The Latin text records a secret consistory held on 16 January 1961 under John XXIII: formal transfer of the Camerlengo’s insignia, an allocution surveying global anxieties and hopes, insistence on “peace” and international solidarity, praise for episcopal and lay collaboration, optimistic references to the preparation of the coming ecumenical council, and the creation of four new cardinals from different nations to reflect the universality of the “Church.” Beneath the courteous curial prose, this allocution manifests the programmatic displacement of the supernatural mission of the Church by a horizontal, naturalistic, pseudo-pastoral agenda that would soon crystallize into the conciliar revolution.
Conciliar Sentimentality as Preludium to Systemic Apostasy
Elevation of a Usurper: The Source of Juridical and Doctrinal Nullity
From the outset we are dealing with an allocution of John XXIII, the first in the line of usurpers enthroned since 1958. This is not a neutral datum; it is the key to understanding the entire text. A man publicly committed to convening an aggiornamento council, praising “modern man,” and softening doctrine speaks here with the exterior trappings of papal authority while undermining the very theological foundations that a true Pontiff is bound to defend.
Integral Catholic theology prior to 1958, as synthesized by St. Robert Bellarmine, classical canonists, and reiterated in anti-modernist magisterium, establishes a principle: *manifest heresy severs one from the Body of the Church; a non-Christian cannot be Pope*. The Defense of Sedevacantism file correctly recalls Bellarmine’s axiom that a manifest heretic, having placed himself outside the Church, *ipso facto* cannot hold jurisdiction or be head of the Church. This is no “private opinion,” but theologically normative reasoning grounded in the nature of the Church as a visible society of one faith.
Thus, every act of governance, every consistory, every “creation of cardinals” performed by such an intruder is deprived of true ecclesial authority. When the allocution states solemnly:
“Itque auctoritate Omnipotentis Dei, Sanctorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli ac Nostra creamus et publicamus S. R. E. Cardinales…”
(“And so by the authority of Almighty God, of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul and Our own, We create and publish as Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church…”)
we are confronted with a sacrilegious appropriation of divine and apostolic authority. A man who inaugurates and blesses the conciliar subversion claims to speak *ex cathedra morum*, while in reality he functions as the mouthpiece of that paramasonic structure later known as the “Church of the New Advent.” The allocution’s theological weight is therefore not that of the Catholic Magisterium, but of a programmatic blueprint of the conciliar sect.
This personal illegitimacy is not a side issue: it explains the entire orientation of the text—its omissions, its rhetoric, its humanist optimism.
Naturalistic Humanism Masquerading as Pastoral Solicitude
On the factual plane, John XXIII paints a world of:
– persecuted Catholics under hostile regimes;
– secularised societies, materialism, moral corruption;
– a universal “desire for peace” threatened by international tensions;
– the hope that prosperous nations will assist poorer ones in justice and solidarity.
At first glance, this may sound like a standard papal concern. Yet the decisive element is what is not said.
1. There is no clear, forceful doctrinal reiteration that persecution is the fruit of public rejection of the Kingship of Christ, condemned by Pius XI in Quas primas, where it is declared that true peace and order exist only when individuals and states submit to Christ the King and His law.
2. There is no recall of the solemn condemnations of modern liberties and indifferentism by Pius IX in the Syllabus Errorum, which explicitly rejects religious indifferentism, the separation of Church and State, and the cult of human “rights” detached from the divine order.
3. There is no mention of the gravest enemy identified by St. Pius X in Pascendi and Lamentabili: the modernist infiltrator within the Church, the “enemies within” already unmasked by Pius X, not primarily external political systems.
Instead, the text slides into a soft humanitarian tone. He laments restrictions on “true freedom” in some nations, and in others he deplores creeping materialism and hedonism. But the root of evil is framed sociologically, not supernaturally; psychologically, not dogmatically. Note the deliberate horizontality when he speaks of nations helping each other:
“fore ut… populi ditiores inopia laborantibus auxilientur, ut potentiores praesidio sint infirmioribus, ut humanitatis commodis instructiores iis nationibus opitulentur…”
(“that richer peoples may help those suffering want, that the more powerful be a protection to the weaker, that those better provided with the benefits of civilization assist the nations which have not yet reached a fitting level of prosperity…”)
This is pure naturalistic internationalism. Every true Catholic approves charity and justice, but a Roman Pontiff must say more: he must assert that nations are bound sub peccato (under pain of sin) to Christ’s social reign, that peace without conversion is an illusion, that “aid” without the true Faith is poisoned. Pius XI emphasised that the crisis of the world comes precisely from having “removed Christ and His law from public life” (Quas primas). Here, John XXIII consciously reframes the crisis as a deficiency of “human solidarity” and “awareness of brotherhood,” not as formal apostasy.
