Vatican II’s usurper John XXIII, in this allocution of 8 March 1962 to the members and consultors of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, congratulates them on their work in preparing the Council, praises their “charity” toward non-Catholics, recalls his motu proprio Superno Dei Nutu establishing this Secretariat, invokes “unitarian” hopes of all who bear the Christian name, and extends this horizon even to all “upright and God-fearing” men who, knowingly or not, are said to contribute to the coming of God’s Kingdom; he endorses juridical norms to respond to “pastoral needs,” cites with calculated selectivity a closing discourse of Trent to give traditional varnish to his initiative, and ends with blessings on the Secretariat’s ecumenical labors. In reality, this short text is a programmatic manifesto of a new, naturalistic and irenic religion: a dismantling of the exclusive claims of the Catholic Church and a preparation of the paramasonic “Church of the New Advent” that will enthrone man instead of Christ the King.
John XXIII’s Ecumenical Secretariat as Laboratory of Systemic Apostasy
The Fundamental Perversion: From Conversion to “Dialogue” and Reciprocal Courtesies
John XXIII addresses those charged with preparing the so‑called Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. From the outset, the entire allocution presupposes and blesses an ecumenical paradigm unknown to and condemned by the pre‑1958 Magisterium.
Key elements in his discourse:
– He frames the Secretariat as an expression of “love” and “benevolence” toward those “decorated with the Christian name” yet separated from the Apostolic See.
– He recalls Superno Dei Nutu, where he instituted this “peculiaris Coetus seu Secretariatus” precisely so that separated groups could “follow the work of the Council” and “more easily find the way to unity.”
– He extends cooperation to “all upright and God-fearing men” everywhere, who “in some way, knowingly or unknowingly, contribute to the coming of God’s Kingdom.”
– He presents the Secretariat’s activities as consonant with Christ’s words and Passion and concludes with approbation and a prayer for success.
Behind the soft, pious vocabulary lies a radical inversion of Catholic ecclesiology:
1. The Catholic doctrine: The Mystical Body of Christ is identical with the Catholic Church; outside of it there is no salvation rightly sought; “unity” means return to the one true Church through supernatural conversion, faith, and submission to the Roman Pontiff.
– The Council of Florence (Decree for the Jacobites) teaches that the Holy Roman Church “firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church… can have eternal life.”
– The Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX solemnly condemns the propositions that “every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true” (prop. 15) and that man may “in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation” (prop. 16), as well as the indifferentist notion that Protestantism is a form of the same true religion (prop. 18).
2. John XXIII’s allocution undermines this by:
– Treating “those decorated with the Christian name, but separated from this Apostolic See” not as objectively in grave error needing conversion, but as dialogue partners whose presence at the Council must be eased by institutional innovation.
– Suggesting that the Secretariat’s existence is itself an act of “love and benevolence” that facilitates unity, subtly shifting unity from dogmatic submission to affective rapprochement and procedural inclusion.
– Evoking all “upright and God-fearing men” as cooperators in the coming of God’s Kingdom “aliquo modo, scientes aut inscii” (“in some way, knowingly or unknowingly”), a phrase that, in context, functions as a theological solvent: it blurs the supernatural boundaries of the Church and prepares for the later cult of humanitarianism and religious liberty.
This is not accidental language. It codifies the core of the conciliar sect’s false ecumenism: the replacement of the imperative of conversion with the myth of a pre-existing, fragmented “Christianity” journeying together. It contradicts the integral Catholic teaching exemplified by Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, which explicitly condemns the idea that unity is to be achieved by conferences and federations among divided “churches.” The allocution is a direct stepping-stone toward precisely what Pius XI branded illicit and gravely dangerous.
Linguistic Softening as Instrument of Doctrinal Neutralization
The style of the allocution is not a secondary matter; it is the message. The rhetoric is carefully crafted to anesthetize dogmatic clarity.
1. Sentimental flattery:
– John XXIII speaks of the Secretariat’s “christian prudence and singular charity,” of their labors harmonizing with “the words of our Lord Jesus Christ,” etc. No doctrinal criteria are articulated. The measure of their activity becomes “charity” detached from the demands of objective truth; this is the typical modernist inversion condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, whereby charity is weaponized to erode dogma.
