Do Muslims, Jews and Christians Worship the Same God?

The Theological and Philosophical Debate on Whether Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God

The question of whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God is one of the most enduring and contentious issues in interreligious dialogue, theology, and philosophy of religion. This debate engages profound questions about the nature of God, the relationship between human language and divine reality, and the extent to which theological differences preclude a shared referent for worship. Rooted in the shared Abrahamic heritage of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the discussion is further complicated by external critiques, such as those from atheists who point to the multiplicity of deities across cultures—often citing “3000 gods” or more—and question which, if any, is real. This essay argues that, despite significant theological divergences, Muslims and Christians worship the same God, understood as the singular ontological reality who is the Creator and sustainer of all existence. This position is supported by Catholic Church teachings, the writings of Church Fathers, insights from Orthodox Christian patriarchs, and contemporary theological scholarship, while also addressing the atheist critique and the broader monotheistic commitment to one God across religious traditions. I. Introduction: Framing the Debate The question of whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God is not merely a matter of semantics but a profound inquiry into the nature of divinity, human understanding, and interfaith relations. Both Christianity and Islam are monotheistic faiths, tracing their origins to the Abrahamic tradition, which affirms belief in one God who is the Creator, omnipotent, omniscient, and merciful. However, differences in theological constructs—most notably the Christian doctrine of the Trinity versus the Islamic emphasis on Tawhid (absolute oneness)—raise questions about whether these faiths refer to the same divine being. The debate has significant implications for interreligious dialogue, ecumenism, and the philosophical understanding of divine ontology. This essay proceeds in several stages. First, it examines the authoritative teachings of the Catholic Church, particularly from the Second Vatican Council and the *Catechism of the Catholic Church*, which provide a foundation for understanding the shared worship of one God. Second, it explores the perspectives of Church Fathers, such as St. Augustine and St. John of Damascus, whose writings offer historical and theological insights. Third, it incorporates the views of Orthodox Christian patriarchs, such as Patriarch Bartholomew I, to highlight the Eastern Christian perspective. Fourth, it engages with contemporary theologians, including Miroslav Volf and David Burrell, to bridge historical and modern discourse. Fifth, it addresses the atheist critique, which often points to the multiplicity of gods across cultures, arguing that this perspective misunderstands the monotheistic claim of a singular divine reality. Finally, it synthesizes these perspectives to argue that, despite theological differences, the shared ontological commitment to one God unites Muslims, Christians, and other monotheists in their worship of the same divine being. II. Catholic Church Teaching: A Foundation for Dialogue The Catholic Church, as one of the largest Christian denominations, has provided significant guidance on the relationship between Christianity and Islam, particularly through the documents of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). The declaration *Nostra Aetate* (1965), a landmark text on interreligious relations, explicitly addresses the question of Muslim and Christian worship. It states: > The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. (*Nostra Aetate*, §3) This passage is significant for several reasons. First, it affirms that Muslims “adore the one God,” explicitly aligning their worship with the God of Christianity. Second, it highlights shared attributes—God as living, subsistent, merciful, and all-powerful—emphasizing a common understanding of divine nature. Third, it roots this shared worship in the Abrahamic tradition, noting Islam’s connection to Abraham, a figure central to both faiths. The *Catechism of the Catholic Church* (1994) further reinforces this position, stating: > The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day. (*CCC*, §841) This statement not only reaffirms the shared worship of one God but also situates Muslims within the divine plan of salvation, a significant theological gesture toward inclusivity. The *Catechism* acknowledges differences—such as the Islamic rejection of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ—but maintains that these do not negate the common referent of worship. These teachings reflect a deliberate move by the Catholic Church to foster dialogue and mutual respect with Islam. They suggest that theological differences, while significant, do not preclude a shared commitment to the one God who is the Creator and ultimate reality. This position has been influential in shaping modern Catholic approaches to interfaith dialogue and provides a foundation for arguing that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. III. Insights from Church Fathers: Historical Perspectives The writings of the Church Fathers offer valuable historical and theological insights into the question of whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God. While Islam emerged in the 7th century, after many of the Church Fathers had written, their reflections on the nature of God and the relationship between Christian and non-Christian worship provide a framework for addressing this issue. St. Augustine of Hippo St. Augustine (354–430 CE), one of the most influential theologians in Western Christianity, emphasized the unity of God’s essence and the universality of true worship. In *City of God*, Augustine argues that all genuine worship, when directed toward the Creator rather than created things, ultimately points to the one true God (Augustine, *City of God*, 10.1). He acknowledges that human articulations of God may be incomplete or errant, particularly in non-Christian traditions, but maintains that the intention to worship the Creator aligns with the reality of the one God. While Augustine did not address Islam directly, his framework suggests that sincere monotheistic worship, even if theologically distinct, is directed toward the same divine reality. Augustine’s concept of analogy is particularly relevant here. He argued that human language