordo Missae (NOM).
Like devious Francis, +Paul VI was ruthless in quelling opposition to his New Mass, which taught children who for centuries had knelt to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, to line up and take the Body of Christ by the hand. So as the Freemasons and Marxists intended, those children lost the faith.
Chaos ensued and Francis took his wrecking ball of Traditionis Custodes to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to demolish what was left.
There's no joy in saying, re Francis, "I told you so". But at last, bishops and priests must face the fact that he was no pope. He never was and now everyone must own it.
VATICAN CITY, July 1, 2025 — New evidence has come to light that exposes major cracks in the foundation of Traditionis Custodes, Pope Francis’ 2021 decree that restricted the traditional Roman liturgy.
This journalist has obtained the Vatican’s overall assessment of the consultation of bishops that was said to have “prompted” Pope Francis to revoke Summorum Pontificum, Benedict XVI’s 2007 apostolic letter liberalizing the vetus ordo, more commonly known as the “Traditional Latin Mass” and sacraments.
 |
| Serious journalist Diane Montagna - a latter-day Lois Lane |
The previously undisclosed text, which forms a crucial part of the official report by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on its 2020 consultation of bishops concerning Summorum Pontificum, reveals that “the majority of bishops who responded to the questionnaire stated that making legislative changes to Summorum Pontificum would cause more harm than good.”
The overall assessment directly contradicts, therefore, the stated rationale for imposing Traditionis Custodes and raises serious questions about its credibility.
When, on July 16, 2021, Pope Francis promulgated Traditionis Custodes, he said the responses to the questionnaire “reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me and persuades me of the need to intervene.”
It preoccupied and saddened him (he was more likely furious) because the responses told him that Vatican II's creature, the NOM, was losing ground to the "Mass of Ages".
“Regrettably,” he said in an accompanying letter to the world’s bishops, “the pastoral objective of my Predecessors … has often been seriously disregarded. An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI … was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.”
He told the bishops that he was “constrained” by their “requests” to revoke not only Summorum Pontificum but “all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs” that preceded his new decree.
In other words, Francis had to get rid of the Latin Mass before it gained more ground, especially with youth, and put the NOM completely in the shade.
 |
| Seriously - who can take this seriously? |
However, what the Vatican’s overall assessment reveals is that the “gaps”, “divergences”, and “disagreements” stem more from a level of nescience, prejudice and resistance of a minority of bishops to Summorum Pontificum than from any problems originating from adherence to the traditional Roman liturgy.
Conversely, the official CDF report states that “the majority of bishops who responded to the questionnaire, and who have generously and intelligently implemented Summorum Pontificum, ultimately express satisfaction with it.” It adds that “in places where the clergy have closely cooperated with the bishop, the situation has become completely pacified.”
The overall assessment also confirms the contention I reported in October 2021: That Traditionis Custodes magnified and projected as a major problem what was merely ancillary in the official CDF report.
Furthermore, the text clearly shows that Traditionis Custodes disregarded and withheld what the report said about the peace Summorum Pontificum had restored, and turned a blind eye to a “constant observation made by the bishops”— that younger people were being drawn into the Catholic Church through this older form of the liturgy.
The overall assessment also predicted, based on the responses of bishops, what would ensue were Summorum Pontificum suppressed — forecasts that turned out to be accurate.
 |
| Re-opening of Notre Dame: the NO farce. Had it been a Solemn High Latin Mass it would have wowed the world |
The task of preparing the official report was entrusted to the Fourth Section of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Until TC, this entity, formerly known as the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission, was responsible for supervising the observance and application of the provisions established in Summorum Pontificum. Consequently, the Fourth Section possessed a breadth of experience and expertise with which to view and analyze the survey results.
In the Spring of 2020, a questionnaire was sent by then-CDF Prefect Cardinal Luis Ladaria to the presidents of episcopal conferences worldwide, for distribution to diocesan bishops; responses were received by the CDF until January 2021. The body of material, submitted in several languages, was processed, analyzed, and incorporated by the Fourth Section into its findings.
