Venerable Brothers, the Latin text presented is a brief allocution attributed to John XXIII, delivered at a single consistorium on 15 November 1962, in which he announces with satisfaction the unanimous consent of those present to the canonization of four beatified men (Peter Julian Eymard, Antonio Maria Pucci, Francis Mary of Camporosso, and Vincent Pallotti), praises the spiritual fruits expected from raising them to the altars, recalls the intercessory power of the saints, and links these planned canonizations explicitly with the recently opened Vatican II, asking that their intercession obtain a happy course and abundant fruits for the council. This seemingly pious text is in fact a highly concentrated manifesto of the new cultic and ecclesiological order of the conciliar revolution, in which the authority of the Church is hijacked to manufacture “saints” for the neo-church and to sacralize its apostasy.
Canonizations as the Liturgical Seal of the Conciliar Usurpation
The Strategic Context: A Manufactured “Sanctity” for a Manufactured “Council”
The allocution appears minimalistic: an expression of joy at unanimity, a reminder that canonizations benefit the Church, a reference to the saints as models and intercessors, and a procedural notification of dates. Yet every key element is weaponized.
The decisive lines are those that bind the announced canonizations with the conciliar project:
“…ut, horum etiam Beatorum deprecatione propitiatus, quos paulo post ipsum Concilium Vaticanum II initum Sanctorum infula decoraturi sumus, tribuat et Synodum hanc felici procedere cursu, et ex ea uberrimos percipi fructus.”
English: “…that, appeased also by the intercession of these Blesseds, whom we will adorn with the crown of the Saints shortly after the beginning of this Second Vatican Council, He may grant that this Synod proceed on a happy course and that from it the richest fruits may be received.”
Here the essential claim emerges:
– The new “saints” are explicitly instrumentalized as celestial legitimation for Vatican II.
– The supernatural authority historically associated with canonizations is being diverted from the perennial Magisterium to confirm a new, revolutionary agenda.
From the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine prior to 1958 (the only secure norm), this is not a neutral liturgical act. Canonizations are presented by earlier theologians and popes as acts of the Church’s supreme teaching authority, closely bound up with infallibility, because they propose to the universal Church a person as a model of virtue and worthy of public veneration. If this supreme act is attached to, and made a guarantor of, a “council” which:
– enthrones religious liberty,
– promotes false ecumenism,
– dilutes the rights of Christ the King over states,
– relativizes the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation,
then we are witnessing an inversion of ends: sanctity is no longer a luminous confirmation of the immutable deposit, but a propaganda tool of the conciliar sect.
The allocution is thus a liturgical and rhetorical maneuver: to wrap the nascent revolution in the mantle of apparently traditional devotions, Eucharistic piety, charity, and apostolic zeal—while silently disconnecting all of this from the dogmatic, anti-liberal, anti-modernist teaching solemnly reaffirmed by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, and Pius XI.
Factual Level: Selective Use of Holiness to Anoint a New Religion
Key factual elements:
– John XXIII affirms that canonizations bring “much benefit” to the Church, because she shows her sons glorified in heaven and finds in them intercessors and models of life.
– He names four Blesseds, known for Eucharistic devotion, pastoral charity, popular apostolate.
– He fixes canonical dates: 9 December 1962 (Eymard, Pucci, Camporosso), 20 January 1963 (Pallotti).
– He explicitly ties their future canonization to the beginning and hoped-for fruits of Vatican II.
None of these points, considered in isolation, is problematic in pre-1958 Catholic theology. The Church indeed:
– honors saints as intercessors and exemplars;
– manifests her perennial fecundity in raising saints;
– may legitimately canonize after due process.
The rupture appears in the intentional contextualization:
1. The timing is doctrinal, not accidental.
– The canonizations are deliberately scheduled “paulo post ipsum Concilium Vaticanum II initum” (“shortly after the beginning of this Council”), turning them into a quasi-sacramental seal of approval for the council’s direction.
2. There is a total silence about the doctrinal battle against modern errors.
– No mention of the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX.
– No echo of Lamentabili sane exitu or Pascendi Dominici gregis of St. Pius X, although modernism—explicitly condemned as “the synthesis of all heresies”—was already resurging among the periti and “theologians” of the council.
– No explicit affirmation of the social Kingship of Christ as defended by Pius XI in Quas Primas, especially against the secularist laicism which the council would soon befriend under the guise of “religious freedom.”