about God is inherently limited, reflecting partial truths about the divine nature (*Confessions*, 7.10). This perspective allows for the possibility that Muslims and Christians, despite differing descriptions of God, refer to the same divine being. Augustine’s emphasis on the oneness of God’s essence provides a philosophical foundation for understanding shared worship across traditions. St. John of Damascus St. John of Damascus (676–749 CE), a Church Father who lived in the early Islamic period, offers a more direct engagement with Islam. As a Christian living under Muslim rule in Damascus, John wrote extensively about Islam in his *Fount of Knowledge*, including a section titled “On the Heresy of the Ishmaelites.” While John critiques Islamic theology—particularly its rejection of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ—he acknowledges that Muslims worship the one God, describing them as “idolaters no longer, but worshippers of one God” (*Fount of Knowledge*, Heresy 100). This acknowledgment is significant, as it comes from a figure who was both a critic of Islam and a witness to its monotheistic character. John’s writings reflect a nuanced position: while he rejects Islamic doctrine as heretical from a Christian perspective, he recognizes that Muslims direct their worship toward the same Creator God as Christians. His perspective underscores the importance of distinguishing between theological disagreement and the shared ontological referent of worship. IV. Orthodox Christian Perspectives: Patriarchal Insights The Eastern Orthodox Church, with its rich theological tradition, provides additional perspectives on the question of shared worship. Orthodox Christianity, like Catholicism, affirms the oneness of God and shares the Abrahamic heritage with Islam. Patriarch Bartholomew I, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, has been a prominent voice in interreligious dialogue, emphasizing the commonalities between Christianity and Islam. In a 1997 address at Georgetown University, Patriarch Bartholomew stated: > We are all children of the same God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Our faiths—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—share a common heritage in the worship of the one true God, who is the Creator of all. (Bartholomew I, 1997) This statement reflects a commitment to recognizing the shared monotheistic foundation of the Abrahamic faiths. Bartholomew’s emphasis on the “one true God” aligns with the Orthodox theological tradition, which prioritizes the unity of God’s essence while acknowledging the diversity of human expressions of faith. Orthodox theology, rooted in the writings of figures like St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Maximus the Confessor, further supports this view. St. Gregory, for example, argued that God’s essence transcends human comprehension, and all attempts to describe God are limited by human language (*Against Eunomius*, 1.42). This perspective allows for the possibility that Muslims and Christians, despite differing theological frameworks, worship the same divine reality. The Orthodox emphasis on apophatic theology—describing God in terms of what He is not—further reinforces the idea that theological differences do not necessarily imply a different God. V. Contemporary Theological Scholarship Contemporary theologians have built on the insights of Church Fathers and ecclesiastical authorities to address the question of shared worship in a modern context. Two prominent figures, Miroslav Volf and David Burrell, offer particularly compelling arguments. Miroslav Volf In his book *Allah: A Christian Response* (2011), Miroslav Volf argues that Muslims and Christians worship the same God based on shared attributes and a common referent in the Abrahamic tradition. Volf identifies key points of convergence: both faiths affirm God as one, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and merciful; both trace their worship to the God of Abraham; and both understand God as the Creator and judge of all. While acknowledging significant differences—such as the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the Islamic concept of Tawhid—Volf contends that these do not negate a shared divine referent. He writes: > If Muslims and Christians have a common framework of talking about God as the one Creator, and if they refer to the same object when they talk about God, then they worship the same God, even if they understand God differently. (Volf, 2011, p. 110) Volf’s argument is grounded in both theological and philosophical reasoning, drawing on the concept of referential identity from philosophy of language. He suggests that two groups can refer to the same entity (God) even if their descriptions differ, provided there is sufficient overlap in their understanding of that entity’s essential attributes. David Burrell David Burrell, a Catholic theologian and philosopher, further develops this argument by focusing on the shared philosophical heritage of Christianity and Islam, particularly through the influence of figures like Thomas Aquinas and Avicenna (Ibn Sina). In *Knowing the Unknowable God* (1986), Burrell argues that both traditions affirm God as the singular source of all existence, whose essence transcends human comprehension. He draws on Aquinas’s doctrine of analogy, which posits that human language about God is neither univocal (identical in meaning) nor equivocal (entirely different) but analogical, reflecting partial truths about the divine (*Summa Theologica*, I, q.13, a.5). Burrell emphasizes that the Islamic and Christian understandings of God share a commitment to divine simplicity—the idea that God’s essence is not composed of parts and is identical with His existence. This shared metaphysical commitment, rooted in the Aristotelian and Neoplatonic traditions, supports the claim that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, even if their theological articulations diverge. VI. The Atheist Critique: Addressing the “3000 Gods” Argument A common critique from atheists is the claim that human history has produced “3000 gods” (or more), raising the question of which, if any, is real. This argument, often popularized by figures like Richard Dawkins in *The God Delusion* (2006), points to the diversity of divine names and descriptions across cultures—Zeus, Odin, Brahma, Yahweh, Allah, and others—to challenge the coherence of monotheistic claims. However, this critique misunderstands the monotheistic perspective and the philosophical concept of divine ontology. The Monotheistic Response Monotheistic traditions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—assert