On June 20, 1962, John XXIII, at the close of the seventh session of the Central Preparatory Commission for Vatican II, delivers a triumphant allocution: he rejoices that three years of preparatory work have been completed; he recalls the “spark” of the council’s idea at St Paul Outside the Walls in 1959; he praises the commissions, laity, and experts; he presents the council as a “mystical tower” promising peace, abundance, unity, and renewal for the Church and the world; he exhorts the bishops to return home and inflame enthusiasm, prayer, and confidence in the approaching council, proposing meditations especially on the Gospel of John as spiritual preparation. The entire discourse is a serene self-congratulation of a new project that, under pious language, already displaces the divine constitution of the Church with a humanistic, democratized, media-driven enterprise — the embryo of the conciliar sect that would soon eclipse, in men’s eyes, the visible rights of Christ the King and the immutable Faith.
The Programmed Self-Destruction: John XXIII’s Allocution as Manifesto of the Neo-Church
Exultation over a Human Project and the Eclipse of the Supernatural Order
Already the opening tone reveals the essence of the enterprise. John XXIII addresses the members of the Central Commission with sentimental satisfaction at having completed the preparatory phase for the council, dwelling on organizational timelines, commissions, technical tasks, and the “spark” that grew into a flame.
He celebrates:
“tres anni in impigro labore… constanti et quasi silenti navitate… opus patratum est… praeparatio publice ad finem perducta”.
What is placed at the center? Not the defense of the Catholic Faith against raging errors; not the reaffirmation of the rights of Christ the King over nations; not the condemnation of atheistic socialism, laicism, modernist theology, and masonic subversion that Pius IX, Leo XIII, St Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII had unmasked. Instead, bureaucratic pride in method, commissions, and procedures.
Measured by the integral magisterium before 1958, this reveals a first radical disorder:
– The great councils of the Church — Nicaea, Ephesus, Trent, Vatican I — were convoked to condemn precise errors, define dogma, safeguard the flock, and reassert the social Kingship of Christ. Their preparatory spirit was grave, doctrinal, defensive, supernatural.
– Here, the emphasis is on process, inclusion, “mutua sociaque opera,” “laeto cum studio,” a technocratic event. The allocution does not so much as hint that the gravest crisis of the 20th century is doctrinal: modernism condemned by St Pius X in Pascendi and Lamentabili sane exitu, the liberalism and religious indifferentism anathematized in the Syllabus Errorum, the secular revolt against Christ’s reign denounced in Quas primas.
This silence is already an indictment. When the supposed “pastor” speaks at a decisive hour and refuses to name the wolves, he reveals himself aligned with them.
Linguistic Sugar-Coating: Sentimentalism Masking Revolution
John XXIII’s rhetoric is saturated with soft, optimistic, sentimental idiom: “scintillula,” “vehementem flammam,” “mysticam turrim,” “laetitia,” “serenitas,” “suaviter affecti,” “lucem irradiantem,” “rutilantis solis praenuntiam.” He lyrically connects St Paul’s basilica to St Peter’s square, Corpus Christi procession, and the imagined “flame” of the council as a symbol of unity and peace.
This vocabulary is not accidental style; it is theological program:
– No mention of sin as rebellion against God, no warning of hell, no insistence on the necessity of supernatural grace and the *state of grace* for salvation.
– No affirmation that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation in the sense always taught (*extra Ecclesiam nulla salus*), as defined by Florence and consistently maintained by pre-1958 magisterium.
– No call to governments to restore the social reign of Christ the King, as Pius XI demands: peace is only possible in the kingdom of Christ (*Quas primas*).
– Instead, a “mystical tower of peace and abundance,” an image that provocatively inverts the biblical warning of Babel: a human project aspiring, in effect, to reconcile the Church with the world-system condemned by Christ and His Vicars.
The sugary, affective language functions as anesthetic, disarming vigilance. St Pius X explicitly unmasked such tactics of modernists, who hide doctrinal deviation under emotive and irenic formulas, softening concepts of dogma, sin, and authority (*Pascendi*). The allocution is a paradigm of that method.
Theological Emptiness: A Council without Dogma, without Condemnation, without Kingship
On the theological level, the text is staggering in what it does NOT say.
1. The entire allocution lacks:
– Any assertion that the council’s primary end is to defend and expound dogma.
– Any plan to condemn specific modern errors already formally anathematized: religious indifferentism, rationalism, socialism, laicism, separation of Church and State, false “freedom of cults,” the exaltation of “rights of man” against the rights of God (errors 15–18, 55, 77–80 in the Syllabus).
– Any mention of the divine and exclusive right of the Catholic Church to teach, govern, and sanctify, independent of civil powers, as reaffirmed by Pius IX and Leo XIII.
– Any insistence on the absolute necessity of the Catholic Faith and the sacraments for salvation.