3. The allocution reduces the role of the saints to generic intercessors for a “Synod” that is never doctrinally defined in continuity with anti-liberal papal teaching.
– The requested “fruits” are described only in vague, irenic language: “felici procedere cursu,” “uberrimos fructus.” Nowhere is it said that those “fruits” must be:
– the condemnation of modern errors,
– the reaffirmation of the exclusive claims of the Catholic Church,
– the defense of Christ’s rights over peoples and states,
– the protection of the Most Holy Sacrifice against protestantization.
– This ambiguity is precisely the mark of modernism condemned by St. Pius X: doctrines emptied into elastic formulas, capable of being read in both Catholic and liberal sense, while praxis moves irreversibly toward apostasy.
In substance: a formally traditional act (canonization) is presented without its doctrinal backbone and bent into an instrument to consecrate a council that will systematically undermine that backbone. The gesture is factually small and theologically enormous.
Linguistic Level: Pious Vocabulary as the Mask of Programmed Subversion
The language of the allocution is classical and apparently orthodox. It speaks of:
– “Apostolica auctoritate Nostra”
– “in Sanctorum numerum referamus”
– “sanctimoniae per saecula fecundam”
– “deprecatores praesentissimos”
– “norma vivendi”
Yet the rhetoric reveals several symptomatic features:
1. Softness and vagueness where precision is required.
– Rather than stating that the saints are champions of integral Catholic doctrine, defenders of the one true Church and enemies of error, they are presented in sentimental categories: their lives are a “norma vivendi” in general, they help us to “love” the life of heaven, etc.
– There is no combativeness, no sense of the Church Militant, no awareness of wolves within—precisely when modernism is entrenched in seminaries, biblical institutes, and episcopates.
2. Instrumentalization of sanctity.
– The culminating request is not primarily: “that by their intercession the truth of the faith be defended, error condemned, sacraments safeguarded, states subjected to Christ the King,” but that:
“Synodum hanc felici procedere cursu” — “this Synod may proceed happily on its course.”
– Sanctity is linguistically subordinated to the procedural success of a “Synod,” a word that subtly levels an ecumenical council down to a parliament-like assembly.
3. Deliberate omission of the anti-liberal, anti-modernist doctrinal framework.
– The text quotes St. Ambrose and St. Augustine devoutly about the saints as models and about the “way of morals” leading to eternal life, but evacuates their rigor against heresy and their insistence on the uniqueness of the Catholic Church.
– Such selective patristic citation is characteristic of modernists: use the Fathers’ devotional phrases while suppressing their unambiguous exclusivism and doctrinal militancy.
This linguistic strategy corresponds exactly to the modernist technique exposed in Pascendi: preserving “Catholic” words while shifting their content, and wrapping innovation in the fragrance of continuity.
Theological Level: Rupture with the Pre-1958 Doctrine of the Church, Sanctity, and Authority
From the vantage point of the constant Magisterium before 1958, several grave problems surface.
1. The implicit claim: if the “pope” canonizes, the council he crowns is above suspicion.
Classical theology (e.g., theologians widely cited prior to 1958) held that solemn canonizations, as definitive judgments binding the universal Church, enjoy infallible assistance, precisely because:
– they presuppose the Church’s indefectibility,
– they propose universal liturgical cult,
– they declare heroic virtue.
This allocution attempts to exploit that trust: if these figures (associated with Eucharistic devotion, pastoral charity, apostolic zeal) are raised to the altars by John XXIII in organic connection with Vatican II, then Vatican II appears surrounded by an aura of infallible goodness. The premise is:
– “Holy ‘pope’ + holy ‘saints’ + ‘fruits’ of council = divine approval of conciliar aggiornamento.”
But:
– The same pre-1958 theology, the same Fathers, the same councils teach that *manifest heretics and destroyers of the faith cannot wield papal authority*. This is summarized in integral Catholic sources (see, for example, the principles gathered in “Defense of Sedevacantism”):
– A manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church, because he is not a member.
– Jurisdiction is lost ipso facto by public defection from the faith (1917 Code, can. 188.4).
– The Church cannot be bound to errors or to a false cult.