that there is only one God, the singular ontological reality who is the Creator of all. The multiplicity of divine names does not imply a multiplicity of divine beings but reflects human attempts to describe the one God within specific cultural, linguistic, and historical contexts. As Thomas Aquinas argued, human language about God is analogical, capturing aspects of the divine reality without fully encompassing it (*Summa Theologica*, I, q.13, a.5). Thus, the “3000 gods” cited by atheists are not distinct entities but varied human articulations of the one divine being. This perspective is supported by the shared commitment to monotheism across Abrahamic faiths. In Judaism, the Shema declares, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). In Islam, the Qur’an emphasizes God’s absolute oneness: “Say: He is Allah, the One and Only” (Qur’an 112:1). Christianity, while introducing the complexity of the Trinity, maintains the unity of God’s essence, as articulated in the Athanasian Creed: “We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity.” These affirmations point to a singular divine reality, regardless of the diversity of names or descriptions. Beyond Abrahamic Traditions The monotheistic claim of a singular divine reality extends beyond the Abrahamic faiths. In certain strands of Hinduism, for example, the concept of Brahman represents the ultimate reality underlying all existence, despite the multiplicity of divine manifestations (*Bhagavad Gita*, 10.20). Similarly, in Sikhism, the *Mool Mantar* affirms one God who is eternal and self-existent. These traditions, while theologically distinct, share the ontological commitment to a singular divine being, suggesting that the “3000 gods” argument oversimplifies the complexity of religious thought. The atheist critique also fails to account for the experiential and existential dimensions of worship. Monotheists across traditions assert that there is “one being out there listening”—a singular divine reality who responds to human devotion. This shared conviction transcends linguistic and cultural differences, pointing to a common referent in worship. VII. Theological Differences and Ontological Unity While the case for Muslims and Christians worshipping the same God is strong, it is important to acknowledge the significant theological differences between the two faiths. These differences include: - **The Trinity vs. Tawhid**: Christianity affirms God as a Trinity—one essence in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)—while Islam emphasizes Tawhid, the absolute oneness of God, rejecting any division or plurality in the divine nature. - **The Divinity of Christ**: Christians believe Jesus is the incarnate Son of God, fully divine and fully human, while Muslims regard Jesus (Isa) as a prophet but not divine. - **Revelation and Scripture**: Christians hold the Bible as divinely inspired, while Muslims consider the Qur’an the final and perfect revelation, superseding previous scriptures. These differences are not trivial and have historically been points of contention. However, they do not necessarily imply that Muslims and Christians worship different gods. As Volf argues, theological disagreements about God’s nature or attributes do not negate a shared referent, provided there is sufficient overlap in the understanding of God as the one Creator (Volf, 2011, p. 128). Philosophically, the concept of referential identity supports this view. Two groups can refer to the same entity even if their descriptions differ, as long as there is a common core of attributes and intentions. For Muslims and Christians, this core includes the belief in one God who is eternal, omnipotent, merciful, and the Creator of all. The shared Abrahamic heritage further reinforces this common referent, as both faiths trace their worship to the God of Abraham. VIII. Broader Implications for Interreligious Dialogue The recognition that Muslims and Christians worship the same God has profound implications for interreligious dialogue and coexistence. By affirming a shared divine referent, both communities can engage in meaningful conversations about their differences without negating their common spiritual heritage. This approach fosters mutual respect and understanding, as advocated by *Nostra Aetate* and the teachings of Patriarch Bartholomew I. Moreover, this perspective challenges the exclusivity often associated with religious identity. Rather than viewing other faiths as wholly other, the acknowledgment of a shared God encourages collaboration on shared ethical concerns, such as justice, peace, and care for creation. As Pope Francis emphasized in his 2019 *Document on Human Fraternity*, co-signed with Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, the shared belief in one God calls for unity in addressing global challenges (*Document on Human Fraternity*, 2019). IX. Conclusion: One God, Many Descriptions The debate over whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God is complex, involving theological, philosophical, and historical dimensions. Catholic Church teachings, as articulated in *Nostra Aetate* and the *Catechism*, affirm that Muslims and Christians adore the same one God, rooted in their shared Abrahamic heritage. The Church Fathers, such as Augustine and John of Damascus, provide historical support for this view, emphasizing the unity of God’s essence and the sincerity of monotheistic worship. Orthodox Christian patriarchs, like Bartholomew I, echo this perspective, highlighting the common worship of the God of Abraham. Contemporary theologians, including Volf and Burrell, offer philosophical and theological arguments for a shared divine referent, despite differences in doctrine. The atheist critique of “3000 gods” misunderstands the monotheistic claim that diverse names and descriptions reflect human attempts to apprehend the one divine reality. Across religious traditions, the shared ontological commitment to a singular God—eternal, omnipotent, and merciful—unites Muslims, Christians, and other monotheists in their worship of the same divine being who listens as the Creator of all. This conclusion does not erase the real and significant differences between Islam and Christianity, nor does it suggest a syncretistic blending of the two faiths. Rather, it affirms that, at the level of ontology, Muslims and Christians direct their worship toward the same God, understood through the lenses of their respective traditions. This recognition provides a foundation for dialogue, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to seeking the divine in a fractured world.