While I have not seen the report in its entirety, I am reliably informed that the 224-page final report, dated February 2021, is comprised of two main parts. The First Part offers a detailed analysis of the survey results and findings continent by continent, and country by country, and includes charts and graphs illustrating data and trends.
 |
| TC's architect and his hitman +Arthur Roche |
The Second Part, titled “Summary” [Sintesi], is briefer and includes an introduction, a summary on each continent, an Overall Assessment [Giudizio Complessivo] of the survey results, and a collection of quotations drawn from the responses received from the dioceses and arranged thematically. This collection was meant to provide Pope Francis with a representative sampling of the bishops’ responses.
The overall assessment opens by noting that Summorum Pontificum played “a significant, albeit relatively modest, role in the life of the Church.” By 2021, “it had spread to around 20% of the Latin dioceses worldwide, and its implementation was “more serene and peaceful, though not everywhere.”
Pope Francis stated in Traditionis Custodes that he “considered the wishes expressed by the episcopate and heard the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.” The overall assessment is precisely the part of the report that synthesizes and interprets the survey results, offering an evaluative conclusion drawn from the evidence.
In other words, the overall assessment reflects the informed judgment or opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Pope Francis not only had the report, but according to reliable sources, literally snatched a working copy out of Cardinal Ladaria’s hands during an audience, telling him he wanted it immediately because he was curious about it.
Although the Vatican has never released the contents of the official report, in October 2021 I obtained and published the collection of quotations included in Part II—indicating, however, only the country or region from where the quotations originated.
1. Lack of liturgical peace and unity is due more to minority of bishops than to adherents of the traditional Roman liturgy.
Where liturgical peace is lacking, the report shows it stems more from a level of nescience, prejudice and resistance of a minority of bishops to Summorum Pontificum than from any problems originating from those drawn to the traditional Roman liturgy.
Ftrom liberal bishops. Progressive bishops. Modernist bishops. Apostate bishops.
The CDF report recalls Benedict XVI’s desire to achieve, through the implementation of Summorum Pontificum, an “internal liturgical reconciliation” within the Church, and his recognition of the need “to proceed not according to a hermeneutic of rupture but rather by renewal in continuity with tradition.”
“This ecclesiological dimension of the hermeneutic of continuity with tradition and with a coherent renewal and development has not yet been fully embraced by some bishops,” the report observes. “However, where it has been received and implemented, it is already bearing fruit, the most visible of which is in the liturgy.”
 |
| Novus Ordo church in Switzerland has a woman concelebrate mass. With 'pride'
|
Furthermore, the report laments that “in some dioceses the Forma extraordinaria [Extraordinary Form] is not considered a richness for the life of the Church, but rather as an inappropriate, disturbing, and useless element for ordinary pastoral life, and even as ‘dangerous’ and therefore something not to be granted, or to be suppressed, or at least strictly controlled so that it does not spread, in the hope of its eventual disappearance or abrogation.”
As the Extraordinary Form, the Latin Mass, was indeed considered in Palmerston North Diocese, New Zealand, by its first bishop, +Peter Cullinane, now happily retired.
More specifically, the report found that bishops in Spanish-speaking regions generally “seem to show little interest” in implementing Summorum Pontificum, despite requests from the faithful. Similarly, it noted, “the responses from Italian bishops suggest that, overall, they do not hold the Forma extraordinaria and its related provisions in high regard, with a few exceptions.”
Perhaps proximity to the tyrant in the Vatican influenced the Italian bishops' responses.
Regarding a misunderstanding or ignorance among a minority of the episcopate, the report noted: “Some bishops state that the MP Summorum Pontificum has failed in its aim of fostering reconciliation and therefore request its suppression—either because internal reconciliation within the Church has not yet been fully achieved, or because the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X has not returned to full communion with the Church.”
In response, the authors observe that the process of reconciliation in the Church is often “slow and gradual,” and they recall, as Benedict XVI himself did, that Summorum Pontificum was not intended for the SSPX.
Additionally, the report noted, some bishops fear a “division into two Churches” and believe that groups attached to the Extraordinary Form “reject” the Second Vatican Council. The report acknowledges that latter point this is “partly true” but says that it “cannot be generalized”. Here too, it adds, “the bishop’s pastoral care has been decisive in calming agitated spirits and clarifying the thinking of some members of the stable groups.”
Lastly, the report notes that “some bishops would prefer a return to the previous indult situation in order to have greater control and management of the situation.”