2. Ambiguous universalisms:
– The phrase about “vehemens spiritualis originis ventus” sweeping East and West, stirring expectations among “those decorated with the Christian name,” evokes a vague pneumatological romanticism, not the precise language of the Church Militant calling separated heretics and schismatics to return. The wind imagery suggests an anonymous “Spirit” beyond concrete Catholic preaching and law.
3. Subtle dilution of the Church’s uniqueness:
– By linking the Secretariat’s purpose to helping others “follow the Council’s labors” and find a “way to unity,” he tacitly implies that unity is not already objectively and exclusively possessed by the Catholic Church, but is in some sense a future achievement to be jointly sought. This stands in stark contrast to the dogmatic statements that the Church already is the one true Church, to which others must conform.
4. Humanistic praise of “upright men”:
– The extension to “all upright and God-fearing men” as cooperators in the Kingdom’s advent—without explicit subordination to Christ and His Church—is a proto-Quas Primas inversion: Pius XI teaches that “the hope of lasting peace will not yet shine upon nations as long as individuals and states renounce and do not wish to recognize the reign of our Savior” and demands the public reign of Christ the King over societies. John XXIII’s vague praise leaves earthly virtues floating without the juridical, doctrinal subjection to Christ’s Kingship.
The language thus functions as a dissolvent: it replaces *dogmatic unicity* with *pastoral inclusivity*, *juridical clarity* with *affective rhetoric*, and *missionary command* with *dialogical suggestion*. This is *lex orandi, lex credendi* inverted in nuce.
Theological Betrayal: Ecumenical Secretariat versus De Fide Ecclesiology
Measured strictly by pre‑1958 magisterial doctrine, the Secretariat John XXIII exalts is a structural denial of core Catholic truths.
1. The true principle:
– *Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus* (Outside the Church there is no salvation) is not a museum piece but a dogmatic axiom.
– The Church is a *perfect society* (societas perfecta), divinely constituted with its own rights, laws, jurisdiction, and the God-given commission to teach all nations (Pius IX, Syllabus, props. 19, 21; Leo XIII, multiple encyclicals; Pius XI, Quas Primas and Mortalium Animos).
– Union with Rome is not optional sentiment but juridical and dogmatic submission to the one visible head.
2. John XXIII’s ecumenical construct:
– The Secretariat exists to adapt the Council to the gaze and expectations of those outside, instead of demanding that those outside adapt to the Council of the Church.
– The allocution presents their attendance and following of conciliar work as a positive good in itself, without the premise that they must accept dogma under pain of heresy.
– By praising them and shaping conciliar phenomena around their sensitivities, this structure presupposes a false parity between the Catholic Church and separated communities, as if their perspective has a legitimate place inside the Council’s self-understanding.
This theology is directly at odds with Mortalium Animos, where Pius XI denounces the “pan-Christian” theory according to which the Church is divided into branches needing recomposition. He affirms that the union of Christians “can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it.” John XXIII’s Secretariat, celebrated in this allocution, is conceived not to facilitate their return, but to place the Council and the conciliar sect under the tribunal of non-Catholic judgment.
Thus, at the theological level, the allocution is an act of rebellion against the prior magisterium. It is an embryonic denial of the immutability of doctrine, sliding into the modernist idea of dogmatic “development” by pastoral structures and atmospheres.
Abuse of Trent: Manipulating Tradition to Legitimize Innovation
A key move in the text is the invocation of a passage from the final speech of Bishop Hieronymus Ragazzoni at Trent. John XXIII calls to mind how Ragazzoni spoke “humanely and prudently” of absent separated brethren, suggesting a charitable tone. The cited passage, in essence, speaks of a salutary remedy already composed, which must be drunk to expel disease.
Here lies the manipulation:
– Ragazzoni and the Council of Trent:
– Trent defined dogma against Protestants, condemned their errors, anathematized their doctrines, codified sacramental discipline, and testified to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and the immutable nature of Catholic truth.
– When Ragazzoni speaks of “medicamentum salutare” that must be taken and diffused through the body, he presupposes that the remedy is Catholic doctrine and sacramental life, which Protestants must accept through conversion.
– John XXIII’s usage:
– He extracts from Ragazzoni a phrase emphasizing hope for the absent and the need for those within the Church to be living laws and norms.
– He omits the doctrinal context: that this “medicament” is not generic dialogue or mutual esteem, but the hard, defined dogmas against which Protestant tenets are condemned.
