I have no idea whether Montini is in heaven, but he certainly put us all into a liturgical purgatory, if not hell. This was a pope who believed he had the authority to abolish the liturgy of ages and replace it with a rite concocted by Bugnini & Co. Even if his mass was an improvement--and it wasn't, by a long shot--popes don't have the right to do that. It's not their liturgy, it's ours.
Question: why are proponents of Montini's mass so keen to quash free discussion and debate? Is it because deep down they realise his rite is banal and inferior? Is it part of the same authoritarian streak Montini himself exemplified? Is it because they know, but cannot admit to themselves, that Montini's mass violates the instructions of Vatican II? Do they want readers to believe that 'most people' think the same as they do? Are they trying to convince themselves that's the case? Or do they just like to control people?
In any event, here's a couple comments their censors wouldn't publish:
[in response to a post praising Montini's 'diplomatic skills' (!) in picking up Vatican II after John XXIII's death:]
'To this task Montini brought considerable diplomatic skills'--and that's all he could bring. Montini had no pastoral skills; he was born to privilege and never 'smelled of the sheep', for he never served a parish. The closest he came to this was when he was exiled to the see of Milan, where he spent a few years before they let him back into the Curia.
Montini's pontificate was an unmitigated disaster and a shameful exercise in papal aggression. He did what no other pope had ever presumed to do--he abolished the Mass of ages and substituted for it another rite. No pope has the authority to do that. His legacy? Empty pews, empty churches.
(Note: The US Catholic bishops' conference is equally fulsome in their praise of poor Montini. Apparently they too only publish comments that agree with the party line; their inquisitors suppressed a comment that made these same points.)
[in response to a post likening the current 'synod on the family' to Vatican II:]
The big difference between this synod and Vatican II: it's one thing for a bunch of celibate males to come together and draft documents about religious liberty or scripture, or to make (very modest) proposals on liturgical tweaks. It's another thing for a bunch of (purportedly) celibate males--of which a huge proportion are homosexuals, certainly far more than would be predicted from the homosexual prevalence in the general population--pontificating to us about 'the family.' Give us a break, please.