What is remarkable in regard to the article is that Louie Verrecchio, a radtrad amongst radtrads, despises/despised Pope Francis (requiescat in pace).
Highlights:
=======
"According to certain vocal proponents of the Resist-the-Pope movement...Bergoglio’s alleged justification for abrogating Summorum Pontificum was unsupported – in fact, contradicted – by a majority of the bishops’ actual responses.
"A number of commentators on social media are openly stating that the “overall assessment” reveals Bergoglio as a baldfaced liar."
"Those who believe that it does need to go back and reread what Bergoglio actually wrote."
"At this, it should be obvious to readers that Diane Montagna’s BOMBSHELL is more than just an exposé, it is also an editorial, one that – as we shall see rather clearly moving forward – includes opinions that are based on misrepresentations of the readily available facts."
"Does Montagna’s BOMBSHELL clearly indicate that Bergoglio was lying when he wrote in Traditionis Custodes that he “considered the wishes expressed by the episcopate and having heard the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?”
"The answer is no, absolutely not. The overall assessment produced by Ecclesia Dei in no way proves that Bergoglio was lying."
"Even so, Raymond Arroyo felt empowered to declare about the man that he called Holy Father: The justification for Pope Francis rescinding the Traditional Latin Mass was predicated on the lie that the world’s bishops demanded it."
"Go back and scour Traditionis Custodes and the accompanying letter to bishops.
"Nowhere does Francis claim that “the world’s bishops demanded” the abrogation of Summorum Pontificum."
"Neither does the following statement made by Montagna:
"[Francis] told the bishops that he was “constrained” by their “requests” to revoke not only Summorum Pontificum but “all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs” that preceded his new decree.
"This simply isn’t true. What Bergoglio stated in his explanatory letter to the bishops, which I invite you to reread to confirm for yourself, is the following:
"In defense of the unity of the Body of Christ, I am constrained to revoke the faculty granted by my Predecessors. This he said in light of, not survey results or specific requests from bishops, but rather the idea that:
"[There is a] close connection between the choice of celebrations according to the liturgical books prior to Vatican Council II and the rejection of the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the “true Church.”
"No, it cannot be said that the questionnaire results served as the alleged “foundation” for Traditionis Custodes. So, what is?
"Bergoglio was very clear, his decision to suppress the Traditional Latin Mass rested squarely on Vatican Council II, which was mentioned no less than twenty times between Traditionis Custodes and the letter to bishops that accompanied it.
"Francis made it perfectly clear: The Second Vatican Council is the real foundation for Traditionis Custodes."
"So, in the end, Diane Montagna’s BOMBSHELL is empty and devoid of substance, just like the Resist-the-Pope movement itself."
MT, as far as I am concerned, Pope Francis had the authority to impose TC on good practicing Catholics and he did not need to justify it. Certainly there are those who say allowing the older Mass goes against Vatican II and Pope Francis held that position. Pope Benedict did not accept that. Catholics are free to take either side because popes and bishops in union with the popes did and do. But, Pope Francis chose to state that the majority of bishops wanted to abrogate SP. The facts do the support that assertion. Pope Francis stated this specifically in TC. Why? It wasn’t true. He could have omitted it, but chose to state something as true which is verifiably false. Some call that a lie. If you choose to ignore that and call it something else fine. Welcome to the world of President Trump.
Wrong! F-. I am Catholic first and a political independent second. President Trump is a narcissistic, pathological liar who does some good things in a pathologically narcissistic world governed by pathological narcissistic leaders of all stripes. No brag, just facts.
So like Pope Francis, you can diagnose a person you never sat down with and analyzed, engage in calumny while breezily ignoring the well documented massive lies of Clinton, Obama, and Biden. Very Catholic indeed
No, a rational, sane person cannot necessarily come to that conclusion. I think a stronger case can be made that Clinton, Obama and Biden were narcissist liars so why are you giving them a pass? Please don’t pull a MT Suit on me
I find it a little strange that you would use a Vatican II denier to discredit the views of traditionalists who accept Vatican II. This is especially true since Louie of akaCatholic is being disingenuous about Pope Francis' remarks. He says that Pope Francis was not lying when he said he "considered the wishes expressed by the episcopate and having heard the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith." The impression that is given, as it was intended to do, was that the collective opinion of the episcopate, not that of a minority with it, and that of the Congregation was negative, and that is what impelled Pope Francis to act. But this was false, and deliberately so.
