Translation of Diana Montagna's 'Leaked Documents' & Summary

Below is a rough translation of the alleged leaked documents journalist Diana Montagna provided on her Substack claiming as evidence of her claims that the majority of Bishops favored the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, leaving Summorum Ponitificum in place and that Pope Francis acted against their wishes and misled the Catholic faithful by stating another outcome of the survey.  

Note that the documents do not refer to the Mass as "TLM" or "Traditional Latin Mass." They use the proper and only name: Extraordinary Form:

Florilegio Florilegio of citations drawn from the responses received from the Dioceses Negative evaluations regarding the attitude of certain faithful In a negative sense, [the FE] could favor an attitude of superiority among the faithful, but to a lesser extent (Archdiocese of Westminster, response to question 3). For some, this Mass is a form of protest against the general direction given by the Church, or per altri viene anche con programmi politici. Detto questo, preferisco tenere tali persone vicine alla Chiesa, chiedendo ai sacerdoti coinvolti di correggere queste visioni sbagliate (Archdiocese of Baltimore, response to question 3). I do not see negative aspects in this use of the FE insofar as it is. Quando ci sono aspetti negativi, essi sono dovuti agli atteggiamenti negativi di coloro che hanno opinioni forti in una direzione o nell'altra, rispetto a questa forma celebrativa. Quando è ideologizzata, è non il bene pastorale della Chiesa, a guidare il discernimento circa l’uso della FE, allora arriva il conflitto e la divisione. Ripeto: si tratta di qualcosa di estrinseco all’uso stesso della Massa (Archdiocese of San Francisco, response to question 3). There seems to be a tendency among some faithful to see this [the FE] as the only "vera" Messa, ma penso che questo venga dal fatto che queste persone sono state considerate come "strane", o messe alle margini. Se si cerca di "regularizzare" la cosa il più possibile, allora queste persone si sentono curate e guidate pastoralmente, e possono essere molto fedeli e leali (Diocese of Plymouth, response to question 3). I believe that the priests who minister [to the faithful] do not have the liberty of a parish priest, and that they are subject to the orders of the faithful who serve. Vi è una sorveglianza della loro dottrina, della loro fedeltà alle rubriche, delle proposte pastorali (Diocese of Tarbes et Lourdes, response to question 3). Some people who support the FE often come with presupposed ideologies. Questo è vero di alcuni membri di qualsiasi gruppo, tuttavia essi non sono rappresentativi dell’insieme delle comunità di fedeli che partecipano alla FE (Diocese of Steubenville, response to question 3). The aspects [of the FE] of per sé are only positive: it is a great gift for all to know and participate in the celebration in the extraordinary form. The negative aspects are present only in the measure in cui queste celebrazioni sono celebrate e/o frequentate da persone squilibrate o ideologizzate (Diocese of Livorno, response to question 3). The division and discord do not come from the use of the FE, but from the perception that la gente ha di coloro che vi assistono. Si attribuiscono alle persone delle motivazioni e delle tendenze che non sono affatto vere (Diocese of Savannah, response to question 3). [185] --- Note: "FE" appears to be an abbreviation (possibly "Forma Extraordinaria" or Extraordinary Form, referring to a traditional liturgy), but its exact meaning is not specified in the text. The translation preserves the context as provided.