### References - Augustine of Hippo. (426). *City of God*. Translated by Marcus Dods. Hendrickson Publishers, 2009. - Bartholomew I. (1997). Address at Georgetown University. Retrieved from Orthodox Church archives. - Burrell, David. (1986). *Knowing the Unknowable God: Ibn-Sina, Maimonides, Aquinas*. University of Notre Dame Press. - Catholic Church. (1994). *Catechism of the Catholic Church*. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. - Dawkins, Richard. (2006). *The God Delusion*. Houghton Mifflin. - *Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together*. (2019). Signed by Pope Francis and Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyeb. - John of Damascus. (749). *Fount of Knowledge*. Translated by Frederic H. Chase Jr. Catholic University of America Press, 1958. - Second Vatican Council. (1965). *Nostra Aetate*. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. - Thomas Aquinas. (1265–1274). *Summa Theologica*. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Benziger Bros, 1947. - Volf, Miroslav. (2011). *Allah: A Christian Response*. HarperOne. ---

Defending the Use of Guitars at Mass: A Harmonious Tradition Rooted in Faith

Defending the Use of Guitars at Mass: A Harmonious Tradition Rooted in Faith

The use of guitars in Catholic Mass has sparked debate among the faithful, with some viewing it as a modern intrusion on sacred tradition, while others see it as a vibrant expression of worship. This blog post defends the inclusion of guitars—and even drums—during liturgical celebrations, drawing on Church documents, Scripture, and cultural considerations. Far from being a departure from faith, the use of these instruments reflects a living tradition that adapts to the needs of the global Church, while critiques against them may sometimes reveal underlying xenophobic attitudes. Biblical Foundations for Musical Diversity Scripture provides a strong basis for the use of diverse instruments, including those with rhythmic qualities like guitars and drums. The Psalms, often used in liturgical settings, celebrate a wide array of musical expressions. Psalm 150:3-5 (NIV) exhorts, “Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet, praise him with the harp and lyre, praise him with timbrel and dancing, praise him with the strings and pipe, praise him with the clash of cymbals, praise him with resounding cymbals.” The “timbrel” (a type of hand drum) and “strings” suggest that rhythmic and melodic instruments were integral to ancient Jewish worship, which informs Christian liturgy. Similarly, 1 Chronicles 15:16 (NIV) describes King David appointing Levites to “make a joyful sound with musical instruments: lyres, harps and cymbals,” indicating that music, including percussive elements, was a divine mandate for worship. The New Testament further supports this adaptability. In Ephesians 5:19 (NIV), St. Paul encourages, “Speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord.” This openness to spiritual songs suggests that the form of music—whether accompanied by ancient lyres or modern guitars—matters less than the intent to glorify God. Church Documents Embrace Musical Evolution The Catholic Church has long recognized the need for liturgical music to evolve with cultural contexts. The Second Vatican Council’s *Sacrosacraments Concilium* (1963), the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, provides clear guidance. Paragraph 116 states, “The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy; however, other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded… [T]he pipe organ is to be held in high esteem… but other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority” (Vatican II, *Sacrosanctum Concilium*, 116). This document opens the door for instruments like the guitar, provided they are used appropriately and approved by local bishops. Further, the *General Instruction of the Roman Missal* (GIRM), updated in 2011, reinforces this flexibility. Paragraph 393 notes, “In the dioceses of the United States of America… other instruments, especially the pipe organ, may be used… provided they are truly suitable for sacred use or can be made so” (USCCB, *GIRM*, 393). Guitars, widely used in Latin American, African, and Asian Catholic communities, have been deemed suitable by many bishops’ conferences, reflecting the Church’s inculturation principle—adapting liturgy to local cultures. Pope St. John Paul II also championed this inclusivity. In his 2003 document *Chirograph on Sacred Music*, he wrote, “The new musical expressions of the present time, in different regions of the world, must be attentively examined so that those forms which can be considered truly imbued with the spirit of prayer and worthy of divine worship may be admitted into liturgical use” (John Paul II, *Chirograph*, 2003). Guitars, often central to folk and contemporary Christian music, align with this vision when used to foster prayerful participation. Cultural Context and the Risk of Xenophobia The resistance to guitars and drums at Mass often stems from a preference for European classical traditions, such as organ music and Gregorian chant, which dominated Western liturgy for centuries. However, this preference can reflect a cultural bias, particularly when critiquing instruments associated with non-Western cultures. In Latin America, where the guitar has been a staple of Catholic worship since the missionary era, its use in Mass reflects a deep spiritual heritage—think of the vibrant *Misas Criollas* or the music of Cesar Franck. Similarly, in African and Asian Catholic communities, drums and guitars enhance liturgical expression, drawing from indigenous rhythms. Critics who decry these instruments may unintentionally reveal xenophobic tendencies, dismissing music from cultures outside the Eurocentric norm as “unfit” for worship. This attitude contradicts the Church’s missionary spirit, which seeks to embrace all nations. As Acts 2:5-11 (NIV) describes the Pentecost, people from every tongue and culture heard the Gospel in their own language—a precedent for embracing diverse musical forms. To reject guitars or drums outright risks alienating the global Church, where over two-thirds of Catholics now live outside Europe and North America. Practical Benefits and Pastoral Sensitivity Guitars bring practical advantages to Mass. They are portable, affordable, and accessible, making them ideal for small parishes, mission churches, or outdoor celebrations. Their versatility allows for a range of styles—hymns, praise songs, or Taizé chants—that engage younger generations and newcomers. Studies, such as those from the National Association of Pastoral Musicians (NPM), have shown that contemporary music with guitar accompaniment increases participation, especially among youth (NPM, *Music in Catholic Worship*, 1999). However, their use must be pastorally sensitive. The *Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship* (USCCB, 2007), a guide for U.S. bishops, advises that instruments should support the liturgy’s dignity and not overshadow the Word (Paragraph 83). When guitars are played with reverence—tuned, amplified appropriately, and paired with sacred lyrics—they fulfill this role admirably. The use of guitars at Mass is not a betrayal of tradition but a continuation of the Church’s adaptive spirit, rooted in Scripture and supported by Church teaching. From the timbrels of Miriam to the guitars of modern parishes, music has always been a bridge between God and His people. Critiques that dismiss these instruments may reflect cultural biases rather than theological concerns, challenging the Church’s universal mission. As the liturgy evolves to reflect the global face of Catholicism, let us embrace the guitar—and even the drum—as tools of praise, ensuring they serve the sacred with humility and joy. **References** - Vatican II. *Sacrosanctum Concilium*. 1963. Vatican Archives. - United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). *General Instruction of the Roman Missal*. 2011. - John Paul II. *Chirograph on Sacred Music*. 2003. Vatican Archives. - USCCB. *Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship*. 2007. - National Association of Pastoral Musicians (NPM). *Music in Catholic Worship*. 1999. **Scripture Citations** - Psalm 150:3-5 (NIV) - 1 Chronicles 15:16 (NIV) - Ephesians 5:19 (NIV) - Acts 2:5-11 (NIV)