He is also being disingenuous, along with Pope Francis, in equating the Council's desire to reform the Roman rite with its wholesale replacement. Rather, what the Council called for was a modification of the existing rite "where necessary." This was adequately addressed with the reform of 1965. There was no need for a completely new rite, nor is that what the Council called for.
What happened after the Council, however, was that the liturgical revolutionaries instrumentalized the Council to advance an agenda which they could not get approved in the Council hall. They have ever since then accused anyone who has taken reservations with this more radical reform of rejecting the Council. In truth, it is those who have gone beyond the limited reform envisioned by the Council who have actually rejected it. Indeed, they have even rejected the Novus Ordo itself by restricting those legitimate options that would allow for a traditional form of its celebration. The irony of this is that by equating objections to the new Mass with rejecting Vatican II, its is they who have created that rejection by the small number of radical traditionalists who do.
"Pope Francis had the authority to impose TC on good practicing Catholics and he did not need to justify it."
True.
It's not always about what a leader does, but how. The deception just adds an asterik to his papacy. I'd expect this from a dictator, not the leader of Christ's Church. Wait, which did we have?
I am not putting you in the same category as MT. No, you are in the same category as FRMJK. Both of you are political hacks for your particular political party.
Father McDonald, I am glad that we at least agree that Pope Francis (requiescat in pace) had the authority to have issued Traditionis Custodes. There are folks who have insisted that Pope Francis had lacked said authority.
As to your following comment:
"Certainly there are those who say allowing the older Mass goes against Vatican II and Pope Francis held that position."
If that is so, then Pope Francis had an unusual way of having demonstrated that conviction. Pope Francis, for years, had maintained Summorum Pontificum. Following the release of Traditionis Custodes, Pope Francis had exhorted, for example, the FSSP, as well as ICK, to continue to offer the TLM.
In addition, Pope Francis, from his days in Argentina, until his having fallen asleep in the Lord, had treated the SSPX in wonderful fashion.
Anyway, Father McDonald, thank you for your reply.
I am no political hack, what I post here is largely to pull K's chain.
You are exercising clericalism; you refuse to answer a simple question. As I have stated, you can make a far better case that Clinton, Obama, and Biden are narcissistic liars, but you refuse to address that. When you make statements about President Trump, you remind me of the typical CNN or MSNBC viewer, impervious to facts. Trump is truly standing up for ordinary Americans, which even traditional Democratic pundits will acknowledge; in stark contrast to the three I named who were stuffing their pockets as part of being in "public service." Harry Truman called those types crooks.
Something sinister happened to Pope Francis to do what he did with TC, perhaps dementia. At any rate, heterodox left Catholics stated Pope Benedict had no authority to issue SP.
Anthony said..."it is those who have gone beyond the limited reform envisioned by the Council who have actually rejected it."
"Indeed, they have even rejected the Novus Ordo itself by restricting those legitimate options that would allow for a traditional form of its celebration."
Anthony, in line with your above comments, as holy Pope Benedict XVI had made clear, the folks who plied us with the "Council of the media," the fake Council, rejected Vatican II.
Therefore, Anthony, thank you for your comments in question.
Anthony said..."This is especially true since Louie of akaCatholic is being disingenuous about Pope Francis' remarks."
Anthony, we disagree about that.
As Louie had noted: "Go back and scour Traditionis Custodes and the accompanying letter to bishops. Nowhere does Francis claim that “the world’s bishops demanded” the abrogation of Summorum Pontificum."
Pope Francis, as Louie had stated, had very much based Traditionis Custodes upon the war that the TLM Movement has long waged against the Council.
Father Gommar DePauw, who, during the early 1960s, had founded the Traditional Catholic Movement, had waged war against the Council. From there, Archbishop Lefebvre/SSPX had continued said war.
Peter Kwasniewski, New Catholic (Rorate Caeli), The Remnant — on and on within the TLM Movement — the war against Vatican II has continued.
Bishop Schneider, Archbishop Viganò, Father James Altman, are among those who have attacked the Council.
There are folks here who have claimed that their attacks against the Council, as well as the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI, have long constituted mainstream thought within the TLM Movement.