– He uses Trent as a rhetorical halo for his Secretariat, suggesting continuity, while in fact inverting Trent’s principle: the Secretariat is not a tribunal calling heretics to receive the “medicament” of condemned dogmas; it is a platform to relativize those dogmas in the name of “charity.”
This is a textbook case of modernist tactic condemned in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi: citing Catholic sources selectively to justify their contrary, under the guise of “development” and “pastoral application.” It is the hermeneutical fraud later sold as “hermeneutic of continuity.”
From Supernatural Mission to Naturalistic Humanism
Observe what the allocution does not say. The omissions are as theologically revealing as the affirmations.
1. No call to conversion:
– There is no explicit proclamation that those “separated from this Apostolic See” are objectively in error and must formally submit to Catholic doctrine and jurisdiction.
– No mention that perseverance in heresy or schism is a mortal sin leading to damnation unless repented.
– This silence contradicts the constant witness of the Church, which, out of true charity, always joined charitable expressions with doctrinal clarity and the call to abjuration of errors.
2. No insistence on the sacramental order:
– The allocution is entirely bereft of reference to the Most Holy Sacrifice, the necessity of valid sacraments, the state of grace, confession, or sanctifying grace as the condition of belonging to Christ.
– This silence is not accidental; it is the mentality that reduces unity to sociological and emotional convergence instead of sacramental incorporation into the one Church.
3. Naturalistic praise of upright men:
– By extending cooperation in the Kingdom to “all upright and God-fearing men” “in some way,” he speaks in a style that anticipates the later cult of “human rights,” “dialogue,” and “peace,” divorced from the Kingship of Christ over states and laws.
– Pius XI in Quas Primas explicitly identifies secularism and the eviction of Christ the King from public life as the “plague” destroying nations. John XXIII’s categories harmonize with that plague: he avoids the language of the public rights of Christ and the duty of states to profess the true religion (Syllabus, 77–80 condemned the opposite view).
Thus, the text is not simply deficient; it is structurally ordered toward a new religion: horizontal, humanitarian, sentimental, allergic to exclusive claims. *Lex tacens, lex destruens* (a law silent where it must speak, destroys).
Symptom of the Conciliar Revolution: Institutionalizing the Cult of Man
This allocution is a small but revealing piece of a wider puzzle: the systematic self-transformation of the visible structures occupying the Vatican into a conciliar, humanistic sect. It displays several symptomatic marks:
1. Creation of parallel “organs” above doctrine:
– A Secretariat for “Christian Unity” is not an instrument to enforce dogma, but to relativize it in view of “dialogue.” Its very existence presupposes the denial of the axiom that unity is simply belonging to the Catholic Church.
– The Secretariat becomes a laboratory in which dogmatic boundaries are tested, attenuated, and finally dissolved under the pretext of pastoral care.
2. Subjection of the Church to external gaze:
– John XXIII’s insistence that separated groups must be able to “follow” conciliar work comfortably and “find the way” reveals that the Council is from the start being staged in function of outsiders’ sensibilities.
– This inverts the relations condemned by Pius IX: the Church is no longer the teacher judging the world, but a performer adjusting itself for the approval of heretics, schismatics, and worldly powers.
3. Prelude to religious liberty and syncretism:
– Once unity is conceived as affective rapprochement and “common search,” it becomes logical to affirm later, as the conciliar sect did, a right to public exercise of false religions and a practical equality among confessions.
– The Syllabus of Errors solemnly rejects these liberal principles (55, 77–80). John XXIII’s allocution aligns with what Pius IX brands as the programme of anti-Christian “sects,” including Masonry. The very Secretariat he crowns functions, in historical fact, as one of the key engines of the subsequent ecumenical and interreligious apostasy.
4. Progressive erasure of Christ the King:
– Pius XI instituted the feast of Christ the King precisely to combat the naturalistic laicism which denies the public rights of Christ and His Church.
– John XXIII speaks of a “vehement spiritual wind” among those bearing the Christian name but does not proclaim that the only authentic wind of the Spirit leads to the acknowledgment of Christ’s royal authority and to submission to His vicar in the true sense defined before 1958.
– This silence prepares the enthronement of man, celebrated later by the conciliar sect as the “church of man,” and the enthronement of the world’s ideals within the liturgy and public teaching of the neo‑church.