Below is the English translation of the provided text:

--- In recent years, various groups of lay faithful, often united in associations seeking the rich heritage of the Mass in the Gregorian liturgy, have emerged. 47. Some bishops have expressed concern about a return to the situation of the Indult with the aim of gaining greater control and oversight. On the major part of the bishops, however, the MSP has produced positive effects: it has brought about a beneficial and commendable legislative production that has benefited the Church, supporting and strengthening the MSP while addressing situations of opposition to it with a pacifying spirit. The Archbishop of Milan states: "My impression is that any intervention explicitly aimed at restricting the MSP could cause more harm than good; I believe it should only be considered in cases of serious and repeated abuse (e.g., solo). If this were the case, it would be better to proceed with caution and awareness of the risk of resentment among those with an 'anti-Roman' mindset. Therefore, it would be wise to continue this path without creating further discord." 48. Others believe that an eventual change by the Holy See, on the other hand, would favor a flourishing of fidelity to the Church, as seen in the example of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X in various schismatic groups; this should force a sincere reflection on the idea that one should not always trust in "a Rome that gives with one hand and takes with the other." Changing the normative provisions would thus trigger a resurgence of liturgical wars. It would also favor the birth of new movements, as seen in the past, and could encourage the faithful (cf. Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei Afflicta of 1988; MSP of 2007). 49. An idea that often arises in the responses is that the establishment of these conclusions should be carefully considered: a return to the Concili Vatican II, convened to address the needs of the time, diverged from the rich tradition established by the session and the conciliar documents. The study of these documents should serve as an opportunity to rediscover the immense richness and service of the celebration of the one and only Christian Ministry in the entire Church, creating pacifying situations for the celebration of this liturgy in local churches by priests suited to the celebration. 50. Concluding, a bishop from the Philippines has stated in his final response to the questionnaire: "I believe people are free to choose." And Benedict XVI, during his Apostolic Visit to France in 2008 at the Conference of Bishops, stated: "I see the difficulty you face in this regard, in tempi rivoluzionari, a solution that satisfies everyone." He added that the unity of the Church in this situation is essential, as some feel "a casa sua," while others do not. Today, some bishops, sensing the crisis, have proposed a return to the past, but this could risk being seen as a refusal. Dio, who loves all people and does not want anyone to perish, entrusts this mission to the Pastors of His flock. We cannot thank Him enough for the honor and trust He grants us. Let us strive to be ever-faithful servants, reaffirming our commitment against any form of division and exclusion in the Church. In essence, these words should serve as a line of reflection, judgment, and guidance for us today. Rome, 22 February 2021 Feast of the Cathedra of Saint Peter the Apostle [184] ---

Note: "MSP" appears to be an abbreviation (possibly "Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum"), and "FE" from the previous text might relate to it. The translation preserves the context as provided, with some terms left in their original form where meaning is unclear without additional context.

Below is the English translation of the provided text: --- Comprehensive Judgment 34. The important role of the document is evident, as the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum brought today a truly significant, albeit relatively modest, renewal to the life of the Church. The concept of Pope Benedict XVI, over ten years of widespread support among advocates of the reformed liturgy of 1970 and those of the Missale Romanum in its 1962 version, the MSP has successfully affirmed the equal dignity of the two forms of the same Roman Rite, creating a condition favorable to a true liturgical peace, also in view of an eventual unity of the two forms in the future. 35. The reciprocal enrichment and updating of the Missale Romanum of 1962, auspicated by the aforementioned Pope (cf. letter of 7 July 2007) is something that can be achieved only with the application of the same Motu Proprio. Universae Ecclesiae del 30 April 2011, and due to the decree confirmed by Pope Francis on 15 December 2019, which unanimously favored the Fathers members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (decree Quo magis, regarding the addition of seven new prefaces, and decree Cum Sanctissima, regarding the insertion of new Saints). 36. The diffusion of the ancient Roman Rite following the MSP is attested to within 20% of the Latin dioceses worldwide, and its application today is certainly more serene and pacifying, even if not everywhere; there are cases of residual discord not resolved. Furthermore, in some dioceses, this state is considered a FE that comes with a certain inappropriate, disturbing, albeit minor per la vita pastorale ordinaria e anche "pericoloso" if not addressed, or at least controlled strictly so that it does not spread, given the possibility of eventual division or abolition. 37. The majority of bishops involved in the questionnaire, who have generously and intelligently applied the MSP, declare at the end of their responses that, in particular, those who have also had the opportunity to form a personal parish, where all sacraments are administered according to the FE and where a stable community celebrates with devotion and pastoral care, have closely collaborated with the bishop in this situation which has been entirely pacifying. 38. Constantly, some bishops note, and this is especially true among young priests, a certain desire to know this ancient Liturgy. The major part of stable groups present nell’orbe cattolico who compose it with devotion and fervor have shown, over time, a certain solemnity of the Liturgy. This has been noted, also a cause of a society excessively noisy and talkative, the recourse to silence in sacred action, the role of liturgical chant, the dignity of celebration: all of which attract non poco. Pope Benedict XVI wrote in the letter to bishops accompanying the MSP, this quest succitata categoria di persone sono i destinatari privilegiati del Suo provvidenmento legislativo, oltre, chiaramente, tutti coloro che da decenni chiedevano la liberalizzazione e la legittimazione nella prassi liturgico-pastorale della venerabile Liturgia latino-gregoriana. [181] --- Note: "MSP" likely refers to Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, and "FE" may relate to "Forma Extraordinaria" (Extraordinary Form). The translation preserves the context as provided, with some terms left in their original form where meaning is unclear without additional context.