You are conflating two separate issues, Pope Francis' reference to consulting the bishops and his motivation for issuing Traditionis Custodes. Whatever was his motivation for issuing the motu proprio, his remarks about the wishes of the episcopate were clearly made to give the impression that the bishops wanted restrictions on the traditional Mass. This was false.
Your comments about the TLM Movement being at war with the Council only goes to highlight my point about the liturgical revolutionaries accusing those who take issue with the subsequent reforms as rejecting the Council itself. Can you name some go that far, yes. I could also point out some extremist reformers who use the Council to reject established Church teaching. Would it then be fair to use their remarks to reject the Council?
You also fail to acknowledge that those extreme voices that you point to have been formed by 60 years of the false claims that Vatican II mandated the revolutionary changes that came afterwards, and that to reject those changes is to reject the Council itself. It was the radical reformers themselves that set up the dichotomy of revolution or rejection of the Council. But this is a false dichotomy. If it were true, I too would reject the Council as a break with Sacred Tradition. But it is not true. There are many, including the late Pope Benedict, who both accept the Council and also recognize that the post conciliar revolution goes beyond what the Council intended, who seek an interpretation of the Council that is consistent with Church tradition.
How many good men have been denied ordination, or good priest have been marginalized, not because they rejected the Council, but because they rejected the radical interpretation of it? This is one reason that a traditional form of the Novus Ordo is tolerated even less than the old Mass itself. It would put the lie the notion that Vatican II and its subsequent reforms required the revolutionary changes that we have experienced. The way to peace within the Church, one that is based on the truth, is to acknowledge that the TLM Movement is not at war with the Council and can exist in harmony with it. The best way to silence the extreme anti-Vatican II voices is to acknowledge and accept those who see no conflict between the Council and traditional Catholicism. It is not revolution or the rejection of the Council.
17 comments:
With Father McDonald's permission:
Below is an in-depth analysis that pertains to Diane Montagna’s claims related to Pope Francis/Traditionis Custodes:
https://akacatholic.com/diane-montagnas-empty-bombshell/
-- Diane Montagna’s Empty BOMBSHELL
What is remarkable in regard to the article is that Louie Verrecchio, a radtrad amongst radtrads, despises/despised Pope Francis (requiescat in pace).
Highlights:
=======
"According to certain vocal proponents of the Resist-the-Pope movement...Bergoglio’s alleged justification for abrogating Summorum Pontificum was unsupported – in fact, contradicted – by a majority of the bishops’ actual responses.
"A number of commentators on social media are openly stating that the “overall assessment” reveals Bergoglio as a baldfaced liar."
"Those who believe that it does need to go back and reread what Bergoglio actually wrote."
"At this, it should be obvious to readers that Diane Montagna’s BOMBSHELL is more than just an exposé, it is also an editorial, one that – as we shall see rather clearly moving forward – includes opinions that are based on misrepresentations of the readily available facts."
"Does Montagna’s BOMBSHELL clearly indicate that Bergoglio was lying when he wrote in Traditionis Custodes that he “considered the wishes expressed by the episcopate and having heard the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?”
"The answer is no, absolutely not. The overall assessment produced by Ecclesia Dei in no way proves that Bergoglio was lying."
"Even so, Raymond Arroyo felt empowered to declare about the man that he called Holy Father: The justification for Pope Francis rescinding the Traditional Latin Mass was predicated on the lie that the world’s bishops demanded it."
"Go back and scour Traditionis Custodes and the accompanying letter to bishops.
"Nowhere does Francis claim that “the world’s bishops demanded” the abrogation of Summorum Pontificum."
"Neither does the following statement made by Montagna:
"[Francis] told the bishops that he was “constrained” by their “requests” to revoke not only Summorum Pontificum but “all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs” that preceded his new decree.
"This simply isn’t true. What Bergoglio stated in his explanatory letter to the bishops, which I invite you to reread to confirm for yourself, is the following:
"In defense of the unity of the Body of Christ, I am constrained to revoke the faculty granted by my Predecessors. This he said in light of, not survey results or specific requests from bishops, but rather the idea that:
"[There is a] close connection between the choice of celebrations according to the liturgical books prior to Vatican Council II and the rejection of the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the “true Church.”
"No, it cannot be said that the questionnaire results served as the alleged “foundation” for Traditionis Custodes. So, what is?