Critical Analysis of Diane Montagna's Article and Claims Regarding Traditionis Custodes

The article by Diane Montagna, published on July 1, 2025, claims that a Vatican report, based on a 2020 survey of bishops conducted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), undermines the rationale for Pope Francis’ 2021 motu proprio *Traditionis Custodes*, which restricted the use of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (commonly known as the Traditional Latin Mass).

Montagna argues that the survey showed most bishops viewed Pope Benedict XVI’s *Summorum Pontificum* (2007), which liberalized access to the Extraordinary Form, as successful and fostering liturgical peace, thus questioning the stated need for *Traditionis Custodes*. Below, I will address the article’s claims, focusing on the survey of bishops and the question of demand for the Extraordinary Form, and provide a critical refutation using available evidence and reasoning.

EXCLUSIVE: Official Vatican Report Exposes Major Cracks in Foundation of Traditionis Custodes.

Previously undisclosed text raises serious questions about the stated rationale for Pope Francis’ decree restricting the TLM. My inaugural article on Substack: https://t.co/em3E9IVpJj pic.twitter.com/ua0DG4S3K1

— Diane Montagna (@dianemontagna) July 1, 2025

Overview of Montagna’s Claims

Montagna’s article asserts: 1. The CDF’s 2020 survey of bishops worldwide showed that the majority supported *Summorum Pontificum* and found it effective in promoting ecclesial peace and liturgical integration.

2. The survey results contradict Pope Francis’ rationale in *Traditionis Custodes*, which claimed the Extraordinary Form was being used to foster division and reject the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite (post-Vatican II Mass).

3. The Vatican withheld the survey’s findings, particularly the positive assessments of *Summorum Pontificum*, to justify restricting the Extraordinary Form.

4. The article cites specific responses, such as that of Archbishop Allen Vigneron, who praised *Summorum Pontificum* for resolving contention and enriching the Church without threatening the Ordinary Form. Refutation of the Article’s Claims 1. The Survey’s Scope and Interpretation

