John XXIII’s allocution to participants of the 1960 International Thomistic Congress outwardly praises the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas, extols Leo XIII’s Thomistic program, commends the study of Aquinas’ moral doctrine, and links Thomistic moral principles to the preparation and hoped-for fruits of the then-upcoming Vatican II, especially “the triumph of the peace of Christ in the kingdom of Christ” and concord among peoples through moral formation and caritas. Beneath this apparently pious homage to St. Thomas, the text strategically subordinates immutable doctrine to an irenic, horizontal, conciliar agenda, weaponizing the Angelic Doctor as a façade for the coming revolution of Vatican II and thus corrupting both his name and his doctrine.
Thomism as a Mask for the Coming Revolution
The key to this allocution is not what it quotes from St. Thomas, but what it systematically refuses even to approach.
The speaker:
– Applauds the Academy for fidelity to norms given by Leo XIII and “confirmed” by later occupants.
– Emphasizes Aquinas’ philosophy and moral theology as a secure foundation.
– Points to three themes of the congress: moral foundations and aids, the rights of truth, and the concept of labor.
– Presents himself as “supreme teacher of the faith,” and connects Thomistic moral reflection to the preparation for Vatican II and to “peace” and “unity” in truth and charity.
– Repeats Pius XI’s “pax Christi in regno Christi” as a program, presenting his own pontificate as continuation.
– Calls for wider diffusion of Thomistic doctrine, adapted in language and pedagogy to modern mentality.
– Bestows his “Apostolic Blessing.”
On the surface, nothing seems amiss. But judged by integral Catholic doctrine prior to 1958—the only legitimate criterion—this text reveals a characteristic neo-church tactic: invoke the greatest exponents of Tradition in order to neutralize them, distort them, and enlist them into a project fundamentally opposed to their teaching.
Instrumentalizing St. Thomas Against St. Thomas
At the factual and theological level, the allocution:
– Correctly acknowledges Aquinas as Doctor communis and praises his harmony with Revelation, Fathers, and right reason.
– Affirms that Thomistic morals are ordered to man’s supernatural end.
– Cites Pius XI’s encyclical Studiorum ducem on Thomistic moral theology as the guide of human acts towards the supernatural end.
– Connects all this with the “expectation” and “preparation” of Vatican II.
Here lies the decisive perversion: the allocution uses traditional vocabulary in order to smuggle in a future rupture.
According to Pius XI in Quas primas, true peace can only exist under the open, public, social kingship of Christ; states must submit their laws, education, and public life to His reign. Here, the phrase “peace of Christ in the kingdom of Christ” is invoked, but its concrete doctrinal content—condemnation of religious indifferentism, liberalism, secular “rights,” and the separation of Church and State as set forth in the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX—is entirely evacuated.
– There is no reaffirmation that the Catholic religion alone has rights in public law (Syllabus, prop. 77–80 condemned).
– There is no warning against the Masonic dethronement of Christ from civil legislation, denounced repeatedly before 1958.
– There is no reminder that pax Christi presupposes the submission of societies to Christ the King, not vague humanitarian consensus.
Instead, the allocution:
– Frames Thomistic principles as an instrument to achieve “consensus and unity” among “students of truth and charity” and “multiplex and rich fruits of peace” for the whole world—precisely the idiom that would be used to justify ecumenism, collegiality, and religious liberty at Vatican II and afterward.
This shift from confessional clarity to “consensus” language is not accidental; it is the linguistic preparation for the conciliar betrayal. It presents St. Thomas as if his immutable metaphysics could serve as a philosophical chassis for a program that would include:
– Doctrinal relativization in “dialogue” with heretics and pagans.
– The practical abandonment of the Syllabus’ condemnations.
– The erasure of the absolute duty of states to worship Christ according to the Catholic religion.
Aquinas is not a theorist of “consensus,” but of objective truth and of the duty to reject and extirpate error. To enlist him in a conciliar project aimed at reconciliation with liberalism and modern civilization is a grotesque inversion.