"Bergoglio was very clear, his decision to suppress the Traditional Latin Mass rested squarely on Vatican Council II, which was mentioned no less than twenty times between Traditionis Custodes and the letter to bishops that accompanied it.
"Francis made it perfectly clear: The Second Vatican Council is the real foundation for Traditionis Custodes."
"So, in the end, Diane Montagna’s BOMBSHELL is empty and devoid of substance, just like the Resist-the-Pope movement itself."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT, as far as I am concerned, Pope Francis had the authority to impose TC on good practicing Catholics and he did not need to justify it. Certainly there are those who say allowing the older Mass goes against Vatican II and Pope Francis held that position. Pope Benedict did not accept that. Catholics are free to take either side because popes and bishops in union with the popes did and do.
But, Pope Francis chose to state that the majority of bishops wanted to abrogate SP. The facts do the support that assertion. Pope Francis stated this specifically in TC. Why? It wasn’t true. He could have omitted it, but chose to state something as true which is verifiably false. Some call that a lie. If you choose to ignore that and call it something else fine. Welcome to the world of President Trump.
Father McDonald outs himself as suffering from TDS, sad. Compared to Clinton, Obama, and Biden, Trump's "lies" look like little fibs.
Wrong! F-. I am Catholic first and a political independent second. President Trump is a narcissistic, pathological liar who does some good things in a pathologically narcissistic world governed by pathological narcissistic leaders of all stripes. No brag, just facts.
So like Pope Francis, you can diagnose a person you never sat down with and analyzed, engage in calumny while breezily ignoring the well documented massive lies of Clinton, Obama, and Biden. Very Catholic indeed
No, any sane person can make that diagnosis. But even pathological, narcissistic liars can do some good things. Are you disagreeing with me on that?
No, a rational, sane person cannot necessarily come to that conclusion. I think a stronger case can be made that Clinton, Obama and Biden were narcissist liars so why are you giving them a pass? Please don’t pull a MT Suit on me
Mark,
I find it a little strange that you would use a Vatican II denier to discredit the views of traditionalists who accept Vatican II. This is especially true since Louie of akaCatholic is being disingenuous about Pope Francis' remarks. He says that Pope Francis was not lying when he said he "considered the wishes expressed by the episcopate and having heard the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith." The impression that is given, as it was intended to do, was that the collective opinion of the episcopate, not that of a minority with it, and that of the Congregation was negative, and that is what impelled Pope Francis to act. But this was false, and deliberately so.
He is also being disingenuous, along with Pope Francis, in equating the Council's desire to reform the Roman rite with its wholesale replacement. Rather, what the Council called for was a modification of the existing rite "where necessary." This was adequately addressed with the reform of 1965. There was no need for a completely new rite, nor is that what the Council called for.
What happened after the Council, however, was that the liturgical revolutionaries instrumentalized the Council to advance an agenda which they could not get approved in the Council hall. They have ever since then accused anyone who has taken reservations with this more radical reform of rejecting the Council. In truth, it is those who have gone beyond the limited reform envisioned by the Council who have actually rejected it. Indeed, they have even rejected the Novus Ordo itself by restricting those legitimate options that would allow for a traditional form of its celebration. The irony of this is that by equating objections to the new Mass with rejecting Vatican II, its is they who have created that rejection by the small number of radical traditionalists who do.
"Pope Francis had the authority to impose TC on good practicing Catholics and he did not need to justify it."
True.
It's not always about what a leader does, but how. The deception just adds an asterik to his papacy. I'd expect this from a dictator, not the leader of Christ's Church. Wait, which did we have?
I am not putting you in the same category as MT. No, you are in the same category as FRMJK. Both of you are political hacks for your particular political party.
Father McDonald, I am glad that we at least agree that Pope Francis (requiescat in pace) had the authority to have issued Traditionis Custodes. There are folks who have insisted that Pope Francis had lacked said authority.
As to your following comment:
"Certainly there are those who say allowing the older Mass goes against Vatican II and Pope Francis held that position."
If that is so, then Pope Francis had an unusual way of having demonstrated that conviction. Pope Francis, for years, had maintained Summorum Pontificum. Following the release of Traditionis Custodes, Pope Francis had exhorted, for example, the FSSP, as well as ICK, to continue to offer the TLM.
