Recent Posts21
Crisis in the Church / Prevostian Psy-Op Exposed
« Last post by Ladislaus on Today at 05:01:41 PM »So this woman here wrote this article generating a lot of hubub on X, where pseudo-Trads (Trad, Inc.) are all denouncing Bergoglio for lying about the rationale behind Traditionis Custodes.
https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/exclusive-official-vatican-report
Here's what she says ...
She somehow got hold of a docuмent showing that the majority of bishops wanted Ratzinger's Motu to stay in force.
So one Trad, Inc. mouthpiece after another started accusing Bergs of lying.
Well, turns out that Montagna is the liar, and I called her out on X. Not that I'm a fan of Bergoglio in defending him here, but 1) I believe in truth, not lies, even against your enemies and 2) this psy-op needs to be exposed.
Where did Montagna get this docuмent? It was obviously leaked by Prevost. It's a continuation of the psy-op here to make it sound like Prevost will be moving in a Traditionalist direction.
So, if you read what Bergoglio actually said, it's this ...
This is the only place "constrained" appears in the text, and at no point did Bergs indicate that he was constrained BY THEIR REQUESTS.
Not that a Pope has to listen to requests anyway, so I asked the posters if, given that they believe he's a Pope, they don't think he has the authority to ingore even a unanimous requests from all the world's bishops.
We had Arroyo, Lifesite, Zuhlsdorft, and Regina Caeli ... all using the word "lie", accusing Bergoglio of having lied, but at no point did he claim that the majority of bishops wanted Ratzinger's Motu retained. In other words, they are lying about Bergoglio lying.
Having read the entire letter, the closest thing one MIGHT try to interpret that was was later when he said, "responding to your requests", I'm doing this, that, and the other thing. So what? That's neither here, nor there. Perhaps there were 10% requesting this, and his response was to agree with them. If 100% of them requested, it he could still respond to those requests ... with "no". At no point did Bergoglio claim that "the majority of you were clamoring for me to abrogate the Tridentine Mass" or something along those lines.
This is ridiculous. For all that these clowns out there keep asserting that Bergs was a legitimate pope, they don't even bother to verify the claim that he lied, which took me about 10 minutes to look into ... before just blithely spreading around the claim that he lied and expressing their outrage.
This docuмent was almost certainly leaked by Prevost et al. -- as part of the continuing psy-op to make it look like he was taking the Church away from the direction Bergoglio took it, while he appoints bishops who favor women's ordination and various other grave errors.
https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/exclusive-official-vatican-report
Here's what she says ...
Quote
He told the bishops that he was “constrained” by their “requests” to revoke not only Summorum Pontificuм but “all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs” that preceded his new decree.
She somehow got hold of a docuмent showing that the majority of bishops wanted Ratzinger's Motu to stay in force.
So one Trad, Inc. mouthpiece after another started accusing Bergs of lying.
Well, turns out that Montagna is the liar, and I called her out on X. Not that I'm a fan of Bergoglio in defending him here, but 1) I believe in truth, not lies, even against your enemies and 2) this psy-op needs to be exposed.
Where did Montagna get this docuмent? It was obviously leaked by Prevost. It's a continuation of the psy-op here to make it sound like Prevost will be moving in a Traditionalist direction.
So, if you read what Bergoglio actually said, it's this ...
Quote
In defense of the unity of the Body of Christ, I am constrained to revoke the faculty granted by my Predecessors.
This is the only place "constrained" appears in the text, and at no point did Bergs indicate that he was constrained BY THEIR REQUESTS.
Not that a Pope has to listen to requests anyway, so I asked the posters if, given that they believe he's a Pope, they don't think he has the authority to ingore even a unanimous requests from all the world's bishops.
We had Arroyo, Lifesite, Zuhlsdorft, and Regina Caeli ... all using the word "lie", accusing Bergoglio of having lied, but at no point did he claim that the majority of bishops wanted Ratzinger's Motu retained. In other words, they are lying about Bergoglio lying.
Having read the entire letter, the closest thing one MIGHT try to interpret that was was later when he said, "responding to your requests", I'm doing this, that, and the other thing. So what? That's neither here, nor there. Perhaps there were 10% requesting this, and his response was to agree with them. If 100% of them requested, it he could still respond to those requests ... with "no". At no point did Bergoglio claim that "the majority of you were clamoring for me to abrogate the Tridentine Mass" or something along those lines.
This is ridiculous. For all that these clowns out there keep asserting that Bergs was a legitimate pope, they don't even bother to verify the claim that he lied, which took me about 10 minutes to look into ... before just blithely spreading around the claim that he lied and expressing their outrage.
This docuмent was almost certainly leaked by Prevost et al. -- as part of the continuing psy-op to make it look like he was taking the Church away from the direction Bergoglio took it, while he appoints bishops who favor women's ordination and various other grave errors.
This has to be the same wife who defrosts meat on the floor!