Once John XXIII initiates and sponsors a council that:
– refuses to condemn communism,
– exalts religious liberty against the Syllabus,
– opens a path to ecumenism that relativizes the uniqueness of the Catholic Church,
– inaugurates the transformation of the Most Holy Sacrifice into a protestantized assembly,
he objectively aligns with positions solemnly condemned by Pius IX and St. Pius X. A structure that blesses such a course cannot simultaneously exercise the charism of infallible canonizations in the traditional sense. The allocution presupposes what it is in fact destroying: the indefectible Catholic Church using her authority to give marks of sanctity to her faithful children. In reality, the conciliar sect uses occupied structures to adorn its own image.
2. The saints as “models” severed from the Church Militant and from dogma.
The allocution praises the saints as:
“norma vivendi… ut eam vitam amare, appetere, desiderare discant…”
English: “a norm of living… that they may learn to love, seek, desire that life [of heaven]…”
But what is omitted is deadly:
– No mention that these saints’ “norm of living” includes:
– adherence to the Syllabus,
– rejection of indifferentism,
– confession of the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation,
– defense of the propitiatory character of the Mass,
– submission to the perennial Magisterium.
By isolating virtues (charity, piety, apostolate) from the doctrinal battle and anti-liberal confession that shaped Catholic sanctity in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the allocution transforms them into neutralized icons, equally usable to decorate a modernist “church” which embraces exactly those errors condemned by the pre-1958 popes.
3. The alliance with the very errors solemnly anathematized.
Compare the allocution’s orientation toward Vatican II with the pre-existing magisterial condemnations:
– Pius IX in the Syllabus condemns:
– the separation of Church and State (prop. 55),
– the “reconciliation” with liberalism and modern civilization (prop. 80),
– the notion that all worships may be equally exercised publicly (props. 77–79).
– St. Pius X in Lamentabili and Pascendi condemns:
– the evolution of dogma (props. 58–65),
– subordination of doctrine to historical “needs”,
– democratic and relativist conceptions of religious authority.
– Pius XI in Quas Primas proclaims that peace and order are only possible under the social reign of Christ the King, and explicitly denounces secularism and the dethronement of Christ from public life as the root of modern misery.
The allocution, by asking the intercession of future “saints” specifically for the success and fruits of Vatican II, tacitly aligns their cult with a “council” that will openly contradict or neutralize these condemnations by:
– promoting religious liberty in a sense directly contrary to the Syllabus,
– endorsing an ecumenism that treats heretical and schismatic sects as “means of salvation,”
– shifting the Church’s rhetoric from the rights of God to the rights of man,
– initiating a liturgical revolution that will obscure the sacrificial, propitiatory nature of the Mass.
Thus the theological horror: the traditional concept of canonization is commandeered to put a halo on the very system of errors anathematized by the pre-1958 Magisterium. Such an operation cannot be reconciled with the indefectibility of the true Church; it exposes that the conciliar structure, though clad in Roman vestments, is not exercising the divine promises, but abusing stolen insignia.
Symptomatic Level: This Allocution as a Microcosm of the Conciliar Sect’s Method
This short text illustrates several fundamental pathologies inherent in the post-1958 revolution:
1. Co-opting authentic devotions and figures to corroborate a new religion.
– Eucharistic worship (Eymard),
– pastoral zeal,
– works of mercy,
– missionary apostolate (Pallotti),
are all authentic Catholic elements. The conciliar sect does not abolish them; it empties them of their doctrinal context and repurposes them to decorate its own apostate program:
– A “Eucharistic” rhetoric compatible with a liturgy that dissolves belief in Transubstantiation and Sacrifice.
– A “pastoral charity” that no longer calls souls out of error into the one true Church, but confirms them in false religions “for dialogue.”
– An “apostolate” no longer ordered to the Kingship of Christ over nations, but to the construction of a humanistic “civilization of love.”
This allocution is a model of that method: it takes the language of sanctity and orients it toward the success of Vatican II, thereby insinuating that to oppose the conciliar agenda is to oppose the saints themselves.
2. Silence where the shepherd must raise his voice.
The most damning feature is silence.
At the precise historical moment when:
– communism enslaves nations,
– Freemasonry and “human rights” ideology gut Christian states,
– modernism corrodes seminaries and universities,
– bishops and periti at Vatican II plot to bury the Syllabus, Quas Primas, Pascendi,
this allocution, instead of invoking the saints as defenders of the faith against these errors, mute them and enlists them as patron saints of a “Synod” presided over by those very enemies of integral doctrine.