The Soft Rhetoric of Subversion: Linguistic Symptoms of Apostasy
The allocution’s language betrays its deeper intention.
1. Pious ambiguity:
– Frequent appeals to “caritas,” “peace,” “unity,” “consensus” are left undefined and detached from the pre-1958 doctrinal framework that gives them meaning.
– The formula pax Christi in regno Christi is cited, but without restating that this entails, among other things, the rejection of:
– Religious indifferentism (Syllabus 15–18).
– Separation of Church and State (Syllabus 55).
– Liberal notions of press, worship, and opinion freedoms (Syllabus 79–80).
– The omission itself functions as a practical reinterpretation: peace and kingdom become psychological and sociological, not juridical and doctrinal.
2. Horizontalization:
– Repeated emphasis that Thomistic moral studies will help “the whole world,” “human society,” labor relations, rights and duties, etc., in terms that easily merge into purely naturalistic social ethics.
– The supernatural is not denied verbally, but it is backgrounded, thinned out into generic “eternal happiness,” without the sharp accents of:
– Necessity of the true Faith.
– State of grace.
– Reality of hell for those outside the Church or rejecting her doctrine.
– This silence is decisive: what is not preached is soon not believed.
3. Bureaucratic optimism:
– Typical pre-conciliar-modernist tone: everything is “promising,” academic congresses are of “great importance,” labor questions will be solved by moral dialogue, and from Thomistic studies a beneficent “consensus” will be born.
– There is no sense of the apocalyptic struggle against the “synagogue of Satan” and Masonic sects described by Pius IX in the Syllabus context, nor of the modernist infiltration condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi and Lamentabili sane.
– To speak in 1960 as if the primary task is to refine moral questions for “consensus” rather than to unmask the ongoing modernist conspiracy is already an abdication.
Linguistically, this is the rhetoric of transition: using venerable names (Leo XIII, Pius XI, Aquinas) to anesthetize resistance while shifting the axis from militant doctrinal clarity to conciliatory, humanistic discourse.
Silence as Confession: What the Allocution Refuses to Say
From the perspective of the integral Catholic faith, the most damning element is not an explicit heresy; it is the systematic omission of the essential supernatural and militant dimensions of the moral and social order.
Consider what is absent:
– No clear affirmation that:
– Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation in the strict sense traditionally taught.
– The freedom to profess “any religion” is an error condemned by the Magisterium (Syllabus 15).
– False religions are not “paths” to God but instruments of deception.
– No denunciation of:
– Modernist exegesis and theology already condemned in Lamentabili and Pascendi, which by 1960 were ravaging seminaries and universities.
– Masonic and secular powers persecuting the Church, as exposed by Pius IX and Leo XIII.
– The advance of socialism, communism, and laicism as intrinsic enemies of Christ’s kingship, beyond generic nods to moral formation.
– No insistence on:
– The duty of temporal rulers to submit to the Church of Christ, as taught by Pius XI in Quas primas and by the constant pre-1958 Magisterium.
– The juridical and political dimension of Christ’s kingship: that states sin gravely if they refuse to recognize the true religion and legislate against it.
– No warning that:
– Attempts to reconcile the Church with liberalism and modern civilization as autonomous from God were solemnly condemned (cf. Syllabus, prop. 80 condemned).
– Any “peace” constructed on religious relativism and democratic dogmas is illusory and anti-Christian.
This silence is not innocent. In the moral realm, qui tacet consentire videtur (he who is silent is seen as consenting). By addressing experts on Aquinas, on the eve of the Council, and omitting the burning doctrinal battle lines drawn by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII, the speaker effectively disarms Thomism and prepares it to be enlisted in the conciliar enterprise.
Thomistic Ethics Bent Toward Conciliar “Consensus”
The allocution makes a central move: it claims that the treatment and solution of moral questions, according to Aquinas’ principles, will serve to:
– Foster “consensus and unity” among “studiosi veritatis et caritatis.”
– Produce “multiple and rich fruits of peace” for the Church and the whole world.
