The Manipulated Cult of St. Peter of Alcantara in the Service of Conciliar Deformation
This Latin letter of John XXIII, issued on 2 January 1962 and addressed to Augustin Sépinski, then Minister General of the Order of Friars Minor, praises St. Peter of Alcantara on the fourth centenary of his death, encourages solemn commemorations among Franciscans, extols his austerity, contemplative spirit and collaboration with St. Teresa of Avila, and proposes him as a model of penitence and prayer against the rising “naturalism” of modern society. It urges Franciscans and the faithful to imitate his poverty, mortification, contemplative life, and to root apostolic work in interior life, ending with an “Apostolic Blessing.”
From the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine prior to 1958, this text is a refined act of spiritual counterfeiting: an apparently pious exaltation of an authentic saint, weaponized to legitimize the authority, cult, and program of the conciliar usurper and to prepare religious souls to serve the coming revolution against the Kingship of Christ and the true Church.
Exploiting a True Saint to Authenticate an Illegitimate Authority
On the factual level, John XXIII recalls real elements of St. Peter of Alcantara’s life: his Franciscan vocation, severe austerities, contemplative solitude at El Palancar, his role in assisting St. Teresa’s reform, his treatise on prayer and meditation, his miracles, and his example of penance. These elements are historically attested in pre-1958 Catholic tradition.
However, three decisive manipulations appear immediately:
1. John XXIII assumes and asserts his own authority as Roman Pontiff, signing “IOANNES PP. XXIII” and imposing his “Apostolic Benediction.”
2. He integrates the authentic sanctity of Peter of Alcantara into the liturgical and spiritual orbit of the coming Second Vatican Council, which he himself convoked and which would enthrone precisely those errors—religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism, anthropocentrism—condemned by the pre-1958 Magisterium.
3. He uses the saint as a moral ornament to bolster the credibility of a regime that in doctrine and practice breaks with Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors and the anti-modernist legislation of St. Pius X (Lamentabili, Pascendi, the Oath against Modernism).
In other words, the letter is not merely anodyne hagiography; it is a strategic act of usurpation: the conciliar sect wraps itself in the mantle of an undisputed ascetic of the Counter-Reformation, to mask its own dogmatic and liturgical demolition. This is the classic modernist procedure identified and anathematized by St. Pius X in Pascendi: preserve pious forms and vocabulary while emptying and redirecting their substance.
The integral Catholic criterion is simple and immutable: *non potest esse caput Ecclesiae qui publice evertit eius doctrinam* (he who publicly overturns the doctrine of the Church cannot be her head). The same pre-Vatican II theology, expressed for example by St. Robert Bellarmine and other classical authors, exposes that a manifest heretic forfeits any office in the Church. John XXIII, architect and inaugurator of the conciliar revolution, cannot sell his blessing as a mark of ecclesial continuity; to cling that blessing to the cult of Peter of Alcantara is to attempt to baptize apostasy with the blood of the saints.
Language of Orthodoxy as a Mask for the Coming Apostasy
Linguistically, the letter is cloaked in traditional rhetoric: “hortus conclusus Ecclesiae,” “seraphica gratia,” “austera paenitentia,” “evangelicae perfectionis,” citations of Scripture, reverence for St. Teresa, and insistence on penance and contemplation. Precisely this classical diction must be read as evidence of dissimulation.
Key features:
– The vocabulary is impeccably pre-conciliar, yet totally insulated from the burning doctrinal battles of the 20th century: Modernism, liberalism, socialism, laicism and the masonic sects which Pius IX and Leo XIII unmasked, and which Pius X, Benedict XV and Pius XI denounced by name.
– The only systemic evil vaguely named is “naturalismus”, but in purely generic moralistic tones, without concrete doctrinal denunciation of the very errors condemned in the Syllabus of Errors and in Lamentabili.
– The letter carefully avoids any clear, militant affirmation of the *exclusive* truth and rights of the Catholic Church, the necessity of submission of individuals and states to the social Kingship of Christ the King (as taught by Pius XI in Quas Primas), or the condemnation of the “freedom of cults,” false ecumenism, religious indifferentism, and democratic relativism that the conciliar revolution was preparing to bless.
This silence is not neutral; it is deadly. The saint of heroic penance is invoked, but he is disconnected from the doctrinal combat which defined his century and the Counter-Reformation. The letter weaponizes an ascetical icon to form a generation of religious who are fervent in private devotions yet obedient to a regime planning to invert doctrine on Church-State relations, religious liberty, and the uniqueness of the true Church.
Such a rhetorical operation exemplifies what St. Pius X condemned: *“They [Modernists] put into their work such skill and such a show of earnestness that they seem to be in complete agreement with the Church’s doctrines, while in fact they entirely destroy them from within.”* (paraphrase consistent with Pascendi). The letter’s tone is precisely that: a refined modernist camouflage.
Doctrinal Evasion: Penance Without Confession of Christ’s Social Kingship
On the theological level, the letter praises penance and contemplation, but amputates them from their ecclesial and social finality.