Montagna’s article suggests that the 2020 survey overwhelmingly supported the continuation of *Summorum Pontificum* and showed no significant demand for restricting the Extraordinary Form. However, this claim oversimplifies the survey’s purpose and findings. The survey, sent by Cardinal Luis Ladaria to bishops in spring 2020, was intended to assess the implementation of *Summorum Pontificum* thirteen years after its promulgation, not to determine whether it should be abrogated or restricted. Questions included whether bishops personally used the 1962 Missal, the influence of the Extraordinary Form on seminaries, and whether it met a “true pastoral need” or was driven by individual priests.[](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/44335/vatican-sends-extraordinary-form-mass-survey-to-worlds-bishops)[](https://adoremus.org/2020/07/vatican-sends-extraordinary-form-mass-survey-to-worlds-bishops/) While Montagna cites positive responses, such as Archbishop Vigneron’s, her article selectively highlights comments that favor the Extraordinary Form. The survey’s full dataset has not been publicly released, so her claim that “the majority of bishops” supported *Summorum Pontificum* without reservation lacks verification. Partial leaks, such as those Montagna published in October 2021, show a range of responses, with some bishops noting positive effects (e.g., attracting younger Catholics) but others expressing concerns about division or the marginalization of the Ordinary Form. For example, Pope Francis’ accompanying letter to *Traditionis Custodes* states that the survey revealed a “situation that preoccupies and saddens me and persuades me of the need to intervene,” suggesting that some responses highlighted issues with the Extraordinary Form’s implementation, such as its use to challenge the legitimacy of the Ordinary Form.[](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-reporter-finds-traditionis-custodes-not-based-on-bishops-input-as-pope-francis-claimed/)[](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-reporter-finds-traditionis-custodes-not-based-on-bishops-input-as-pope-francis-claimed/) Refutation: Montagna’s claim that the survey uniformly supported *Summorum Pontificum* is misleading due to selective quotation. Without the full report, it’s impossible to confirm her assertion about the “majority” of bishops. Pope Francis’ decision to issue *Traditionis Custodes* was informed by the CDF’s analysis, which likely included concerns about liturgical disunity, even if some bishops praised the Extraordinary Form. The lack of public access to the survey limits the ability to independently verify Montagna’s interpretation.[](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-reporter-finds-traditionis-custodes-not-based-on-bishops-input-as-pope-francis-claimed/) 2. Demand for the Extraordinary Form Montagna’s article implies that the Extraordinary Form enjoys widespread and growing demand, particularly among younger Catholics and families, and that suppressing it ignores this pastoral need. She cites the survey’s findings that younger people were drawn to the Church through the Extraordinary Form and that it fostered vocations and family life.[](https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/exclusive-official-vatican-report) However, the demand for the Extraordinary Form must be contextualized. While it has a dedicated following, the Ordinary Form remains the normative liturgy for the vast majority of Catholics worldwide. A 2020 statement by Joseph Shaw of the International Una Voce Federation noted growth in Extraordinary Form communities but acknowledged that they represent a small fraction of Catholic liturgical practice, with 364 dioceses in 52 countries reporting appreciation for the Extraordinary Form. In contrast, the Ordinary Form is celebrated in thousands of parishes globally, indicating significantly broader usage. Furthermore, a 2023 survey by Catholic Laity and Clergy for Renewal found that most U.S. Catholics attend the Ordinary Form and are either unaware of or neutral toward Vatican II’s liturgical reforms, suggesting that the Ordinary Form meets the pastoral needs of the majority.[](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1411669215304634369.html)[](https://whatweneednow.substack.com/p/have-american-catholics-rejected) Additionally, Pope Francis’ letter accompanying *Traditionis Custodes* argues that the Extraordinary Form was being “exploited to widen the gaps” and “encourage disagreements that injure the Church,” indicating that some bishops reported its use as a point of division rather than unity. This aligns with comments from Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, who clarified that *Traditionis Custodes* was “occasioned” by the survey but not solely based on it, suggesting other pastoral and theological concerns, such as the rejection of Vatican II’s liturgical reforms by some Extraordinary Form communities.[](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-reporter-finds-traditionis-custodes-not-based-on-bishops-input-as-pope-francis-claimed/)[](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-reporter-finds-traditionis-custodes-not-based-on-bishops-input-as-pope-francis-claimed/) Refutation: The demand for the Extraordinary Form, while notable in specific communities, is not as widespread as Montagna suggests. The Ordinary Form remains the primary liturgical expression for Catholics globally, and the survey likely highlighted concerns about the Extraordinary Form’s role in fostering division, which Montagna’s article downplays. The claim of “growing popularity” lacks quantitative evidence to compare with the Ordinary Form’s dominance. A recent survey asking for the retraction of Traditionis Custodes has only garnered over 12,000 signatures. In contrast with the nearly 2 billion Catholics, this shows a very low demand for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (https://www.sacerdotus.com/2025/06/petition-for-removal-of-traditionis.html) 3. Alleged Suppression of Survey Results Montagna argues that the Vatican withheld the survey’s positive findings to justify *Traditionis Custodes*, citing the CDF’s “overall assessment” that legislative changes to *Summorum Pontificum* would cause more harm than good. She suggests this secrecy undermines the credibility of *Traditionis Custodes*.[](https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/exclusive-official-vatican-report) However, the Vatican’s decision not to publish the full survey is consistent with its handling of internal consultations. The CDF’s role was to provide a confidential analysis to the Pope, not to release raw data publicly. The partial leaks Montagna obtained, while informative, do not constitute the full report, and her interpretation may exaggerate the extent of positive feedback. Moreover, Pope Francis’ letter indicates that the survey revealed issues serious enough to warrant action, supported by the CDF’s expertise in liturgical matters through its Fourth Section (formerly the Pontifical Ecclesia's Dei Commission). The decision to issue *Traditionis Custodes* likely reflected a broader assessment of liturgical unity, not a deliberate suppression of favorable opinions.[](https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/exclusive-official-vatican-report) Refutation: Montagna’s claim of deliberate suppression is speculative and lacks evidence beyond her partial access to the survey. The Vatican’s confidentiality is standard for such reports, and Pope Francis’ actions suggest he acted on the CDF’s recommendations, which likely included concerns about the Extraordinary Form’s impact on Church unity, not solely its positive effects. 4. Archbishop Vigneron’s Response and Representativeness Montagna highlights Archbishop Vigneron’s response as emblematic of the survey’s findings, quoting his praise for *Summorum Pontificum* as a “remarkably successful approach” that restored ecclesial peace without threatening the Ordinary Form. While his response is significant, it is not necessarily representative of all bishops. The survey included responses from bishops worldwide, and regional differences likely influenced perspectives. For instance, bishops in areas with strong traditionalist communities (e.g., parts of the U.S. or Europe) may have reported positively, while others in regions where the Ordinary Form predominates may have seen less need for the Extraordinary Form or noted its divisive potential.[](https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/exclusive-official-vatican-report)[](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-reporter-finds-traditionis-custodes-not-based-on-bishops-input-as-pope-francis-claimed/) Refutation: Vigneron’s response, while compelling, is one voice among many. Montagna’s reliance on it risks cherry-picking to support her narrative. Without comprehensive data, it’s unclear whether his view reflects the majority or a vocal minority. Broader Context and Critical Analysis The debate over *Traditionis Custodes* and the Extraordinary Form is deeply tied to differing visions of the Church’s liturgical life post-Vatican II. Montagna’s article aligns with traditionalist perspectives that view *Summorum Pontificum* as a necessary corrective to liturgical abuses and a source of spiritual renewal. However, this overlooks the Ordinary Form’s role as the Church’s primary liturgical expression, designed to enhance participation and accessibility. The survey likely revealed a spectrum of experiences, with some bishops noting the Extraordinary Form’s benefits and others its challenges, particularly when used to question the Ordinary Form’s legitimacy.[](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/44335/vatican-sends-extraordinary-form-mass-survey-to-worlds-bishops) Pope Francis’ decision to restrict the Extraordinary Form was not solely based on the survey but also on broader pastoral concerns, including the risk of schism and the need to affirm Vatican II’s reforms. Montagna’s article does not engage with these concerns, focusing instead on a narrative of Vatican overreach. Her sources, while valuable, are incomplete, and her conclusions rely on assumptions about the survey’s overall findings.[](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-reporter-finds-traditionis-custodes-not-based-on-bishops-input-as-pope-francis-claimed/) Diane Montagna’s article overstates the survey’s support for *Summorum Pontificum* and underplays evidence of concerns about the Extraordinary Form’s impact on Church unity. The claim that *Traditionis Custodes* lacks justification ignores Pope Francis’ stated rationale, supported by the CDF’s analysis, that the Extraordinary Form was being used to foster division. The demand for the Extraordinary Form, while significant in certain communities, is not comparable to the Ordinary Form’s widespread use. The Vatican’s confidentiality regarding the survey is standard practice, not evidence of suppression. Without the full survey, Montagna’s conclusions remain speculative and biased toward a traditionalist perspective.