– Contribute to the triumph of “Christian peace in the kingdom of Christ.”
At first glance, this seems unobjectionable. But examined in the light of subsequent conciliar and post-conciliar developments (which were already being prepared in these years), the logic becomes evident:
1. Redefinition of “consensus”:
– In the pre-1958 Magisterium, unity is essentially:
– Unity in the one true faith.
– Unity in submission to the Roman Pontiff and the traditional Magisterium.
– “Consensus” is not a process, but the effect of objective truth embraced and error rejected.
– Here, “consensus” is presented as something that arises from academic and moral dialogue among “seekers of truth and charity,” anticipating the conciliar myth of a “People of God” discovering itself and converging in dialogue, rather than obeying defined doctrine.
2. Moral theology as ecumenical solvent:
– By emphasizing moral questions (labor, rights, duties, social order) and their Thomistic treatment, the allocution sets the stage for:
– An ethics-centered ecumenism, where different confessions “cooperate” on moral and social issues while doctrinal divisions are bracketed.
– The horizontal shift later concretized in documents that promote “human dignity,” “religious liberty,” “human rights,” often detached from the obligation to adore the true God in the true Church.
– This is the embryo of the neo-church’s social religion: natural-law language manipulated to legitimize a pluralistic, religiously neutral public order—the precise opposite of Quas primas and of Thomistic political theology.
3. Misappropriation of Thomistic teleology:
– The allocution verbally admits that Aquinas orients man to a supernatural end.
– Yet it refrains from drawing the necessary consequence: that societies and states also must be ordered to this end through the public profession of the Catholic faith and submission to the Church.
– Thomistic law doctrine (eternal, natural, human, divine) is gutted; only a vague moralism remains, ripe for recasting as “universal values” compatible with religious pluralism.
In short, Thomistic moral theology is invoked but not applied. It is cited, not followed. It is displayed as a relic while the living substance is replaced with conciliar ideology.
Continuity Rhetoric as Cover for Doctrinal Rupture
A persistent tactic of the conciliar sect is to appeal to continuity while preparing rupture. This allocution is an early and pure specimen.
– It praises Leo XIII, Pius XI, and the Angelic Doctor.
– It cites “peace of Christ in the kingdom of Christ.”
– It boosts Thomistic studies, calls for clear and modern expression.
But it never:
– Reasserts the condemnation of liberalism, democracy absolutized, false freedoms, or modernist exegesis.
– Warns against the very tendencies that Vatican II would later institutionalize: collegiality, false ecumenism, religious liberty, biblical relativism.
This is not innocent oversight; it is a deliberate change of emphasis functioning as practical denial.
Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief). Similarly:
– Lex loquendi, lex credendi: the law of discourse reveals belief.
– When an alleged “supreme teacher” speaks of peace, caritas, consensus, labor, rights, Thomism, Vatican II, and never once unsheathes the sword of prior condemnations, he effectively signals a new religion—even if words like “Aquinas” and “peace of Christ” are sprinkled through the text.
Integral Catholic doctrine holds: veritas non mutatur (truth does not change). The Syllabus and Pascendi are not museum pieces; they bind consciences until the end of time. Any “preparation” for a council that refuses to echo these condemnations is already in rebellion.
Symptomatic Fruit: From Thomistic Congress to Conciliar Decomposition
Seen from the symptomatic level, this allocution illustrates the inner logic of the conciliar revolution:
1. Co-opting authority:
– Invoke Aquinas as banner while neutralizing his militancy against error.
– Cite Leo XIII and Pius XI selectively, omitting their anti-liberal teeth.
– Use the language of tradition as a smokescreen.
2. Transition from dogma to process:
– Replace the clear opposition Church/error with “students of truth and charity” journeying toward “consensus.”
– Prepare the way for a council that will redefine “the People of God,” “freedom,” “ecumenism,” and “dialogue” in contradiction to prior teaching, while claiming continuity.
3. Moralism without conversion:
– Reduce the great supernatural drama—grace, sin, sacrifice, judgment—to social ethics, labor justice, mutual rights and duties.