The text in the image is in Italian and translates to: --- CONGREGATIO PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI Prot. N. 03/2020-ED CONSULTATION OF BISHOPS CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF THE MOTU PROPRIO SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM APRIL 2020 REPORT FEBRUARY 2021 --- This appears to be the cover page of a report prepared by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding the consultation of bishops on the application of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, dated April 2020, with the report finalized in February 2021.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Below is a summary of each document based on the translated content, followed by an analysis regarding whether they suggest Pope Francis lied or misled the Church with Traditionis Custodes. Summary of Each Document 1. Florilegio (First Document) - Content: This document compiles responses from various dioceses regarding the attitudes of certain faithful toward the Extraordinary Form (FE) of the Mass. It highlights mixed opinions: some see it as a source of pride or protest, others note risks of division or ideological misuse. Positive aspects include pastoral care and fidelity, while negative aspects include potential superiority or conflict among faithful. - Purpose: To gather and present diverse perspectives on the implementation and impact of the FE, reflecting both support and concerns. 2. Giudizio compensivo (Second Document) - Content: This provides a comprehensive judgment on the *Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum* (MSP). It notes the MSP’s role in affirming the equal dignity of the 1962 and 1970 Missals, fostering liturgical peace, and addressing challenges like schism or discord. It includes bishops’ views on its application, with some favoring its continuation and others cautioning against potential divisions. - Purpose: To evaluate the MSP’s effects over a decade, suggesting a balanced approach to its use while acknowledging both benefits and risks. 3. Relazione (Third Document) - Content: This is a report from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) summarizing a 2020 consultation of bishops on the application of *Summorum Pontificum*. It reflects on the document’s impact, noting a 20% adoption rate among Latin dioceses, serene application in some areas, and ongoing tensions or divisions in others. It emphasizes the need for pastoral oversight. - Purpose: To assess the practical implementation of MSP and provide a basis for future decisions based on bishops’ feedback. Analysis: Did Pope Francis Lie or Mislead with Traditionis Custodes? Traditionis Custodes, issued by Pope Francis on July 16, 2021, restricts the use of the Extraordinary Form (1962 Missal) established by Summorum Pontificum (2007), citing concerns about disunity, rejection of Vatican II, and the need to preserve liturgical unity. It requires bishops’ approval for its use and emphasizes the 1970 Missal as the sole expression of the Roman Rite. - Evidence from Documents: - The Florilegio and Giudizio compensivo acknowledge both positive (e.g., pastoral care, liturgical richness) and negative aspects (e.g., division, ideological misuse) of the FE, aligning with concerns later expressed in Traditionis Custodes. The Relazione specifically notes a 20% adoption rate and residual discord, suggesting that the issues of disunity and uneven application were recognized by 2020. - These documents do not universally oppose the FE but highlight challenges that could justify regulatory adjustments, consistent with the CDF’s consultation process leading to Traditionis Custodes. - Assessment of Misleading or Lying: - There is no direct evidence in these documents that Pope Francis lied. The concerns about division and ideological misuse cited in *Traditionis Custodes* are reflected in the bishops’ responses (e.g., Archdiocese of San Francisco noting conflict, Diocese of Savannah mentioning perceived motivations). The *Relazione*’s timing (February 2021) indicates the CDF was aware of these issues before the motu proprio’s issuance, suggesting a deliberate response to documented feedback rather than fabrication. - However, some might argue he misled the Church if they believe he overstated the extent of the problem or ignored the positive aspects (e.g., young priests’ interest, as noted in the Relazione). The documents show a mixed picture, with many bishops supporting the FE’s pacifying effects, which Traditionis Custodes does not fully emphasize. This could be seen as selective framing rather than outright deception. - Conclusion: The documents do not prove Pope Francis lied or misled the Church. They support the existence of the issues he addressed, though his decision to restrict the FE contrasts with the balanced tone of the earlier reports. Any perception of misleading likely stems from differing interpretations of the data rather than intentional falsehood, as the CDF’s consultation process appears to have informed his action. This analysis is based on the provided texts and does not extend beyond their content or the context of Traditionis Custodes as issued.

