1. The lack of verified authenticity of the leaked documents and the protocol number. 2. The misrepresentation of Pope Francis’ reliance on the 2020 survey. 3. The potential bias in Montagna’s reporting, including her interactions with the Sacerdotus ministry account. 4. The claim of divine guidance as evidence of grandiosity. 5. The Vatican’s use of protocol numbers and their accessibility to the public. The response draws on credible sources, including Vatican statements and Catholic media, while critically examining the establishment narrative to ensure balance. --- Lack of Verified Authenticity of the Leaked Documents and Protocol Number The Documents and Their Source Montagna claims to have obtained internal Vatican documents, including a five-page overall assessment of a 2020 bishops’ survey and a seven-page compilation of bishops’ quotes, prepared by the CDF’s Fourth Section (formerly the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei). These documents allegedly show that most bishops supported Summorum Pontificum and warned that restricting the Extraordinary Form would cause harm. In a follow-up Substack post, Montagna claims to have obtained the protocol number for the CDF’s final report, asserting it confirms the documents’ authenticity as the official opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith referenced in Traditionis Custodes. However, the authenticity of these documents remains unverified. Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni, when questioned on July 3, 2025, during a press conference, declined to confirm their authenticity, stating that they presumably concern part of one of the documents on which the decision to restrict the Extraordinary Form was based and constitute a very partial and incomplete reconstruction of the decision-making process. Bruni’s refusal to authenticate the documents casts doubt on their legitimacy. The Protocol Number’s Validity Montagna’s claim that the protocol number verifies the documents’ authenticity is problematic. Protocol numbers are internal identifiers used by Vatican dicasteries to track official documents, but they are not inherently proof of authenticity when presented by an external party. Without access to the Vatican’s internal filing system, no outsider, including Montagna, can independently verify whether a given protocol number corresponds to a specific document. The Vatican’s archival processes are highly confidential, and protocol numbers are not typically accessible to the public for verification (see the section on Vatican protocol numbers below). Thus, Montagna’s presentation of a protocol number does not constitute proof, as anyone could fabricate such a number without a mechanism for public validation. Moreover, Montagna does not provide evidence of how she verified the protocol number. Her Substack post mentions obtaining the number but lacks details on its source or corroboration. Without an official Vatican statement or access to internal records, the protocol number remains an unverified claim. The burden of proof lies with Montagna, and her failure to provide transparent verification undermines her assertion that the documents are authentic. As Bruni noted, the leaked texts are likely only a partial representation of the broader consultation process, suggesting that Montagna’s documents may not fully reflect the Vatican’s internal deliberations. Insider Verification Challenges Montagna’s claim that the documents are authentic because they include a protocol number assumes that only an insider could provide such details. However, this logic is flawed. While an insider might have access to protocol numbers, the absence of public access to Vatican archives means that no one outside the Vatican can confirm the number’s legitimacy. Even if an insider leaked the documents, their motivations (e.g., advancing a traditionalist agenda) could introduce bias, and the documents could be selectively edited or incomplete. The lack of letterhead, signatures, or other official markers in the leaked texts further raises questions about their integrity. The Vatican’s silence on the documents’ authenticity, beyond Bruni’s cautious statement, suggests a deliberate choice to avoid validating unverified leaks. This is consistent with the Vatican’s practice of maintaining confidentiality in internal processes, especially when sensitive liturgical decisions are involved. Montagna’s insistence on the protocol number as proof is speculative and lacks substantiation. --- Misrepresentation of Pope Francis’ Reliance on the 2020 Survey Montagna’s Claim In the video, Montagna asserts that Pope Francis claimed his decision to issue Traditionis Custodes was based solely on the 2020 bishops’ survey, which she alleges showed widespread support for Summorum Pontificum. She argues that the leaked documents prove Francis misrepresented the survey results, as the majority of bishops reportedly opposed restrictions on the Extraordinary Form. Refutation: Pope Francis’ Broader Evidence Base This claim misrepresents Pope Francis’ statements. In his letter accompanying Traditionis Custodes, Francis wrote that the survey responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene, citing the bishops’ feedback and the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. However, he never stated that the survey was his sole source of evidence. Bruni clarified on July 3, 2025, that the decision was informed by other documentation, other confidential reports, and subsequent consultations received by the CDF. This indicates a broader decision-making process, including reserved reports and internal deliberations, which Francis had no obligation to disclose publicly due to their confidential nature. Montagna’s assertion that Francis relied only on the survey is a strawman argument. The leaked documents, even if authentic, represent only a portion of the evidence considered. The Vatican’s assessment process likely