Silence about:
– the obligation of states to recognize Christ the King (against Quas Primas),
– the mortal danger of liberalism and false religious liberty (against Syllabus),
– the poison of dogmatic evolutionism (against Lamentabili, Pascendi),
– the grave duty to extirpate heresy and modernist theology from the clergy,
is not accidental. It is the silence of complicity. *Qui tacet consentire videtur* (“He who is silent is seen to consent”) in matters where the supreme pastor is bound to speak.
3. The abuse of “apostolic authority.”
“Ipsa Apostolica auctoritate Nostra” is invoked to:
– ratify the consensus of those present,
– promise inscription in the list of saints,
– bless the conciliar process.
Yet apostolic authority is not a magical formula inhering in the man who pronounces it; it is intrinsically ordered to:
– guarding the deposit of faith,
– defending it against novelties,
– sanctifying souls by true sacraments,
– ruling according to Christ’s mandate.
When “authority” is used to:
– protect doctrinal ambiguity,
– legitimate a council which embraces condemned principles,
– canonize in service of an agenda opposed to prior papal teaching,
then this is not the exercise of the authority of Peter, but the abuse of an office occupied by one who objectively collaborates in dismantling the very conditions of infallibility and sanctity. Such an allocution, far from manifesting the serene voice of the Vicar of Christ, reveals the rhetoric of an antipope sacralizing his revolution.
The Public Reign of Christ the King Betrayed Under the Guise of Sanctity
Pius XI taught unequivocally:
– Peace and true order will not come until individuals and states recognize and submit to the reign of Christ the King (Quas Primas).
– The plague of laicism, the denial of Christ’s rights in public life, is the root of modern disorder.
This allocution, situated within the opening of Vatican II, should—if it were Catholic—invoke the saints precisely as intercessors for:
– the restoration of confessional states,
– the subjection of laws and institutions to the Gospel,
– the condemnation of atheistic socialism, Freemasonry, naturalism,
– the triumph of the *Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary* over protestant errors.
Instead, the saints are instrumentalized to pray for the “happy course” and “fruits” of a council that will:
– practically accept pluralism of cults,
– renounce the duty of states to acknowledge the true religion,
– enthrone “religious freedom” understood as a civil right of error,
– dissolve the militant and exclusive claims of the Catholic Church into a dialogical, horizontal “people of God.”
This inversion is monstrous: sanctity, historically the luminous sign of Christ’s Kingship, is now summoned to crown the demolition of that Kingship in the public order.
Exposure of the Spiritual Bankruptcy: A Pious Shell Hiding Systemic Apostasy
When uncovered layer by layer, this short allocution is revelatory:
– On the surface: reverence, saints, intercession, fidelity to Roman forms.
– Beneath: calculated silence, instrumentalization of canonizations, coupling of sanctity with a doctrinally subversive council, abusive invocation of “apostolic authority” to support the conciliar sect.
Its theological and spiritual bankruptcy lies precisely in this duplicity:
– It speaks of saints, but not of their doctrinal combat.
– It invokes intercession, but for the success of a revolution against prior Magisterium.
– It uses patristic citations, but amputates their anti-heretical edge.
– It looks Roman, but serves the paramasonic “Church of the New Advent.”
From the perspective of the integral Catholic faith, such a text cannot be received as an act of the true Church’s Magisterium. It is the rhetoric of an occupying regime that dresses its novelties in the vestments of tradition, counting on the faithful to confuse continuity of words with continuity of doctrine.
The true conclusion is categorical:
– A structure that asks heaven to bless a council against the Syllabus, against Pascendi, against Quas Primas, cannot be the organ through which Christ confirms heroic virtue by infallible canonization.
– A “pontiff” who integrates canonizations into the programmatic legitimation of modernist aggiornamento thereby reveals that his “saints” are, at best, hostages of propaganda and, at worst, constructed icons of a counterfeit cult.
Therefore, the allocution does not manifest the holiness of the Church; it exposes the attempt of the conciliar sect to hijack the Church’s language of sanctity in order to enthrone its own apostasy under the sign of heaven.
Source:
Consistorium unicum, Summi Pontificis Ioannis PP. XXIII allocutio, d. 15 m. Novembris a. 1962 (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025