Diane Montagna Rehashes the Same Lies

The article by Diane Montagna, published on July 10, 2025 (New Evidence Confirms CDF Report, Erodes Vatican Narrative on Traditional Latin Mass Restrictions), on her Substack, claims to present new evidence from a Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) report that undermines the rationale for Pope Francis’ 2021 decree, Traditionis Custodes, which restricted the Extra Ordinary Form of the Mass. Montagna argues that the CDF’s 2020 survey of bishops showed widespread satisfaction with Pope Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum (2007), which allowed broader use of the Extraordinary Form, and that Traditionis Custodes misrepresented the survey’s findings by exaggerating issues with the Extraordinary Form. Your request is to refute Montagna’s claims, citing Matteo Bruni’s statement, and to argue that her article lacks full evidence, contains falsehoods, and rehashes prior claims. Why did she post the "evidence" now? Why not in the first article? She is clearly desperate to prove her credibility after she was exposed.

Matteo Bruni’s Statement and Its Context Matteo Bruni, the director of the Holy See Press Office, responded to Montagna’s article on July 3, 2025, during a news conference. He stated that Montagna’s documents represent “a very partial and incomplete reconstruction of the decision-making process” behind Traditionis Custodes. While Bruni did not explicitly confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents Montagna published, his statement suggests that her presentation of the CDF report lacks critical context and does not fully represent the factors that led to Pope Francis’ decision.[](https://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.php?ID=200244) Refuting Montagna’s Claims Here are the key points to refute Montagna’s article, supported by evidence and reasoning: 1. Incomplete Evidence and Selective Presentation Montagna claims to have obtained the “Overall Assessment” (Giudizio Complessivo) and a collection of bishops’ quotations from the CDF’s 2020 survey, which she says show that most bishops were satisfied with Summorum Pontificum and that Traditionis Custodes misrepresented the survey’s findings. However, her article only provides excerpts from the report’s second part (the summary) and not the full 224-page document, which includes a detailed analysis of survey results by continent and country. [](https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/exclusive-official-vatican-report)[](https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/traditionis-custodes-new-book-supports) - Criticism: By presenting only selected portions, Montagna risks cherry-picking data that supports her narrative while omitting potentially contradictory findings. For example, Bruni’s statement implies that additional evidence, not included in Montagna’s excerpts, informed the Vatican’s decision. Specifically, a leaked survey from France, which Montagna does not address, reportedly highlighted negative impacts of the Extraordinary Form on Church unity, particularly in regions with a strong Extraordinary Form presence. This omission undermines her claim that the CDF report universally supported Summorum Pontificum.[](https://www.cal-catholic.com/cracks-revealed-in-vatican-anti-latin-mass-directive/) - Evidence: The French survey, referenced in commentary on Montagna’s article, indicated that the Extraordinary Form created divisions in some dioceses, which aligns with Pope Francis’ stated concerns in his 2021 letter accompanying Traditionis Custodes. He noted that the survey revealed “a situation that preoccupies and saddens me,” suggesting issues with the Extraordinary Form’s implementation, even if not universal.[](https://catholicvote.org/vatican-correspondent-reports-major-cracks-in-basis-of-traditionis-custodes/)[](https://www.cal-catholic.com/cracks-revealed-in-vatican-anti-latin-mass-directive/) 2. Misrepresentation of Pope Francis’ Rationale Montagna suggests that Traditionis Custodes was based on a false premise that bishops widely opposed Summorum Pontificum, implying that Pope Francis or his advisors fabricated or exaggerated the survey’s negative findings. However, this overstates the case. - Criticism: Pope Francis never claimed that a majority of bishops demanded the abrogation of Summorum Pontificum. In his letter to bishops, he stated that the survey responses revealed a situation requiring intervention, without specifying that the majority opposed the Extraordinary Form. Montagna’s assertion that the Vatican misrepresented the survey hinges on her interpretation of the “Overall Assessment,” but Bruni’s statement counters that her documents do not capture the full scope of the decision-making process.[](https://catholicvote.org/vatican-correspondent-reports-major-cracks-in-basis-of-traditionis-custodes/)[](https://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.php?ID=200244) - Evidence: The CDF report, as partially described by Montagna, acknowledges some positive outcomes of Summorum Pontificum (e.g., attracting young people), but it also notes “gaps, divergences, and disagreements” in its implementation, particularly from a minority of bishops resistant to the Extraordinary Form. This suggests a mixed picture, not a uniformly positive one, and supports the Vatican’s claim that issues existed, even if not universal. Furthermore, a critical analysis on akacatholic.com points out that the CDF’s Fourth Section, which compiled the report, was formerly the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission, tasked with overseeing Summorum Pontificum. This group may have had a bias toward the Extraordinary Form, potentially skewing the "Overall Assessment” to emphasize positive findings, which Montagna relies on.