included qualitative and quantitative data, anecdotal reports, and consultations with dicastery officials, which may have highlighted concerns about liturgical division or misuse of the Extraordinary Form to challenge Vatican II reforms. Francis’ letter emphasized that the Extraordinary Form had been exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, suggesting that his decision was motivated by pastoral concerns beyond the survey’s scope. Bishops’ Confidentiality Concerns Montagna’s claim that the survey results contradict Francis’ rationale overlooks the possibility that bishops may have provided confidential feedback not reflected in the leaked documents. Many bishops might have been reluctant to publicly oppose the Extraordinary Form due to potential backlash from traditionalist groups in their dioceses, as noted in the query. The Extraordinary Form debate is highly polarized, particularly in regions like the United States, where traditionalist communities are vocal and influential. Bishops may have expressed concerns about division or schism in private consultations, which would not appear in a public-facing summary. The Vatican’s decision to keep such reports confidential aligns with standard ecclesiastical practice to protect bishops from public scrutiny and maintain unity. By focusing solely on the leaked excerpts, Montagna ignores the broader context of the Vatican’s decision-making process. Her claim that Francis was caught in a lie (as suggested by some commentators) is speculative and unsupported by evidence, as it assumes the leaked documents represent the entirety of the Vatican’s considerations. --- Montagna’s Potential Bias and Interactions with Sacerdotus Evidence of Bias Montagna’s reporting exhibits a clear bias toward traditionalist perspectives. Her Substack newsletter and video emphasize the leaked documents’ support for Summorum Pontificum while downplaying or omitting negative or neutral bishops’ responses included in the documents. For example, the leaked texts note that some bishops found Summorum Pontificum inappropriate, disturbing, or worthy of suppression, but Montagna’s narrative focuses almost exclusively on the positive feedback. This selective presentation suggests an agenda to bolster traditionalist arguments against Traditionis Custodes. Her affiliations and past reporting further indicate bias. Montagna has closely followed the Extraordinary Form dispute since Traditionis Custodes and is associated with outlets like OnePeterFive, which advocate for traditionalist causes. Her framing of the leaks as exposing major cracks in the Vatican’s rationale aligns with traditionalist rhetoric, as seen in comments from Joseph Shaw of the Latin Mass Society, who praised her work. This suggests that Montagna’s reporting may prioritize advocacy over objective journalism. Interactions with Sacerdotus Montagna blocked the Sacerdotus ministry account on X and Substack after challenges to her claims, demonstrating that she could not address the refutations and sought to suppress them. This aligns with a pattern of defensive behavior among some journalists when faced with criticism. Montagna’s decision to block Sacerdotus could indicate an unwillingness to engage with counterarguments, further suggesting bias. By limiting dialogue with critics, she may be curating an echo chamber that amplifies traditionalist sentiments while avoiding scrutiny. Her failure to publicly address criticisms like those raised in the query reinforces perceptions of selective reporting. It indicates that her claims cannot withstand scrutiny and vetting. They are most likely false. Any journalist with a hit story that is strongly supported with incontrovertible evidence will not resort to blocking skeptics of it who refute it. --- Claims of Divine Guidance and Grandiosity: Delusional Mind Montagna’s Assertions In the video, Montagna insinuates that her publication of the leaked documents is part of a divine plan to influence Pope Leo XIV to reverse Traditionis Custodes. This claim, echoed in her Substack posts, suggests a grandiose view of her role as a journalist, positioning her as a divinely guided actor in ecclesiastical matters. Such assertions lack objective grounding and rely on subjective interpretation, which undermines her credibility as a neutral reporter. Refutation Claims of divine guidance are inherently unverifiable and inappropriate in journalistic reporting, which demands evidence-based conclusions. Montagna’s suggestion that God led her to publish the leaks to influence Pope Leo XIV reflects a personal agenda rather than a commitment to factual reporting. This rhetoric aligns with traditionalist narratives that frame the Extraordinary Form debate as a spiritual battle, but it lacks substantiation and risks alienating readers who value objectivity. Moreover, Montagna’s focus on Pope Leo XIV’s potential response to the leaks assumes that he will prioritize traditionalist concerns based on her disclosures. However, Pope Leo XIV has emphasized unity and reconciliation, and there is no evidence that he intends to reverse Traditionis Custodes. Her speculative framing of the leaks as a catalyst for papal action exaggerates her influence and the documents’ significance, further indicating a grandiose perspective. --- Vatican Protocol Numbers and Public Accessibility Use of Protocol Numbers The Vatican uses protocol numbers to catalog official documents within its dicasteries, such as the CDF or the Dicastery for Divine Worship. These numbers serve as internal identifiers for tracking correspondence, reports, and decrees. For example, a protocol number might include a year and a sequential identifier (e.g., Prot. N. 123/2020). These numbers are typically included on official documents to ensure proper filing and retrieval within the Vatican’s archives. However, protocol numbers are not publicly accessible for verification. The Vatican’s archival system is highly confidential, and