This shift is not accidental; it is the signature of Modernism: *substitution of the supernatural order by an immanentist ethic*.
Linguistic Cosmetics: Sentimentalism Against Apostolic Severity
The linguistic texture of the allocution is revealing.
1. Repeated affective language: “Beatissimo Patri,” “singulari quadam Patris caritate,” “dulcissima mater Ecclesia,” “suavem delectationis fructum,” “Auditui meo dabis gaudium et laetitiam.”
2. Continuous emphasis on “joy,” “hope,” “sweetness,” “suavity,” even when describing a world allegedly on the brink of catastrophic conflicts.
This sugary rhetoric is not innocent. It functions as a psychological preparation for the conciliar aggiornamento. Instead of apostolic clarity—condemnation of errors, calls to penance, insistence on the Four Last Things—the faithful are bathed in paternal sentimentalism. The text explicitly evokes St. Paul’s “to rejoice with them that rejoice, to weep with them that weep” (Rom 12:15), but omits Paul’s equal firmness in anathematizing false gospels (Gal 1:8-9) and warning against wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Contrast this tone with:
– Pius IX’s uncompromising language in the Syllabus and allocutions against liberalism and secret societies.
– St. Pius X’s fierce denunciation of Modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies” in Pascendi and the deadly seriousness of Lamentabili.
– Pius XI in Quas primas, brandishing the Kingship of Christ against secularism, insisting that states must publicly honour Christ or collapse into disorder.
In the allocution at hand, there is no robust doctrinal rhetoric; we find instead bureaucratic curial formulas and diplomatic circumlocutions—typical of a mind more anxious to reassure the world and charm diplomats than to proclaim dogmatic truth.
The language culminates in a kind of horizontal “fraternity”:
“sitque denique omnibus hominibus persuasum se fraterno invicem vinculo coniungi, propterea quod sint filii eiusdem amantissimi Patris, qui in caelis est.”
(“and finally let all men be persuaded that they are joined by a mutual fraternal bond, because they are sons of the same most loving Father who is in heaven.”)
This formula dissolves the dogmatic distinction between children of God by grace (baptism, supernatural adoption) and men as creatures of God. It is a proto–conciliar humanist slogan, anticipating the later cult of “universal brotherhood” that will sacrifice the necessity of supernatural rebirth to a vague paternity of God over all. True doctrine distinguishes: by nature all are creatures; by grace only those in sanctifying grace, in the Church, are sons in the proper sense. The flattening of this distinction is not pastoral—it is doctrinally corrosive.
Silence on the Supernatural: The Most Damning Omission
The gravest accusation is not what is said, but what is systematically silenced.
In an allocution that surveys persecution, moral decay, and the threat of war, there is:
– No call to repentance and conversion to the one true Catholic faith as the unique path of salvation; yet the pre-1958 magisterium (e.g., Pius IX, “no salvation outside the Church” rightly understood) insists on this.
– No stress on the necessity of the *state of grace*, the frequent worthy reception of the sacraments, the horror of mortal sin.
– No reference to Hell, judgment, divine chastisement—in stark contrast to all prior papal teaching in times of grave world crisis (e.g., Pius XI and Pius XII invoking divine justice, reparation, the Sacred Heart).
– No assertion of the Church’s divine right to govern, teach, and sanctify independent of the state, as vigorously defended by Pius IX against liberal states and masonic conspiracies.
The entire supernatural horizon is backgrounded into pious decoration, while the operative core becomes: humanitarian peace, international assistance, “dialogue” implied through gentle tones and appeals to common humanity. This is precisely the “naturalism, laicism, and religious indifferentism” denounced in the Syllabus of Errors.
When Pius XI instituted the feast of Christ the King, he did it explicitly to combat:
– laicism,
– the exclusion of Christ from public life,
– the betrayal of rulers who refuse to honour Christ publicly.