[](https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/exclusive-official-vatican-report)[](https://akacatholic.com/diane-montagnas-empty-bombshell/) 3. Rehashing Prior Claims Montagna’s article reiterates claims she made in October 2021, namely that Traditionis Custodes exaggerated minor issues in the CDF report and ignored the positive impact of Summorum Pontificum. [](https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/exclusive-official-vatican-report)[](https://nonvenipacem.org/2025/07/01/diane-montagna-has-a-new-substack-and-she-brings-the-receipts-on-the-lying-liars/) - Criticism: The July 2025 article largely recycles these earlier assertions, presenting the leaked documents as “new evidence” without substantially new analysis. The documents she provides (the “Overall Assessment” and quotations) are consistent with her 2021 reporting, but they do not conclusively prove that the Vatican lied or misrepresented the survey. The lack of the full report or additional primary data limits her ability to make a definitive case. Moreover, her reliance on the same narrative suggests confirmation bias, as noted by critics who argue that she overlooks evidence like the French survey that contradicts her thesis.[](https://www.cal-catholic.com/cracks-revealed-in-vatican-anti-latin-mass-directive/) - Evidence: A new book by Father Bux and Gaeta, released on July 2, 2025, contains additional sections of the CDF report, including continent-by-continent summaries. While Montagna cites this book to support her claims, it also confirms that the report noted variations in Summorum Pontificum’s implementation, including instances where it was ignored or caused tension. This suggests that Montagna’s focus on positive findings is selective and does not account for the broader context.[](https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/traditionis-custodes-new-book-supports) 4. Lack of Vatican Confirmation Montagna’s documents have not been officially verified by the Vatican. Nicole Winfield of the Associated Press reported that a Vatican spokesman did not respond to requests for comment on their authenticity as of July 2, 2025. Bruni’s statement further casts doubt on their completeness. [](https://catholicvote.org/vatican-correspondent-reports-major-cracks-in-basis-of-traditionis-custodes/)[](https://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.php?ID=200244) - Criticism: Without Vatican confirmation, the authenticity and context of Montagna’s documents remain uncertain. Her claim that they expose “major cracks” in Traditionis Custodes relies on unverified materials, which weakens her argument. Critics argue that her publication of these documents may be an attempt to pressure the Vatican, as noted in commentary on cal-catholic.com, rather than a definitive exposé.[](https://www.cal-catholic.com/cracks-revealed-in-vatican-anti-latin-mass-directive/) - Evidence: The Vatican’s silence and Bruni’s dismissal of the documents as “incomplete” suggest that Montagna’s evidence may not fully represent the CDF’s findings or the rationale for Traditionis Custodes.[](https://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.php?ID=200244) 5. Allegations of Falsehoods Diane lied again and her post shows evidence of deliberate falsehoods. It is misleading due to its selective use of evidence and failure to address countervailing data, such as the French survey. [](https://www.cal-catholic.com/cracks-revealed-in-vatican-anti-latin-mass-directive/) - Criticism: Montagna’s omission of negative findings (e.g., from France) and her emphasis on positive excerpts suggest a biased presentation rather than a deliberate lie. However, her failure to acknowledge Bruni’s statement or engage with the possibility that other factors (e.g., theological or pastoral concerns) influenced Traditionis Custodes undermines her credibility. Critics on akacatholic.com argue that her narrative aligns with a “Resist-the-Pope” movement, which may exaggerate claims of Vatican deception to rally support for the Extraordinary Form.[](https://akacatholic.com/diane-montagnas-empty-bombshell/) - Evidence: Bruni’s statement directly challenges the completeness of Montagna’s account, and the French survey’s findings, as noted in online commentary, provide a counterpoint to her claim that the CDF report was overwhelmingly positive.[](https://www.cal-catholic.com/cracks-revealed-in-vatican-anti-latin-mass-directive/)[](https://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.php?ID=200244) Diane Montagna’s article does not provide sufficient evidence to conclusively prove that Traditionis Custodes was based on a misrepresentation of the CDF’s 2020 survey. Her selective use of excerpts, omission of contradictory findings (e.g., the French survey), and reliance on unverified documents weaken her argument. Matteo Bruni’s statement that her documents offer a “very partial and incomplete reconstruction” highlights the limitations of her evidence. While Montagna’s claims build on her 2021 reporting, they largely rehash earlier arguments without addressing new counterevidence or the broader context of the Vatican’s decision-making process. Critics’ points about confirmation bias and the influence of the Extraordinary Form-friendly Fourth Section of the CDF further suggest that her narrative may be skewed. To fully refute her claims, access to the complete 224-page CDF report would be necessary, but based on available information, her article is incomplete and misleading. (https://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.php?ID=200244)[](https://akacatholic.com/diane-montagnas-empty-bombshell/)[](https://www.cal-catholic.com/cracks-revealed-in-vatican-anti-latin-mass-directive/)

MORE UPDATES TO COME, STAY TUNED!