access to internal records is restricted to authorized personnel, such as dicastery officials or archivists. The Vatican Apostolic Archives (formerly the Vatican Secret Archives) houses sensitive documents, but public access is limited and requires special permission, often granted only for historical research on older records. Verification Challenges As noted earlier, Montagna’s presentation of a protocol number does not constitute proof of authenticity, as it cannot be independently verified by the public. Only Vatican insiders with access to the relevant dicastery’s records could confirm whether a protocol number corresponds to a specific document. Even then, the lack of public disclosure of such records means that Montagna’s claim relies on trust in her source, which she does not disclose. This opacity undermines her assertion that the protocol number validates the documents. The Vatican’s practice of maintaining confidentiality in its internal processes explains why Bruni and other officials have not confirmed the documents’ authenticity. Releasing protocol numbers or related records could compromise ongoing deliberations or expose sensitive information, such as bishops’ confidential feedback. Thus, Montagna’s reliance on the protocol number as evidence is insufficient without official corroboration. --- Additional Considerations: The Broader Context The Extraordinary Form Debate and Vatican Decision-Making The debate over the Extraordinary Form is complex and involves theological, pastoral, and cultural dimensions. Pope Francis’ decision to issue Traditionis Custodes was motivated by concerns about liturgical unity and the potential for the Extraordinary Form to be used to challenge Vatican II’s reforms. The leaked documents, even if partially authentic, do not negate the possibility that other evidence—such as reports of division in specific dioceses or concerns about schismatic groups—justified Francis’ actions. Montagna’s focus on the survey’s positive feedback ignores the broader pastoral context. For example, the documents note that some bishops supported returning to pre-2007 rules requiring episcopal permission for the Extraordinary Form, indicating a desire for greater control to manage local tensions. This suggests a diversity of opinions among bishops, which Montagna’s selective reporting downplays. Implications for Pope Leo XIV Montagna’s hope that the leaks will prompt Pope Leo XIV to reverse Traditionis Custodes is speculative. While Leo has emphasized unity, there is no indication that he views the Extraordinary Form restrictions as a priority for revision. The leaks may pressure traditionalist groups to advocate more vocally, but the Vatican’s cautious response suggests that any policy changes will be deliberate and based on broader consultations, not unverified leaks. --- Conclusion Diane Montagna’s claims in the YouTube video lack credibility due to several critical flaws:
1. The leaked documents and their protocol number remain unverified, with no public mechanism to confirm their authenticity. Matteo Bruni’s refusal to authenticate them underscores their questionable status.
2. Montagna misrepresents Pope Francis’ reliance on the 2020 survey, ignoring his reference to broader evidence, including confidential reports, which he was not obligated to disclose.
3. Her reporting exhibits bias toward traditionalist perspectives, as evidenced by selective presentation of the leaked documents and her affiliations with traditionalist outlets. Her blocking of the Sacerdotus account suggests an unwillingness to engage with critics and defend her claims. They do not withstand scrutiny if she feels the need to block (Sacerdotus: Diana Montagna Blocks Sacerdotus on X After Refutation of Her Claims on Pope Francis: A Sign of Weak Journalism?).
4. Her assertion of divine guidance is grandiose and inappropriate for objective journalism, undermining her credibility.
5. Vatican protocol numbers are internal and not publicly verifiable, rendering Montagna’s use of one as proof invalid without official corroboration.
The Vatican’s use of protocol numbers is standard but restricted to internal processes, and public access to such records is limited. Montagna’s claims rely on unverified assumptions and selective reporting, failing to meet the standards of objective journalism. While the Extraordinary Form debate remains significant, her video does not provide conclusive evidence to challenge Traditionis Custodes or influence Pope Leo XIV’s policies. Critical examination of her claims reveals a narrative driven by advocacy rather than fact, and the Vatican’s response appropriately prioritizes confidentiality and due process.
Sources:
- Catholic News Agency, Vatican downplays leaked documents on Extraordinary Form, July 3, 2025.
- Catholic World Report, Vatican downplays leaked documents on Extraordinary Form, July 2, 2025.
- AP News, Vatican says leaked documents were only part of information Pope Francis used to restrict Extraordinary Form, July 2, 2025.
- The Pillar, Vatican spokesman: Traditionis Custodes leak very partial, July 3, 2025.
- OnePeterFive, New Leak Challenges the Vatican Narrative (Again), July 10, 2025.
- Novus Ordo Watch, Leaked Vatican Documents Undermine Francis’ Stated Rationale for Suppressing Extraordinary Form, July 3, 2025.
- OSV News, Vatican says documents on Extraordinary Form assessment incomplete, July 3, 2025.
- @CatholicSat, July 3, 2025.
- @EdwardPentin, July 3, 2025.
- @DrKwasniewski, July 10, 2025.
Sacerdotus: Critical Analysis of Diane Montagna's Article and Claims Regarding Traditionis Custodes
Sacerdotus: Diane Montagna Rehashes the Same Lies
Sacerdotus: Diane Montagna & 'Traditionalists' Lied about Pope Francis
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for reading and for your comment. All comments are subject to approval. They must be free of vulgarity, ad hominem and must be relevant to the blog posting subject matter.