He stated unambiguously that true social peace requires the public recognition of Christ’s royal rights over societies and laws. Here, John XXIII speaks of peace almost exclusively in terms of diplomatic balance and social assistance, omitting the central axiom: *Pax Christi in regno Christi* (the peace of Christ in the kingdom of Christ).
Omission here is not neutral. *Qui tacet consentire videtur* (“He who is silent is seen to consent”)—the silence about the social Kingship of Christ in a context demanding its assertion is itself a doctrinal signal: a preparation for the conciliar enthronement of the “cult of man.”
The Ecumenical Council as Engine of Revolution
The allocution’s fulcrum is the coming ecumenical council. John XXIII presents it as:
“principem… tenet locum Concilium Oecumenicum… ex qua exitum gravissimae huius rei in omni parte felicem sibi spondere liceat. Et merito quidem ac iure ex hoc eventu Christi Ecclesia uberes exspectat fructus: ut nempe veritatis causae inserviat, ut christianae caritatis documentum exhibeat, utque fraternae illius pacis exemplo sit…”
(“in this kind of endeavour the Ecumenical Council holds first place… from which one may rightly hope for a happy outcome in every respect. And deservedly the Church of Christ expects from this event rich fruits: that it may serve the cause of truth, show a testimony of Christian charity, and be an example of that brotherly peace…”)
Key elements of the subversion:
1. The Council is framed more as a “testimony of charity” and “example of fraternal peace” than as a fortress of dogmatic definition against errors. This contradicts the traditional raison d’être of ecumenical councils: to clarify doctrine, condemn heresies, enact disciplinary canons. Pius X’s condemnation of Modernism is nowhere recalled.
2. The rhetoric of “serving truth” is emptied of content: no indication that the Council will solemnly condemn liberalism, communism, ecumenism, religious freedom—all already condemned by previous Popes. Instead, we hear tones that prefigure doctrinal dilution and rapprochement with the world.
3. He emphasizes listening to diverse voices “ex variis terrarum orbis partibus,” rejoicing that they are “rarely discordant,” and all expectant and docile. This is an early trace of democratized ecclesiology: the idea of a “listening Church” adjusting to expectations, precisely the mentality rejected by *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*, which condemn the notion that the Magisterium merely ratifies the “conscience of the faithful.”
The Council, as praised here, is not summoned as Trent or Vatican I were—against specific errors—but as an open “pastoral” event aimed at dialogue and peaceful coexistence. This is quintessential Modernism: *doctrine relativised into pastoral strategy; truth transformed into historical consensus.*
The “Living Image” of the Church: Sociological, Not Supernatural Universality
When announcing the “creation” of new cardinals, the usurper explains his choices:
“itemque ut sacrum Collegium vestrum, quantum fieri potest, quasi viventem Ecclesiae imaginem referat, quae sic ad omnes pertinet populos, ut omnes eadem caritate eodemque studio prosequatur. Quamobrem eos ex variis terrarum orbis regionibus delegimus…”
(“and also that your Sacred College may, as far as possible, represent a living image of the Church, which pertains to all peoples so that it may pursue all with the same charity and zeal. Therefore we have chosen them from various regions of the world…”)
On the surface, emphasizing geographical breadth seems legitimate; the Church is truly catholic. But the underlying rationale has shifted:
– The “image” is primarily sociological—balanced representation of peoples—rather than sacramental and doctrinal: guardians of the one Faith, defenders of tradition, judges of error.
– The criterion is “charity” and “service” in a sense subtly detached from doctrinal intransigence. Nowhere is there an insistence that these men be champions of condemned doctrine (anti-liberal, anti-modernist, anti-ecumenist) as demanded by prior papal teaching.
Moreover, since the “creator” himself is an intruder, these appointments have no canonical standing before God. The entire “college” he constructs is structurally ordered to ratify the conciliar revolution. This is not the continuation of the Roman Church; it is the staffing of an ecclesial simulacrum.
Systemic Fruits of Conciliar Subversion: The Symptomatic Dimension
This allocution is a snapshot taken on the eve of the cataclysm. From the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine, multiple symptoms of the future apostasy are present in nuce:
1. Displacement of the Kingship of Christ:
– Pius XI: Peace only in Christ’s Kingdom; states must publicly honour Christ; secularism is a “plague.”