The article by Diane Montagna, published on July 10, 2025, on her Substack, claims to provide further evidence confirming the authenticity of a leaked Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) report from 2020 regarding the implementation of Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI’s 2007 apostolic letter liberalizing the Extraordinary Form. The article argues that this report undermines the rationale for Pope Francis’ 2021 motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, which restricted the Extraordinary Form. Below, I will address the claims made in the article, focusing on Matteo Bruni’s comments and the unverified nature of the documents, while critically examining the evidence presented. Key Claims in Montagna’s Article 1. Authenticity of the CDF Report: Montagna claims to have obtained the Vatican protocol number (N. 03/2020-ED) and additional sections of the CDF report, including the introduction to its Second Part, which she says confirms the report’s status as the “official opinion” of the CDF. She argues this validates the sections she published on July 1, 2025, which include the report’s overall assessment and a collection of bishops’ quotations. 2. Contradiction with Traditionis Custodes: The article asserts that the CDF report shows the majority of bishops who responded to the 2020 survey believed that altering Summorum Pontificum would “cause more harm than good,” contradicting Pope Francis’ stated rationale in Traditionis Custodes that the survey revealed a need to intervene due to divisions caused by the Extraordinary Form. 3. Matteo Bruni’s Comments: Montagna references Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni’s July 3, 2025, statement, where he declined to confirm the authenticity of the leaked documents, described them as “very partial and incomplete,” and noted that other “confidential reports” informed Pope Francis’ decision. She argues this raises questions about why these additional documents were not mentioned in Traditionis Custodes or its accompanying letter. 4. Burden of Proof: Montagna contends that the Vatican must prove the CDF report inaccurately represented the bishops’ responses, or else the report’s conclusion—that most bishops supported Summorum Pontificum—stands. Refutation with Evidence While Montagna’s article presents a compelling narrative, there are several points where her claims can be challenged or require further scrutiny, particularly due to the unverified nature of the documents and the broader context of the Vatican’s decision-making process. 1. Unverified Documents: - Lack of Official Confirmation: Matteo Bruni, the Holy See Press Office Director, explicitly stated on July 3, 2025, that he would not confirm the authenticity of the leaked documents, describing them as “presumably” part of one of the documents used in the decision-making process for Traditionis Custodes but “very partial and incomplete.” This lack of verification undermines Montagna’s claim of definitive authenticity. The protocol number (N. 03/2020-ED) and images provided in the article are not corroborated by any official Vatican source, and their provenance remains unclear.[](https://thecatholicthing.org/2025/07/08/vatican-spokesman-traditionis-custodes-leak-very-partial)[](https://americamagazine.org/faith/2025/07/02/latin-mass-pope-francis-traditionis-custodes-251053)[](https://www.osvnews.com/vatican-says-documents-on-latin-mass-assessment-incomplete/) - Incomplete Nature of the Leaked Documents: Bruni’s statement aligns with the possibility that the leaked sections do not represent the full scope of the CDF’s findings or the broader evidence considered by Pope Francis. Montagna acknowledges that the leaked sections are part of a larger report (over 200 pages, per), but her focus on the “overall assessment” and “florilegium” may cherry-pick favorable data, omitting context that could support the Vatican’s rationale for Traditionis Custodes. For example, some bishops noted in the leaked documents that Summorum Pontificum failed to foster reconciliation, preferring a return to pre-2007 rules requiring episcopal permission for the Extraordinary Form.[](https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/07/03/vatican-downplays-leaked-documents-on-latin-mass/)[](https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/07/03/vatican-downplays-leaked-documents-on-latin-mass/) - Potential Bias in Source: Montagna’s Substack is noted for its traditionalist leanings, which may influence her interpretation of the documents. Without independent verification from neutral sources or the Vatican releasing the full report, the documents’ authenticity and completeness remain speculative.