In addition, Pope Francis, from his days in Argentina, until his having fallen asleep in the Lord, had treated the SSPX in wonderful fashion.
Anyway, Father McDonald, thank you for your reply.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald,
I am no political hack, what I post here is largely to pull K's chain.
You are exercising clericalism; you refuse to answer a simple question. As I have stated, you can make a far better case that Clinton, Obama, and Biden are narcissistic liars, but you refuse to address that. When you make statements about President Trump, you remind me of the typical CNN or MSNBC viewer, impervious to facts. Trump is truly standing up for ordinary Americans, which even traditional Democratic pundits will acknowledge; in stark contrast to the three I named who were stuffing their pockets as part of being in "public service." Harry Truman called those types crooks.
Something sinister happened to Pope Francis to do what he did with TC, perhaps dementia. At any rate, heterodox left Catholics stated Pope Benedict had no authority to issue SP.
Anthony said..."it is those who have gone beyond the limited reform envisioned by the Council who have actually rejected it."
"Indeed, they have even rejected the Novus Ordo itself by restricting those legitimate options that would allow for a traditional form of its celebration."
Anthony, in line with your above comments, as holy Pope Benedict XVI had made clear, the folks who plied us with the "Council of the media," the fake Council, rejected Vatican II.
Therefore, Anthony, thank you for your comments in question.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anthony said..."This is especially true since Louie of akaCatholic is being disingenuous about Pope Francis' remarks."
Anthony, we disagree about that.
As Louie had noted: "Go back and scour Traditionis Custodes and the accompanying letter to bishops. Nowhere does Francis claim that “the world’s bishops demanded” the abrogation of Summorum Pontificum."
Pope Francis, as Louie had stated, had very much based Traditionis Custodes upon the war that the TLM Movement has long waged against the Council.
Father Gommar DePauw, who, during the early 1960s, had founded the Traditional Catholic Movement, had waged war against the Council. From there, Archbishop Lefebvre/SSPX had continued said war.
Peter Kwasniewski, New Catholic (Rorate Caeli), The Remnant — on and on within the TLM Movement — the war against Vatican II has continued.
Bishop Schneider, Archbishop Viganò, Father James Altman, are among those who have attacked the Council.
There are folks here who have claimed that their attacks against the Council, as well as the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI, have long constituted mainstream thought within the TLM Movement.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas,
You are conflating two separate issues, Pope Francis' reference to consulting the bishops and his motivation for issuing Traditionis Custodes. Whatever was his motivation for issuing the motu proprio, his remarks about the wishes of the episcopate were clearly made to give the impression that the bishops wanted restrictions on the traditional Mass. This was false.
Your comments about the TLM Movement being at war with the Council only goes to highlight my point about the liturgical revolutionaries accusing those who take issue with the subsequent reforms as rejecting the Council itself. Can you name some go that far, yes. I could also point out some extremist reformers who use the Council to reject established Church teaching. Would it then be fair to use their remarks to reject the Council?
You also fail to acknowledge that those extreme voices that you point to have been formed by 60 years of the false claims that Vatican II mandated the revolutionary changes that came afterwards, and that to reject those changes is to reject the Council itself. It was the radical reformers themselves that set up the dichotomy of revolution or rejection of the Council. But this is a false dichotomy. If it were true, I too would reject the Council as a break with Sacred Tradition. But it is not true. There are many, including the late Pope Benedict, who both accept the Council and also recognize that the post conciliar revolution goes beyond what the Council intended, who seek an interpretation of the Council that is consistent with Church tradition.
How many good men have been denied ordination, or good priest have been marginalized, not because they rejected the Council, but because they rejected the radical interpretation of it? This is one reason that a traditional form of the Novus Ordo is tolerated even less than the old Mass itself. It would put the lie the notion that Vatican II and its subsequent reforms required the revolutionary changes that we have experienced. The way to peace within the Church, one that is based on the truth, is to acknowledge that the TLM Movement is not at war with the Council and can exist in harmony with it. The best way to silence the extreme anti-Vatican II voices is to acknowledge and accept those who see no conflict between the Council and traditional Catholicism. It is not revolution or the rejection of the Council.
TJM:
You are either completely deluded or deliberately misrepresenting the truth yourself in your role as a MAGA operative:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements_by_Donald_Trump
Res ipsa loquitur. Case closed.
Mark J.
Post a Comment