2. Majority of bishops who implemented Summorum Pontificum expressed satisfaction with it.
Conversely, the report found that “the majority of bishops who responded to the questionnaire, and who have generously and intelligently implemented the MP (Motu Proprio) Summorum Pontificum, ultimately express satisfaction with it.” It adds that “in places where the clergy have closely cooperated with the bishop, the situation has become completely pacified.”
Furthermore, the report found that “the bishops most attuned to this matter observe that the older form of the liturgy is a treasure of the Church to be safeguarded and preserved: it constitutes a good to find unity with the past, to know how to advance along a path of coherent development and progress, and to meet, as far as possible, the needs of these faithful.”
According to the report: “The majority of bishops who responded to the questionnaire state that making legislative changes to the MP Summorum Pontificum would cause more harm than good.”
Based on its findings, the report predicted that “weakening or suppressing Summorum Pontificum would seriously damage the life of the Church, as it would recreate the tensions that the document had helped to resolve.”
 |
NO Mass - for the Lavender Mafia, possibly
|
Some bishops thought a legislative change to Summorum Pontificum would “foster the departure of disappointed faithful from the Church toward the Society of St. Pius X or to other schismatic groups”, foster distrust toward Rome, give rise to “a resurgence of the liturgical wars” and “even foster the emergence of a new schism.”
Indeed it did "foster the departure of disappointed faithful ... toward the Society of St Pius X." And indeed it looks suspiciously like TC was designed partly to achieve precisely that. When a faithful Catholic experiences heresy and abuse at their local parish NO Mass and the only alternative (thanks to Traditionis Custodes and a Freemasonic bishop) is the SSPX three hours away, what's their alternative source of the Eucharist and Confession?
And the bishops should know that the Society is NOT a schismatic group. "Bishop Schneider reiterated what the SSPX has always maintained, namely that it is not outside the Catholic Church. The bishop also rejected the claims that the Society’s members were excommunicated and highlighted the fact that the Society upholds the Church’s traditions as they were exhibited up until the Second Vatican Council. Schneider likewise noted that the alleged excommunications of the Society’s bishops were long contested and that the matter was finally put to rest in 2009 by Pope Benedict XVI." https://fsspx.news/en/news/bishop-schneider-comes-sspxs-defense-again-19160
Moreover, “it would delegitimize two Pontiffs—John Paul II and Benedict XVI—who had committed themselves to not abandoning these faithful.”
3. Bishops are grateful for the competence of the CDF Fourth Section (the disbanded Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei)
The report stressed the importance of stable groups and communities having a “competent interlocutor” at the institutional level, i.e. at the Holy See. The report notes that careful oversight carried out by those with experience and expertise helps to “prevent arbitrary forms of self-management and anarchy within the groups, as well as abuses of power by some local bishops.”
Bishops expressed “satisfaction and gratitude” to the Fourth Section of the CDF (and former PCED) for their work.
4. Report confirmed attraction of young people to the older form of liturgy.
The CDF report confirmed Benedict’s intuition, expressed in Summorum Pontificum, that younger people would find in the traditional Roman liturgy “a form of encounter with the mystery of the Holy Eucharistic particularly suited to them.” It notes:
“A constant observation made by the bishops is that it is young people who are discovering and choosing this older form of the liturgy. The majority of the stable groups present in the Catholic world are composed of young people, often converts to the Catholic faith or those returning after a time away from the Church and the sacraments. They are drawn by the sacredness, seriousness, and solemnity of the liturgy. What strikes them most, also amid a society that is excessively noisy and verbose, is the rediscovery of silence within sacred actions, the restrained and essential words, preaching that is faithful to the Church’s doctrine, the beauty of liturgical chant, and the dignity of the celebration: a seamless whole that is deeply attractive.”
5. Report highlighted growth of vocations in Ex-Ecclesia Dei communities since Summorum Pontificum.
The CDF report highlighted the growth in vocations in former Ecclesia Dei communities since the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum but noted that some diocesan bishops are not entirely pleased by this. “Many young men,” it said, “are choosing to enter the Ecclesia Dei institutes for their priestly or religious formation rather than diocesan seminaries, to the manifest regret of some bishops…”
Again, when the choice lies between a diocesan seminary which trains priests for the Protestant Novus Ordo and fails to inculcate the truths of the Catholic faith, and a traditional seminary which forms men in persona Christi, is there really any option?