[](https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/07/02/extra-extra-news-and-views-for-wednesday-july-2-2025/) 2. Matteo Bruni’s Comments and Additional Evidence: - Bruni’s July 3 statement indicates that the decision to issue Traditionis Custodes was based on more than just the CDF’s 2020 survey, including “further documentation” and “confidential reports” submitted to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. Montagna questions why these additional documents were not referenced in Traditionis Custodes, but this does not negate their existence or relevance. The Vatican is not obligated to disclose all inputs into a papal decision, especially confidential reports, which may involve sensitive issues like schismatic groups or liturgical abuses.[](https://thecatholicthing.org/2025/07/08/vatican-spokesman-traditionis-custodes-leak-very-partial)[](https://catholicvote.org/holy-see-press-office-spokesman-responds-to-alleged-vatican-latin-mass-report/)[](https://americamagazine.org/faith/2025/07/02/latin-mass-pope-francis-traditionis-custodes-251053) - For instance, the leaked documents themselves note resistance from some bishops, particularly in regions like Italy and Spanish-speaking countries, due to “nescience, prejudice, and resistance” to Summorum Pontificum. Additionally, issues with traditionalist groups like Tradition, Family, and Property (TFP) in Brazil were not addressed in Montagna’s leaked sections, suggesting selective reporting.[](https://infovaticana.com/2025/07/01/traditionis-custodes-se-baso-en-una-mentira-summorum-pontificum-funcionaba/)[](https://wherepeteris.com/will-pope-leo-take-on-the-traditionalists) - Bruni’s reluctance to confirm the documents’ authenticity does not inherently discredit them but emphasizes that they are only part of a larger decision-making process. This aligns with the Vatican’s consistent position that Traditionis Custodes aimed to address liturgical divisions and promote ecclesial unity, as Pope Francis stated in his accompanying letter.[](https://www.osvnews.com/vatican-says-documents-on-latin-mass-assessment-incomplete/)[](https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/debate-latin-mass-heats-after-apparent-leak-vatican-123411286) 3. Context of Traditionis Custodes: - Pope Francis’ rationale for Traditionis Custodes was not solely based on the 2020 survey but also on his broader concerns about the Extraordinary Form’s use fostering division. He criticized traditionalist Catholics for being “navel-gazing retrogrades” out of touch with the Church’s evangelizing mission. The survey may have highlighted positive aspects of Summorum Pontificum (e.g., attracting younger Catholics, increasing vocations), but it also noted challenges, such as bishops’ concerns about controlling Extraordinary Form celebrations or divisions within dioceses.[](https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/debate-latin-mass-heats-after-apparent-leak-vatican-123411286)[](https://apnews.com/article/vatican-latin-mass-pope-leo-francis-catholic-5c15ea6c49b255a7d98cde9276a46acd)[](https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/07/03/vatican-downplays-leaked-documents-on-latin-mass/) - The leaked documents suggest that some bishops warned that suppressing Summorum Pontificum could drive traditionalists to schismatic groups, but this does not negate the possibility that other evidence (e.g., confidential reports) highlighted significant issues with traditionalist communities, particularly in regions like the United States, where liturgical disputes have been prominent.[](https://americamagazine.org/faith/2025/07/02/latin-mass-pope-francis-traditionis-custodes-251053)[](https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/debate-latin-mass-heats-after-apparent-leak-vatican-123411286) - A new Italian book, The Liturgy Is Not a Show, co-authored by Don Nicola Bux and Saverio Gaeta, reportedly corroborates Montagna’s findings but also reveals that 42% of French bishops supported mutual enrichment between the Extraordinary Form and Ordinary Form, while 13% favored maintaining Summorum Pontificum’s balance. This indicates a diversity of views, not a uniform endorsement of the Extraordinary Form, undermining Montagna’s claim of a clear majority opposing restrictions.[](https://catholicism.org/leaked-report-grows-new-book-blows-hole-in-traditionis-custodes-narrative.html)[](https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/traditionis-custodes-new-book-supports) 4. Burden of Proof: - Montagna argues that the Vatican must prove the CDF report inaccurately represented the bishops’ responses. However, this shifts the burden of proof inappropriately. As the claimant, Montagna must demonstrate that her leaked documents are both authentic and representative of the full report. The Vatican’s decision-making process, as Bruni noted, involved multiple inputs, and the lack of transparency about these inputs does not inherently invalidate Traditionis Custodes. Papal authority allows decisions based on broader considerations, not solely survey results. - The CDF report’s “overall assessment” may state that most bishops opposed changes to Summorum Pontificum, but without the full report, it’s unclear how representative this is. For example, the report notes that some bishops requested a return to pre-2007 rules for greater control, suggesting a split in opinions. Additionally, the survey’s findings in France, which has a significant Extraordinary Form presence, were reportedly leaked before Traditionis Custodes and indicated mixed results, not universal support for Summorum Pontificum.