UPDATE July 3, 2025; Senior Vatican correspondent of @NCRegister Edward Pentin posted on X:

(3) Edward Pentin on X: "Although Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni would not confirm the authenticity of the leaked CDF documents on the survey of bishops that led to restrictions on the TLM, he told reporters today they contribute to only a "very partial and incomplete" reconstruction "of the" / X

(3) Edward Pentin on X: "Full English translation of Matteo Bruni's response to a question from my colleague @HannahBrockhaus who asked if he would clarify the recent report by @dianemontagna on the CDF documents: “I’ll take the floor because I don’t believe this is a question relevant to today’s press" / X

References: - Diane Montagna, “EXCLUSIVE: Official Vatican Report Exposes Major Cracks in Foundation of Traditionis Custodes,” Substack, July 1, 2025.[](https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/exclusive-official-vatican-report)

- “Vatican reporter finds Traditionis Custodes not based on bishops’ input, as Pope Francis claimed,” LifeSiteNews, October 8, 2021.[](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-reporter-finds-traditionis-custodes-not-based-on-bishops-input-as-pope-francis-claimed/)

- Thread by @dianemontagna, Thread Reader App, July 5, 2021.[](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1411669215304634369.html)

- “Vatican sends extraordinary form Mass survey to world’s bishops,” Catholic News Agency, April 27, 2020.[](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/44335/vatican-sends-extraordinary-form-mass-survey-to-worlds-bishops)

- Jayd Henricks, “Have American Catholics Rejected Vatican II?” Substack, September 26, 2023.[](https://whatweneednow.substack.com/p/have-american-catholics-rejected)

- “Vatican Sends Extraordinary Form Mass Survey to World’s Bishops,” Adoremus, July 20, 2020.[](https://adoremus.org/2020/07/vatican-sends-extraordinary-form-mass-survey-to-worlds-bishops/)

EXCLUSIVE: Official Vatican Report Exposes Major Cracks in Foundation of Traditionis Custodes