It lauds St. Peter’s:
– severe fasting and bodily mortification,
– solitude and prayer,
– role in religious reform,
– spiritual teaching on mental prayer and contemplation.
Yet it omits:
– Any reference to the saint’s militant Catholic sense of the unique truth of the Faith.
– Any inculcation of the duty of Catholic rulers and nations to submit to Christ the King and the Church, as reaffirmed by Pius XI: *peace and order are impossible while individuals and states refuse the reign of Christ* (Quas Primas).
– Any clear reassertion of the Syllabus’ rejection of the separation of Church and State, of religious indifferentism, of freedom for all cults as an ideal.
Instead, “naturalism” is framed as a vague moral illness:
Naturalism… strives to enclose all things within the limits of nature, neglecting spiritual and eternal goods, and thereby destroys morals and builds miserable ruins.
True as far as it goes—but it stops short of condemning the concrete doctrinal forms of that naturalism which previous Popes explicitly named: liberal constitutions severed from Christ; autonomy of civil law from divine law; freedom of press and cult as absolute; secular education; and the Masonic systems condemned by Pius IX and Leo XIII as the *synagoga Satanae* (synagogue of Satan). The letter relocates the battle from the explicit doctrinal and political order into a generic interiorist moralism. That is not accidental. It is programmatic.
Integral Catholic doctrine does not pit “interior life” against doctrinal militancy. St. Peter of Alcantara, St. Teresa, St. John of the Cross, St. Ignatius—all were ascetics who defended dogma, discipline, and the rights of the Church against heresy and secular power. John XXIII offers their asceticism while quietly preparing to sign documents which will bless “religious liberty” and “ecumenical dialogue” in open contradiction to the Syllabus and Quas Primas. This is theological bad faith: asceticism detached from the integral confession of the Kingship and exclusivity of Christ’s Church becomes an empty shell, ready to be filled with conciliar poison.
Internal Life as an Instrument of Conciliar Obedience
The letter insists, in appearance rightly, that apostolic activity without interior life “languishes” or becomes “empty noise”; that Franciscans must nourish the “spirit of holy prayer and devotion” required by their Rule; and that penance is the guardian of apostolic fruitfulness.
But note the direction:
– The entire exhortation to interior life is framed as obedience to John XXIII’s own call and “Apostolic Benediction.”
– The Order is urged to celebrate the centenary under the sign of his letter, embedding authentic Franciscan discipline into the conciliar chain of command.
– There is no warning that submission to doctrinally perverted authority destroys the very ascetical life praised. No reminder of the perennial principle: *lex credendi lex orandi*; corrupt faith necessarily corrupts worship and religious life.
Pre-1958 doctrine is clear: sanctity is impossible under a rule of heresy. When the man claiming to sit on the Chair of Peter is architect of doctrinal novelties condemned by his predecessors, then aligning religious fervor under his “Blessing” is not harmless; it subordinates souls to a paramasonic project. The letter’s apparent exaltation of St. Peter of Alcantara’s rigorous poverty and penance read in historical hindsight functions as a trap for generous consciences: be mortified, be contemplative, and then serve obediently the very structures that will suppress the true Most Holy Sacrifice, desecrate altars, and enthrone man in place of God.
This exactly inverts the doctrine reaffirmed in Lamentabili and Pascendi, where the Magisterium insists the faithful must reject novelties that adulterate dogma and Scripture. The letter encourages piety, but never arms the faithful to discern and resist the conciliar onslaught; thus piety becomes an instrument of their disarmament.
Silences that Accuse: No Word on Modernism, Masonic Assault, or Doctrinal Warfare
The most damning elements are not what is said, but what is ostentatiously unsaid. In 1962, as this letter is signed:
– Modernism, solemnly condemned in Lamentabili (1907) and Pascendi (1907), is resurgent in biblical institutes, seminaries, and theological faculties.
– The errors catalogued by Pius IX (Syllabus) and Pius X—religious liberty, separation of Church and State, historicist exegesis, relativization of dogma—are aggressively promoted by periti preparing Vatican II.
– Masonic and liberal governments expand their anti-Christian legislation; the social Kingship of Christ is denied in constitutions; secular education becomes dominant.
Yet this letter:
– Does not mention Modernism.
– Does not recall the binding force of the Syllabus or of anti-modernist condemnations.
– Does not command the Franciscans to defend Quas Primas’ doctrine of Christ the King in public life.
– Does not denounce the infiltration of the Orders by liberal and progressivist elements.
– Does not even hint at the coming Council as a battlefield to defend tradition; instead, it uses the saint to foster docile enthusiasm.
This calculated silence is utterly incompatible with the integral Catholic pastoral office as exercised by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, and Pius XI. They named errors, condemned systems, unmasked the sects. Here, John XXIII uses edifying language to evade the front line of the war. Silence where dogmatic clarity is morally obligatory constitutes complicity.