[](https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/07/03/vatican-downplays-leaked-documents-on-latin-mass/)[](https://www.cal-catholic.com/cracks-revealed-in-vatican-anti-latin-mass-directive/) 5. Alternative Perspectives: - Critics of Montagna’s report, such as those on Where Peter Is, argue that her claims collapse under scrutiny due to the unverified nature of the documents and the lack of context. They note that the leaked sections omit critical issues, such as problematic traditionalist groups in Brazil, and that the bishops’ responses included concerns about the Extraordinary Form’s implementation.[](https://wherepeteris.com/will-pope-leo-take-on-the-traditionalists) - The Vatican’s broader goal, as articulated by Pope Francis and reiterated by Pope Leo XIV, is to promote unity and reconciliation. The restrictions in Traditionis Custodes were intended to address perceived divisions, particularly in regions like the United States, where the Extraordinary Form has been a flashpoint. Montagna’s focus on the CDF report ignores these broader pastoral concerns.[](https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/debate-latin-mass-heats-after-apparent-leak-vatican-123411286) Matteo Bruni’s Comments Matteo Bruni’s statement on July 3, 2025, during a press conference on the “Mass for the Care of Creation,” is critical to understanding the Vatican’s position: - He stated, “I do not confirm the authenticity of the texts that have been published, which presumably concern part of one of the documents on which the decision was based and, as such, contribute to a reconstruction that is also very partial and incomplete with regard to the decision-making process. In fact, further documentation was later added to the consultation mentioned, including other confidential reports resulting from additional consultations that were submitted to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.”[](https://thecatholicthing.org/2025/07/08/vatican-spokesman-traditionis-custodes-leak-very-partial)[](https://americamagazine.org/faith/2025/07/02/latin-mass-pope-francis-traditionis-custodes-251053)[](https://apnews.com/article/vatican-latin-mass-pope-leo-francis-catholic-5c15ea6c49b255a7d98cde9276a46acd) - This suggests that the leaked documents, even if authentic, do not capture the full scope of evidence considered by Pope Francis. Bruni’s reference to “confidential reports” indicates that sensitive information, possibly involving specific dioceses or traditionalist groups, played a role but was not publicly disclosed for pastoral or administrative reasons. - Bruni’s comments align with the Vatican’s consistent messaging that Traditionis Custodes aimed to address liturgical divisions, not merely to suppress the Extraordinary Form. The lack of explicit reference to additional documents in Traditionis Custodes does not mean they did not exist, as papal decisions often involve internal deliberations not fully disclosed.

While Montagna’s article raises provocative questions about the rationale for Traditionis Custodes, it relies on unverified documents and lacks the full context of the Vatican’s decision-making process. Matteo Bruni’s comments underscore that the leaked sections are “presumably” partial and incomplete, and additional confidential reports informed Pope Francis’ decision. Without the full CDF report or corroboration from official Vatican sources, Montagna’s claims remain speculative. The leaked documents suggest some bishops supported Summorum Pontificum, but they also indicate diverse views, including concerns about division and control, which align with the Vatican’s stated goals in Traditionis Custodes. The burden of proof lies with Montagna to substantiate her claims with verified evidence, and the Vatican’s broader pastoral concerns—promoting unity and addressing liturgical disputes—provide a plausible basis for Traditionis Custodes beyond the 2020 survey alone.[](https://thecatholicthing.org/2025/07/08/vatican-spokesman-traditionis-custodes-leak-very-partial)[](https://americamagazine.org/faith/2025/07/02/latin-mass-pope-francis-traditionis-custodes-251053)[](https://apnews.com/article/vatican-latin-mass-pope-leo-francis-catholic-5c15ea6c49b255a7d98cde9276a46acd)