The text presents a semi-public consistory of 30 May 1960 under John XXIII, convened to receive the cardinals’ and bishops’ final opinions on the proposed canonization of “Blessed” John de Ribera, Patriarch of Antioch and Archbishop of Valencia. John XXIII recalls previous stages of the cause, cites alleged “many and undoubted signs of eminent virtue” and “wondrous works above the order of nature,” notes the unanimous favorable judgments, and announces his decision to inscribe John de Ribera into the catalogue of the saints on Trinity Sunday, 12 June 1960, in St. Peter’s Basilica, exhorting prayer that this decree be for God’s glory and the utility of the Christian people. This short text, though outwardly solemn and pious, is a concentrated manifestation of the new, usurping cultic authority that presumes to fabricate “saints” without any guarantee of divine truth and thus prepares the way for the conciliar revolution.

---

Usurped Canonization as Prelude to the Conciliar Dismantling of Sanctity

Canonization Torn from the Foundations of the Unchanging Church

On the factual level, the document is simple: John XXIII describes the post-Tridentine canonical process—investigation by the Sacred Congregation of Rites, discussion in secret and public consistories, unanimous favorable suffrages, and his intention to proceed to the solemn canonization of John de Ribera.

Superficially, such a procedure appears to echo the traditional discipline, elaborated above all from Urban VIII onward, providing moral certitude that a candidate practiced heroic virtue and enjoys the beatific vision. However, this text is dated 1960 and proceeds from John XXIII—first in the line of the conciliar usurpers—at the threshold of the very revolution that would:

– dismantle the theology of the public reign of Christ the King solemnly taught by Pius XI in Quas primas,
– relativize the exclusive salvific claims of the Catholic Church condemned in the Syllabus Errorum of Pius IX,
– undermine dogma and Tradition attacked by St. Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi.

Here we must state the principle that the text carefully conceals: *the authority that proclaims is theologically decisive for the recognition of the act.* If the one acting is not a true Roman Pontiff but a manifest promoter of the conciliar agenda that would soon enthrone religious liberty, false ecumenism, and the cult of man, then his alleged “infallible” acts are deprived of the divine guarantee. The document silently presupposes the legitimacy of John XXIII’s pontificate and of the structures already infiltrated and deformed—precisely the point that cannot be conceded.

The entire rhetorical edifice—speaking of “Spiritus ille, omnis sanctitatis fons et origo,” as if he assisted this act—rests on the unproven and indeed contradicted assumption that the same Spirit guides both the pre-1958 Magisterium and the architects of the conciliar subversion. *Lex orandi, lex credendi*: if the same mouth that soon opens the road to the Council of 1962–1965 claims here to define a model of sanctity, we are obliged to scrutinize this act as part of that program, not as a neutral continuation of Tradition.

Linguistic Masks: Pious Formalism Covering Juridical Violence

The language of the document is deliberately sober, juridical, apparently traditional. Precisely this sobriety is its mask.

Key elements:

– Continuous emphasis on procedure: “sacrum Consilium… legitimis Ritibus cognoscendis… rationum momentis expendit… in Consistorio Secreto… in Consistorio Publico peroratum est”. This formalism is invoked to project continuity.
– Affected humility of John XXIII: he claims awareness of the need for the Holy Ghost, yet insists on following “translaticium morem” (traditional custom), as though mere procedural imitation suffices to guarantee supernatural continuity.
– The central expression: “nulla cuiusquam discrepante opinione… dignum iudicavistis”—no dissenting opinion among those present—presents unanimity as a sort of liturgical acclamation validating the decision.

Yet in reality:

– The unanimity is that of a college already compromised by decades of toleration and advancement of those soft on condemned errors: liberalism, Americanism, ecumenism, and liturgical experimentation.
– The text avoids any concrete, doctrinal exposition of why John de Ribera, precisely as a confessor of the faith, is proposed as a norm for the universal Church in the mid-20th century besieged by Modernism.

The rhetoric is evasive precisely where classical papal acts are doctrinally rich. Compare:

– The robust doctrinal affirmations of Pius XI in Quas primas, insisting that “peace” is impossible without the public, social kingship of Christ, condemning secularism as apostasy.
– The blunt negations listed in the Syllabus (e.g., propositions 15–18, 55–80), where each statement is tied to concrete, named errors.

Here, by contrast, we see pious generalities: “in Dei gloriam,” “solidam christiani populi utilitatem,” without a single explicit doctrinal articulation of sanctity against the reigning contemporary heresies. This is not accidental silence; it is the linguistic hallmark of a new regime that retains the ceremonial husk while emptying it of confessional clarity.