The Question of the "Best Pope": A Misguided Pursuit

The Question of the "Best Pope": A Misguided Pursuit

The question of who is the "best pope" is one that surfaces from time to time, often sparked by debates among Catholics, historians, or cultural commentators. It’s a question that seems to invite comparison, as if the papacy were a contest to be judged by human standards. However, this framing is fundamentally flawed and misunderstands the nature of the papacy, the role of divine providence, and the unique challenges each pope faces in their time. To rank popes or label one as "better" than another is to impose a worldly lens on a divine institution, ignoring the belief that God chooses the right pope for the right time. The Papacy: A Divine Appointment, Not a Competition The Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Spirit guides the selection of the pope, ensuring that the successor of St. Peter is the one needed for the Church’s mission in that particular era. Each pope, from St. Peter to the present, has been called to lead the Church through specific historical, spiritual, and cultural circumstances. To compare them as "better" or "worse" is to overlook the unique context of their leadership and the divine purpose behind their election. For example, St. John Paul II’s papacy (1978–2005) was marked by his global evangelization, his role in the fall of communism, and his theological contributions like the Theology of the Body. His charismatic presence and intellectual rigor were suited to a world grappling with ideological conflicts and secularism. Contrast this with Pope Benedict XVI (2005–2013), whose scholarly approach and emphasis on liturgical renewal addressed a Church navigating the complexities of modernity and internal theological debates. Pope Francis (2013–2023), with his focus on mercy, social justice, and outreach to the marginalized, responded to a world marked by economic inequality, migration crises, and environmental concerns. Each of these popes faced distinct challenges, and their approaches were shaped by the needs of their time. To declare one "better" than another is to ignore the fact that their missions were not interchangeable. God’s providence, Catholics believe, ensures that the right leader emerges for the Church’s needs, just as a shepherd is chosen for the flock’s specific journey. The Danger of Judging Popes: The Case of Pope Francis The temptation to rank popes becomes particularly problematic when it turns into judgment or division within the Church. Following the death of Pope Francis in 2023, some traditionalist Catholics labeled him the "worst pope ever," criticizing his emphasis on inclusivity, his perceived ambiguity on doctrinal matters, and his reforms as departures from tradition. Such critiques often overlook the context of his papacy and the significant growth the Church experienced under his leadership. Under Pope Francis, the Catholic Church saw notable expansion, particularly in regions like Africa and Asia, where the faith continued to flourish despite global secular trends. His encyclicals, such as Laudato Si’ and Fratelli Tutti, addressed pressing global issues like climate change and human fraternity, resonating with millions and bringing the Church’s voice to contemporary debates. His emphasis on synodality fostered greater dialogue within the Church, encouraging lay participation and collaboration among bishops. To reduce his papacy to a caricature of "progressivism" is to ignore these accomplishments and the broader mission he undertook. Moreover, labeling any pope as the "worst" disregards the belief that God’s will operates through the papacy, even in its human imperfections. The Bible itself offers a sobering reminder: even Judas Iscariot was chosen by Christ for a purpose, despite his betrayal. Similarly, every pope, with their strengths and weaknesses, plays a role in God’s plan for the Church. To judge them harshly or rank them competitively risks fostering division among the faithful, undermining the unity that the papacy is meant to embody. Why Catholics Should Avoid Ranking Popes The urge to rank popes often stems from personal biases or preferences—whether theological, cultural, or political. Some may favor a pope who aligns with their vision of the Church, whether traditional, progressive, or otherwise. But the papacy is not a popularity contest, nor is it about fulfilling individual expectations. It is about stewardship, service, and fidelity to Christ’s mission, carried out in the context of a specific historical moment. Instead of ranking popes, Catholics are called to pray for them, support their leadership, and trust in the Holy Spirit’s guidance. The Church’s history is replete with popes who faced criticism in their time—some for being too conservative, others for being too reformist—yet their contributions often became clearer with hindsight. St. Pius V, for instance, was a towering figure of the Counter-Reformation, standardizing the Roman Missal, but his stern approach was controversial in his day. Similarly, Pope Leo XIII’s *Rerum Novarum* laid the foundation for modern Catholic social teaching, yet it challenged the economic status quo of the late 19th century. Each pope’s legacy is best understood not in isolation or competition but as part of the Church’s ongoing journey. To focus on ranking them is to miss the forest for the trees, reducing a divine institution to a human scorecard. Trusting God’s Choice The question of the "best pope" is not only unanswerable but also unhelpful. It distracts from the deeper truth that God chooses the right pope for the right time, equipping them to face the challenges of their era. Whether it’s navigating wars, heresies, cultural shifts, or internal reforms, each pope’s mission is unique, and their success cannot be measured by worldly standards or personal preferences. As Catholics, our task is not to judge or rank popes but to support the Church’s mission through prayer, charity, and unity. The criticisms leveled against Pope Francis after his death serve as a reminder of the dangers of such judgment. Even in moments of disagreement, Catholics are called to trust that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, just as it has for over two millennia. Rather than debating who was the "best" or "worst," let us give thanks for the papacy itself—a enduring sign of God’s faithfulness to His people, through every season and challenge.