Exposure of the False Shepherd: Why John XXIII Cannot Be a Catholic Pontiff
Applied rigorously to the integral Catholic principles (as summarized, for example, in the materials about sedevacantism and in the pre‑1958 magisterium):
1. A true Pope cannot:
– Promote structures whose raison d’être contradicts prior solemn teaching (e.g., Mortalium Animos, Syllabus, Quas Primas).
– Endorse a conception of unity that relativizes the obligation of non-Catholics to convert and submit to the Roman Pontiff.
– Diplomatically omit, in programmatic ecclesial texts, the exclusive salvific identity of the Catholic Church, while proposing a praxis built precisely on that omission.
2. Manifest heresy and loss of office:
– The doctrine expressed in the allocution (and more clearly in John XXIII’s broader ecumenical policy) corresponds to condemned propositions: religious indifferentism, denial in practice of the Church’s unique necessity, exaltation of non-Catholic communities as quasi-legitimate paths or partners. These tenets, in their substance, stand under the censures articulated by Pius IX and Pius XI.
– According to the principles explained by St. Robert Bellarmine and restated in classical theology, a manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church, for one who is not a member cannot be the head. Publicly promoting a program that doctrinally conflicts with de fide teachings places one at least in proximate danger of manifest heresy; persisting in such a line, as the conciliar revolution did, confirms the rupture.
Thus this allocution is not a harmless “pastoral” speech. It is one of the unveiled symptoms that the man styling himself John XXIII was architecting a new religion. The Secretariat he glorifies is a tool of that usurpation: a paramasonic mechanism to deconstruct the visible notes of the Church while simulating continuity.
Silence on Judgment, Hell, and Sacramental Reality: The Gravest Indictment
What most discloses the spiritual bankruptcy of this text is its total absence of:
– Any reference to:
– Final judgment.
– Hell.
– The danger of dying outside the Catholic Church.
– The need for repentance, abjuration of heresy, sacramental confession, supernatural faith.
– Any exhortation:
– That non-Catholics reject their sectarian errors.
– That they submit intellect and will to defined dogma (e.g., Trent on the sacraments, Vatican I on papal primacy and infallibility).
By contrast, the pre‑conciliar Church spoke with terrifying clarity out of true charity: she warned that those separated, if they persist knowingly, are in peril of eternal perdition. This text replaces such supernatural realism with benevolent diplomacy. *Tacere de supremis, clamare de humanis* (being silent about ultimate things while proclaiming human considerations) is not pastoral charity; it is betrayal.
Silence here is not neutral. It is apostasy by omission. It trains clergy and laity to think of unity in sentimental and organizational terms while souls fall into eternity without the Catholic faith. Under the smile of John XXIII’s rhetoric hides the wolf that our forefathers—Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI—warned against: the Modernist who, in the name of love, corrodes truth.
Conclusion: A Concise Verdict on the Allocution and Its Legacy
– This allocution exalts an ecumenical Secretariat whose existence and mission contradict prior Catholic teaching on the uniqueness of the Church and the nature of unity.
– Its language is deliberately irenic, ambiguous, and sentimental, serving to neutralize dogmatic exclusivity and to acclimatize clergy to a new, naturalist, dialogical ecclesiology.
– It abuses Trent by selective quotation, hiding that the true “salutary remedy” for separated groups is unconditional acceptance of condemned Catholic dogmas, not participation in conciliar theatrics.
– It reveals the mentality of post‑1958 structures: subservient to worldly opinion, oriented toward man, intoxicated with vague “spiritual winds,” and mute about the awful realities of sin, heresy, and damnation.
– It is, read in light of the immutable doctrine reaffirmed by Pius IX, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and all prior Popes, a sign not of Catholic life but of the advent and self-justification of the conciliar sect, the “abomination of desolation” occupying holy places under pious pretexts.
True unity will never be achieved by Secretariats of compromise and speeches of flattery. It is achieved only by the return of souls, clergy, and nations to the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church in her perennial faith, sacraments, and discipline, under pastors who confess without equivocation the social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the absolute authority of His unchanging doctrine.
Source:
Membris et Consultoribus Secretariatus pro unitale Christianorum assequenda Concilio Oecumenico Vaticano secundo apparando, d. VIII m. Martii, a. 1962, Ioannes PP.XXIII (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025