– Silence about the Most Holy Sacrifice as propitiation, about the necessity of the sacraments in the state of grace, about eternal punishment, opens the door to a religion of humanitarianism and earthly “peace.”
4. Academic Thomism as camouflage:
– Encourage Thomistic studies “adapted” in language and method to modern mentality.
– Under this pretext, an army of neo-thomists will reinterpret Aquinas through Kant, Hegel, phenomenology, historicism, effectively disarming his metaphysics and legitimizing doctrinal evolution.
All these trajectories are present in germ in this allocution. What follows in the conciliar and post-conciliar epoch—religious liberty, ecumenical relativism, liturgical devastation, glorification of “human rights,” practical denial of Christ’s social kingship—is not an accident; it is the harvest of the seeds sown precisely in such texts.
The Gravity of the Silence: Supernatural Realities Expelled
From the integral Catholic viewpoint, the single most serious indictment is the allocution’s near-complete neglect of concrete supernatural and eschatological realities:
– No insistence that:
– Mortal sin destroys charity and excludes from the kingdom of God.
– The moral order is inseparable from the dogmatic order; to deny dogma is itself gravely immoral.
– Heresy, indifferentism, and religious liberalism are sins crying to heaven for vengeance upon nations.
– No call to:
– Penance and reparation.
– Militant defense of the true Faith against the errors condemned in Lamentabili and the Syllabus.
– Restoration of Christ’s effective kingship over constitutions, laws, schools, and courts.
Instead, the speaker speaks as a benevolent manager of academic and moral projects, confident that conferences and Thomistic “reflection” will yield peace.
This is practical naturalism:
– Grace, sin, redemption, sacrifice become decorative background.
– Human collaboration, intellectual exchange, and “charity” (understood sentimentally) become salvific mechanisms.
– The supernatural order is acknowledged verbally but evacuated from actual governing logic.
Such silence in 1960, at the summit of a structure already penetrated by modernists condemned by St. Pius X, should be read as confession: the conciliar sect is gestating.
Conclusion: Anodyne Words as Architecture of Apostasy
Under examination by the unchanging doctrine of the pre-1958 Church, this allocution is not a harmless academic courtesy. It is a programmatic text that:
– Exploits St. Thomas’ authority while refusing his militancy against error.
– Invokes “peace of Christ” while preparing to reconcile with the very liberalism, ecumenism, and religious freedom condemned by prior popes.
– Speaks of moral theology and the supernatural end, yet evacuates concrete warnings about heresy, modernism, Freemasonry, and the duty of states and individuals to submit publicly to Christ the King and His one true Church.
– Exalts “consensus and unity” among seekers of truth and charity, prefiguring the conciliar replacement of doctrinal clarity with a perpetual process of dialogue.
– Masks the impending revolution of Vatican II under phrases stolen from authentic Magisterium, thereby enlisting Thomism as camouflage for the construction of the conciliar sect.
Non licet (it is not permitted) to twist the Angelic Doctor into an apostle of conciliar aggiornamento. The allocution’s omissions, ambiguities, and horizontal optimism, read in continuity with the pre-1958 condemnations of liberalism and modernism, expose it as an ideological preparation for systemic apostasy.
True fidelity to St. Thomas and to the perennial Magisterium demands the exact opposite of what this text effects:
– Reassertion of the absolute, exclusive rights of Christ the King and His Church, in private and public order.
– Uncompromising rejection of liberal, ecumenical, and modernist novelties.
– Clear proclamation that any “peace” not built on doctrinal truth and public submission to Christ is a deception and an offense against God.
The allocution’s gentle words are, in reality, a subtle architecture for the dethronement of Christ the King in favor of the coming religion of man—the very “abomination of desolation” that would occupy holy places under the name of renewal.
Source:
Ad iis qui interfuerunt Conventui V ex omni natione, a Pontificia Academia Thomasiana Romae coatto, d. 16 m. Septembris, a. 1960, Ioannes PP. XXIII (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025