Theological Evasion: Sanctity Without Doctrinal Combat

Traditional canonization is not a decorative gesture; it is a solemn act proposing a concrete life as a sure guide in the unchanging Faith. It is intrinsically doctrinal. Yet this consistory text:

– does not present John de Ribera as a defender of dogma against particular errors;
– does not explicitly tie his cult to the condemnation of the very currents ravaging the Church in the 20th century: Modernism, liberalism, naturalism, indifferentism, masonic sects—unmasked in the Syllabus and by St. Pius X.

Instead, it speaks vaguely of:

– “multa et non dubia excellentis virtutis indicia,”
– “miranda quaedam opera supra naturae ordinem patrata.”

This vague reference to “works above the order of nature” is presented without doctrinal anchoring. From the perspective of pre-1958 theology:

– Miracles and virtues in canonization processes exist to attest not merely personal piety, but the divine confirmation of the Church’s doctrinal authority and cultic decision.
– When the same juridical body is preparing to enthrone principles explicitly condemned—religious liberty, ecumenical parity of false religions, exaltation of “human rights” severed from Christ’s law—appeals to miracles become suspect as a manipulative appropriation of supernatural language for a naturalistic and revolutionary agenda.

St. Pius X in Lamentabili and Pascendi condemns reducing dogma to mutable expressions of religious experience and subordinating supernatural realities to immanentist experience. Here we see the inverse but allied operation: supernatural language is pressed into service to baptize the authority of those who will soon betray immutable doctrine.

The silence is deafening:

– No mention that sanctity is inseparable from firm adhesion to all defined dogmas and to the exclusive claims of the Roman Church.
– No mention of the necessity of the *state of grace*, of flight from mortal sin, of penance, of the Four Last Things (death, judgment, hell, heaven) as the horizon of sanctity.
– No explicit call to resist the encroaching errors Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, and Pius XI had denounced. Instead, the announcement functions as an internal consolidation of a new moral authority.

Silentium de novissimis gravissimum crimen est (silence about the last things is the gravest crime). A so-called pontifical discourse that proposes a new saint to “christifideles” while ignoring hell, judgment, and the doctrinal battles of the age is already a capitulation to naturalism.

Canonical Infallibility Misused: When a Corrupted Authority Cites a Sound Form

Classical theology (e.g., Suarez, Benedict XIV) treats solemn canonizations of a true Pope as infallible regarding the fact that a person is in glory and worthy of universal veneration. But this theological conclusion presupposes:

– a true Roman Pontiff, head and rule of the universal Church;
– his moral certainty based on an honest, rigorously Catholic process;
– absence of manifest heresy and revolution in the magisterial subject.

Here, however, John XXIII stands as the very architect of the council that will, in praxis and doctrine, contradict:

– the condemnation of religious indifferentism (Syllabus 15–18, 77–80),
– the insistence on the Catholic State and the kingship of Christ (Quas primas; Syllabus 55, 77),
– the anti-modernist discipline of St. Pius X.

Principium certum: *Non potest esse caput Ecclesiae is qui non est membrum* (he cannot be head of the Church who is not even a member). St. Robert Bellarmine and the classical theologians (as collected in the file “Defense of Sedevacantism”) affirm that a manifest heretic cannot be Pope; a manifest promoter of condemned doctrines cannot claim the charism of infallibility for his acts.

Thus:

– Even if the procedural form of canonization is externally similar to pre-1958 acts, the substantive condition—true pontifical authority—is lacking.
– The act becomes an assertion of a usurped authority, seeking to extend over the faithful an obligation that God has not bound.

This consistory text, therefore, does not enjoy the theological note presumed by manuals. It is part of a broader paramasonic restructuring of the notion of sanctity: soon the same machinery will “canonize” ecumenical revolutionaries, promoters of religious liberty, and embodiments of the cult of man.

To accept the theological value of this act would be to accept that the same authority can infallibly propose as saints those who embody a praxis diametrically opposed to the papal magisterium before 1958—an absurdity that makes God the author of contradiction. *Deus non irridetur* (God is not mocked).

Sanctity Reoriented Toward the Conciliar Agenda

The document’s core claim is:

“Constituimus ergo Beatum Ioannem de Ribera… ad Sanctorum Caelitum numerum ascribere… eo catholicorum rituum splendore et frequentia, quibus christifidelium animi ad pietatem vehementer permoventur.”

Several elements deserve ruthless unmasking:

1. Sanctity is instrumentalized: the declared aim is to move the faithful emotionally (“to stir to piety”) via ritual splendour, not to arm them doctrinally against modern errors. The emphasis falls on affective impact, perfectly in line with Modernism’s experiential turn.
2. The universal Church is commanded to receive this cult from an authority that will soon systematically:
– relativize the dogmatic condemnations of liberalism and modern civilization,
– enthrone ecumenism and religious liberty in contradiction to the Syllabus,
– remodel worship, sacraments, and catechesis.