In light of pre-1958 doctrine, such silence in an official letter aimed at the leadership of a major Order, on the eve of a Council, is not a mere omission; it is symptomatic of a deliberate project to recast the Church into a naturalistic, dialoguing, non-condemning “community” serving the cult of man. The saint’s heroic penance is invoked, but never ordered against the enemy within—Modernism—about which St. Pius X solemnly warned as the synthesis of all heresies.
The Co-option of Franciscan Penance for the Church of the New Advent
The letter’s praise of the “alcantarina” rigor presents an apparent contradiction with the later laxity of the conciliar sect. This contradiction is resolved when one sees the function of such texts: they cage sanctity inside post-conciliar obedience.
Key dynamics:
– The Franciscans are told to imitate Peter of Alcantara’s harsh poverty, continual prayer, contempt of comforts.
– Simultaneously, they are inserted deeper into the chain of obedience to John XXIII, the very figure who will inaugurate aggiornamento, “opening to the world,” and the liturgical and doctrinal revolution.
– The authentic Franciscan note—love of the Crucified, contempt of the world—is quietly severed from its doctrinal edge: denunciation of heresy, defense of the Church’s rights, open combat against naturalism in its liberal and socialist forms.
Thus penance is redefined: no longer an armoured resistance against Revolution, but a pious inner seasoning of a life integrated into democratic, pluralistic, religiously “open” societies. Penance without confession of Christ’s social Kingship and without intransigence of dogma becomes a harmless aesthetic. The letter advances exactly that harmlessness: it neutralizes a saint whose true spirit is a sword, turning him into decoration for an accommodationist regime.
Integral Catholic teaching cannot accept such a separation. Pius XI in Quas Primas teaches that the denial of Christ’s Kingship by states is the root of modern disorder and that Catholics must militantly labor for the public recognition of His law. Pius IX in the Syllabus condemns as error the idea that the Church must reconcile herself with liberal modern civilization. John XXIII’s policy goes in the opposite direction; this letter, by its omissions and its deferential tone to a naturalistic order, participates in that betrayal.
Symptom of the Conciliar Strategy: Continuity in Form, Rupture in Substance
When examined as a symptom, the letter perfectly illustrates the conciliar method:
– Preserve pre-conciliar saints, vocabulary, and hortatory style.
– Avoid any sharp doctrinal condemnations that characterize the 19th- and early 20th-century Magisterium.
– Call for prayer, penance, holiness, but never name or anathematize the concrete doctrinal and political errors infiltrating the Church and society.
– Gradually habituate religious to see no contradiction between their founders’ spirit and the aggiornamento soon to enthrone religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism with false religions, and democratic “dialogue.”
In this sense, the letter is a small but revealing brick in the construction of the “Church of the New Advent,” that conciliar sect which occupies the external structures of the Church but preaches the very propositions previously condemned. Its praise of asceticism serves as a smokescreen behind which the demolition proceeds.
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, the conclusion is inescapable:
– A saint like Peter of Alcantara belongs to the perennial Church of Trent, of Quo Primum, of the Syllabus, of Lamentabili and Pascendi, of Quas Primas.
– His example cannot be invoked in the mouth of one who prepares a Council to overturn, in practice and often in principle, those same doctrinal bulwarks.
– The letter’s failure to connect his penance with dogmatic intransigence and with the public reign of Christ the King betrays its function as an instrument of conciliar neutralization.
Thus this apparently devout epistle is not an innocent tribute but a calculated liturgical-aesthetic maneuver: the usurper wraps himself in the ragged habit of an ascetic saint to conceal the nakedness of a program that enthrones man where only Christ may reign.
Right Use of St. Peter of Alcantara Against the Conciliar Sect
To reclaim St. Peter of Alcantara according to the unchanging Catholic sense:
– His austerity must be linked to doctrinal fidelity: mortification cannot coexist with acceptance of religious liberty, indifferentism, false ecumenism, or the cult of man.
– His contemplative teaching must be ordered to deeper adhesion to defined dogma and hatred of error, not to a nebulous “spirituality” adaptable to pluralistic relativism.
– His collaboration with St. Teresa must be seen as part of the Tridentine restoration, inseparable from the dogmatic decrees of the Council of Trent and from the exclusive claims of the Catholic Church against Protestantism and any other sect.
This integral reading is precisely what the conciliar letter avoids. Therefore, fidelity to St. Peter of Alcantara today demands not obedience to the conciliar sect, but a return to the pre-1958 Magisterium, to Quas Primas’ proclamation of Christ the King over nations, to the Syllabus’ condemnation of liberal errors, and to the anti-modernist legislation of St. Pius X.
Where John XXIII’s text instrumentalizes the saint to crown aggiornamento with a counterfeit halo, integral Catholics must invert the operation: use the true St. Peter of Alcantara as a witness against the conciliar betrayal, a standard bearer of penitence that refuses all compromise with the “paramasonic structure” that dares still to claim his name.
Source:
Lilium – Epistula ad Augustinum Sépinski, Ordinis Fratrum Minorum Ministrum Generalem, quarto revoluto saeculo ex quo S. Petrus de Alcantara in caelum migravit, d. 2 m. Ianuarii a. 1962, Ioannes PP. X… (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025