– John XXIII: Peace through human solidarity, mutual aid, recognition of universal brotherhood—Christ is mentioned, but His binding social rights are functionally silenced.
2. Softening of the Church’s Militancy:
– Pre-1958 Popes: condemn Freemasonry, socialism, liberalism, rationalism, indifferentism, Modernism, religious freedom, false ecumenism.
– This allocution: zero mention of masonic sects, ideological heresies, doctrinal precision; abundant mention of generic “persecutions,” with no analysis of their ideological roots; friendly tone toward a world to be persuaded rather than converted.
3. Emergence of Horizontal Ecclesiology:
– Emphasis on “cooperation” of bishops, priests, religious, laity in a broad pastoral field; no reminder that authority is hierarchical, divine, and that lay initiatives must be strictly subordinated to true doctrine and jurisdiction.
– Proto-democratic language in rejoicing at voices from all parts of the world regarding the Council.
4. Subtle Anthropocentrism:
– The focal concern is “mankind,” “peoples,” “nations,” “the community of nations,” “peace of all,” “aid to poorer nations,” with supernatural ends either presupposed or relegated to pious closing phrases.
– This anticipates the later conciliar cult of man, explicitly proclaimed by the conciliar sect, in direct opposition to the God-centred order defended by Pius IX and St. Pius X.
These features are not incidental pastoral nuances; they are the manifest fruits of the modernist infection condemned in Lamentabili and Pascendi: *historicizing dogma, sentimentalizing charity, dissolving the Church into a human community in evolution.*
No Legitimate Remedy Within a Counterfeit Structure
One could attempt to “rescue” this text by reading into it orthodox intentions. Such attempts, typical of those pretending to be traditional Catholics, rely on the condemned “hermeneutic of continuity”: the illusion that the conciliar and post-conciliar novelties can be harmonized with the pre-1958 magisterium by rhetorical acrobatics.
But integral Catholic doctrine rejects this sophism:
– Doctrinal condemnations of religious liberty, of the equation of religions, of state neutrality, of naturalistic humanitarianism are clear and repeated.
– The shift from Christocentric, dogmatic, militant ecclesiology to anthropocentric, dialogical, “pastoral” ecclesiology is a rupture, not a development.
The allocution of 16 January 1961, read in the light of these principles, is not an innocuous curial speech; it is an ideological manifesto in nuce—courting the world, flattering nations, preparing a council that would:
– refuse to condemn communism explicitly,
– endorse religious liberty against the Syllabus,
– enthrone ecumenism and interreligious “dialogue,”
– decentralise doctrine into collegial consensus.
Once one recognizes that a manifest modernist cannot hold the papacy, the conclusion is inescapable: these acts are performed by the head of a parallel structure. The “cardinals” created here are not guardians of apostolic Tradition, but functionaries of the conciliar sect. Their authority, like that of their creator, is null before God, however much juridical form they simulate.
Reassertion of the Only Catholic Alternative
Against this conciliar humanism, one must reassert the pre-1958 Catholic principles:
– *Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus* understood as always taught: salvation only in the one true Church, not in a “universal fraternity” of generic believers.
– The absolute, unrenounceable duty of individuals and states to submit publicly to Christ the King, as taught in Quas primas.
– The condemnation of modern liberties, religious indifferentism, laicism, and ecumenism in the Syllabus and subsequent papal teaching.
– The obligation to reject Modernism in all its forms per Pascendi and Lamentabili.
– The canonical and theological principle that a manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church: non potest esse caput qui non est membrum (“he cannot be head who is not a member”).
By these criteria, the allocution of John XXIII is exposed not as a paternal act of the Vicar of Christ, but as a polished veil cast over a project of doctrinal demolition. Its gentle tones, omissions, and humanitarian emphases are the marks of a paramasonic apparatus at work within the visible structures once Catholic.
True fidelity, therefore, is not found in docile reception of such speeches or in seeking compromise within the conciliar framework, but in adhesion to the integral Catholic faith as taught consistently and vigorously until 1958, in separation from the conciliar sect and its counterfeit hierarchy, and in perseverance in the Most Holy Sacrifice and sacraments preserved where valid orders and doctrine endure.
Source:
Consistorium Secretum, Allocutio Ioannis XXIII, d. 18 m. Ianuarii a. 1961 (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025