6. Report recommended studying both forms of Roman Rite as part of seminary formation.
The report therefore suggested, based on an idea proposed by bishops, that “sessions dedicated to the study of both forms of the Roman Rite” be incorporated into seminary formation and other ecclesiastical faculties, as a means of fostering greater unity and peace, increasing diocesan vocations, and preparing “suitably formed priests” for celebrating the Roman Rite.
7. Report recommended: “Let the people be free to choose.”
Based on the findings of the survey of the episcopate, and citing a Filippino bishop, the CDF report concludes by recommending: “Let the people be free to choose.” And recalling a bishop’s irreplaceable, albeit sometimes challenging, role and duty before God to tend the flock, the report ends with Pope Benedict XVI’s words to the Bishops of France in 2008 concerning Summorum Pontificum:
“I am aware of your difficulties, but I do not doubt that, within a reasonable time, you can find solutions satisfactory for all, lest the seamless tunic of Christ be further torn. Everyone has a place in the Church. Every person, without exception, should be able to feel at home, and never rejected. God, who loves all men and women and wishes none to be lost, entrusts us with this mission by appointing us shepherds of his sheep. We can only thank him for the honor and the trust that he has placed in us. Let us therefore strive always to be servants of unity.”
 |
| The NO: a blessing by guitar and the ubiquitous Cranmer table |
The overall assessment comes to light after the archdiocese of Detroit (USA) became the latest to suffer from a crackdown by the Vatican’s Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (DDW), the dicastery charged with enforcing Traditionis Custodes.
In April, its newly installed archbishop announced that the Traditional Latin Mass would no longer be permitted in parish churches as of July 1, 2025. Citing a 2023 Vatican rescript from DDW prefect Cardinal Arthur Roche, the archbishop informed his priests that local bishops no longer possess the ability to permit the older form of the liturgy in a parish church.
In his response to the final question of the nine-point Vatican survey, which I have obtained, the former Archbishop of Detroit, Allen Vigneron, summed up what—according to the official report—the majority of bishops had actually requested.
The survey asked: “Thirteen years after the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, what is your advice about the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite?”
Archbishop Vigneron replied:
“My advice is to maintain the discipline and norms set out in Summorum Pontificum, and to deal with any problems that are arising by calling priests and people to observe them. The motu proprio has given us a remarkably successful approach to resolving the contention that existed in the Church about the status of the Extraordinary Form.
The discipline it has put in place is bearing much good fruit, especially in the lives of the faithful and in restoring ecclesial peace. There is no question in my mind about the legitimacy of the Extraordinary Form as extraordinary. These celebrations offer valid experiences of the Church’s sacred liturgy but complement the Ordinary Form. Such celebrations are in no way a threat to the Ordinary Form established after the Council, and in the Church, they enrich her in her diversity. By my lights Summorum Pontificum has been a remarkable success.”
The moral justification of Traditionis Custodes was always weak given the positive fruits that have come from the traditional Roman rite, its growing popularity, especially among the young, its influence on the family as the “domestic church,” and its ability to attract vocations.
This new discovery of the CDF’s overall assessment of its consultation of bishops concerning Summorum Pontificum serves to cast further doubts on the foundation and credibility of Traditionis Custodes. https://substack.com/inbox/post/167259174?r=1akpiq&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true
 |
| Exorcists emphasise the power of Latin over Satan So who benefited by Francis suppressing the Latin Mass? Cui bono? |
"This see is apostolic, and he who occupies it is said to be the successor of Peter, as long as he professes the true faith. No one who thinks and speaks truth would dare deny this. That the Bishop of Rome profess only the faith of Sylvester, Agatho, Leo, Liberius, Martin, and Gregory, we would proclaim him first among all other high priests, and we will submit to him not simply as to Peter but as to the Saviour himself. But if he is not successor in the faith of these saints, nor is he successor of the throne. Not only is he not apostolic, neither is he first, nor Father, but he is an adversary and devastator and enemy of the apostles."
Saint Symeon of Thessaloniki