Such “saints” are deployed as bricks in the conciliar edifice: an appearance of continuity sanctifying rupture.

In this light, the silence about:

– the social reign of Christ (central in Quas primas),
– the absolute uniqueness of the Catholic Church,
– the duty of rulers and nations to submit to Christ’s law,

is not an accidental omission. It is the advent of a new doctrine dressed in old vestments.

Symptom of the Conciliar Sect: Cult Without Confession

This short text is a microcosm of the conciliar sect’s method:

– Maintain the external forms: consistories, Latin, references to “Spiritus Sanctus,” solemn ritual.
– Gradually hollow out their doctrinal content by:
– avoiding precise condemnations,
– refusing to reassert hard truths offensive to liberal ears,
– shifting emphasis from dogma and the supernatural order to general “usefulness,” “edification,” “unity,” and “pastoral” sentiment.

This is exactly the pattern unmasked by St. Pius X, who condemned:

– the modernist subordination of dogma to religious experience,
– the historicist alteration of doctrine under the pretext of pastoral adaptation,
– the attempt to maintain outward formulae while inverting their meaning.

The consistory’s language—“in Dei ipsius gloriam… in solidam christiani populi utilitatem”—without any doctrinal specification functions as a blank cheque. Under the usurped signature of “Pope,” any cause can be advanced, any pseudo-saint manufactured, provided it serves the overarching project: *to replace the integral Catholic faith with a conciliatory religion of humanity, dialogue, and pluralism*.

Lex orandi, lex credendi: Canonizations reconfigured in this way cease to be luminous confirmations of dogma and become propaganda tools of the neo-church.

No Room for Lay Anarchy: True Authority versus Occupying Structures

One subtle danger must also be exposed. Seeing the evident corruption of post-1958 “canonizations,” some are tempted toward a Protestantized stance: each layman, in isolation, becomes an arbiter of saints, doctrine, and jurisdiction.

This text, while proceeding from an illegitimate authority, retains at least the shell of the truth that:

– the discernment of sanctity, the regulation of public cult, and the exercise of jurisdiction belong to the divinely instituted hierarchy.
– The usurpation by the conciliar sect does not transfer this authority to democratic assemblies, “base communities,” or private judgment. It calls for fidelity to the Church as she existed and taught always and everywhere before the revolution.

The correct conclusion is not lay self-assertion, but:

– adherence to the unchanging Magisterium up to 1958;
– refusal to attribute divine authority to decrees and cults emanating from the post-conciliar paramasonic structure;
– recognition that sacraments and worship outside communion with the integral faith and valid hierarchy are at best illusions and, very often, instruments of idolatry and spiritual deception.

To use the doctrinal arsenal provided by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI against liberalism, naturalism, and masonic infiltration is obedience, not rebellion. Those condemnations—in the Syllabus, Pascendi, Lamentabili, Quas primas—judge the conciliar sect and its “canonizations,” not the other way round.

Conclusion: A Ceremonial Step in the Programmed Erosion of Sanctity

This 1960 semi-public consistory might appear harmless, an edifying moment of traditional papal ceremonial. In truth, read in the light of pre-1958 doctrine and of the subsequent conciliar catastrophe, it reveals:

– a self-assertion of authority by John XXIII precisely as he prepares to unleash doctrinal innovations condemned by his predecessors;
– a use of canonization forms to naturalize his status and to accustom the faithful to accept whatever the emerging conciliar sect would later decree;
– a symptomatic silence on those very truths—exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church, social kingship of Christ, condemnation of liberalism and masonic secularism—most needed in an epoch of apostasy.

The theological bankruptcy lies in invoking the Holy Ghost to seal acts of a regime that would soon enthrone the very errors anathematized by the authentic Magisterium, thereby attempting to conscript divine authority into the service of a human, naturalistic, and paramasonic revolution.

Against this, one must hold immovably to the luminous line of the pre-1958 Church: *only the unchanging, integral doctrine, the same in Trent, Vatican I, the Syllabus, Pascendi, Quas primas, possesses the right to define sanctity and bind consciences; any cult, canonization, or structure erected against this doctrine stands condemned by that very fact (ipso facto) and cannot claim the obedience of the faithful.*

---

Source:
Feria secunda, die XXX mensis Maii anno MCMLX, in consueta Aula Palatii Apostolici Vaticani, Consistorium semipublicum habitum est de Canonizatione Beati Ioannis de Ribera, Patriarchae Antiocheni et A…   (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025