2. Instead, the council is framed as:
– A “mystical tower” of “peace and abundance” for human society.
– An event whose success depends on perfect methods, technical organization, collaboration with laity and experts.
– A spiritual “springtime” symbolized by light and the “rising sun,” with no hint of impending judgment or of the apocalyptic struggle against the “synagogue of Satan” (Pius IX’s expression in the context of masonry).
This inversion is incompatible with the pre-1958 magisterium’s constant teaching that:
– The Church’s first mission is to guard the deposit of faith (*depositum custodi*), not to “update” it.
– Errors must be condemned by name; silence is betrayal.
– Any accommodation of doctrinally condemned principles (religious liberty, ecumenism of parity, separation of Church and State as ideal, etc.) is to be rejected.
The allocution prepares precisely such accommodation by omitting defense and celebrating a pastoral, non-condemnatory council. That “pastoralism” was the Trojan horse by which dogmatic relativism entered; St Pius X had already warned that the modernists sought to shift doctrine into purely “practical” and “pastoral” terms, dissolving its absolute character (*Pascendi*, passim; echoed in the condemned propositions of Lamentabili, e.g. 26, 58, 64, 65).
Subtle Democratization and the Cult of Structures
The text consistently exalts the machinery of commissions, secretariats, experts, including laity, as co-architects of the coming event:
“Cardinales, Antistites, Praelati, Generales Moderatores… atque etiam quodam modo homines insignes ex ordine laicorum… hanc quasi mysticam turrim exaedificandam curaverunt”.
Several deviations emerge:
– The Church is reduced rhetorically to a collective project: bishops, religious, laity, technicians, all “construct” a “mystical tower.” The divine constitution of the Church as a hierarchical society, where authority descends from Christ through the Roman Pontiff and bishops, is blurred into collaborative building. This echoes the condemned notion that magisterium merely ratifies the “sense of the faithful” or “common opinion of the Church listening” (cf. Lamentabili 6–7).
– The prominence granted to organizational and technical structures hints at a conception of the council as a parliamentary assembly, where texts are negotiated, not received from above. This spirit stands against Vatican I’s solemn affirmation of papal primacy and the strictly doctrinal nature of ecumenical councils.
The language of “fraternal concord,” “sincere good will,” and “spectacle edifying to the entire world” cements the same shift: from dogmatic authority to human consensus; from truth opposed to error, to dialogue opposed to “pessimism.” It is the seed of the later conciliar cult of “collegiality” and “synodality,” already condemned in substance by Pius IX and Leo XIII, who defend the monarchical constitution of the Church and reject any reduction of the papacy to a presidency over national churches (cf. Syllabus 37, 34–36).
Appropriation of the Gospel of John: Mystical Vocabulary in Service of Naturalistic Ends
At the end, John XXIII proposes as daily preparation for the council the reading of selected passages from John: chapter 1 (the Word), chapter 10 (Good Shepherd), and chapters 14–17 (farewell discourses, “ut unum sint”). On the surface, this appears devout. In reality, it is strategic: the most “mystical” texts are detached from their dogmatic and exclusive force and repurposed as spiritual decoration for a program that will subvert their meaning.
Consider:
– John 1 proclaims the Incarnate Word as the true Light, received by few; it condemns the world’s darkness. John XXIII cites it to crown an optimistic vision in which “the world” is not warned but charmed.
– John 10 teaches the uniqueness of Christ as Good Shepherd, the exclusive door, and condemns thieves and hirelings. The allocution uses that imagery to ornament his own pontificate; he does not once warn against wolves or identify contemporary “thieves” — rationalists, modernists, communists, secret societies — already diagnosed by prior popes.
– John 17, “ut unum sint,” is invoked as inspiration for the council. But unity in this chapter is in the truth revealed by the Son and guarded in the apostolic word (“sanctify them in truth; Thy word is truth”). It is unity by separation from the world, not reconciliation with it. Subsequent conciliar ecumenism — already logically prefigured here — wrenched “ut unum sint” into a slogan for dialogue with heretics and infidels without their conversion, an inversion condemned by tradition.
St Pius X condemned precisely this: using Scripture’s language while inverting its sense to justify doctrinal evolution and relativism (Pascendi, esp. on exegesis and symbolism). The allocution is a classic case: biblical words, modernist intention.
Deliberate Silence on Modernism, Laicism, and Masonic Subversion
One of the gravest features of this text is the complete omission of the principal concrete danger enumerated by pre-1958 magisterium: the organized, doctrinal, and political assault of liberalism and masonry upon the Church.
Pius IX clearly identified the masonic sects as instruments of the “synagogue of Satan,” systematically attacking the Church, state, and Christian society (see his explicit statements appended in the Syllabus context). He and his successors condemned:
– Separation of Church and State.
– Civil marriage and divorce.
– State control over education.
– Liberty of cults and conscience as rights before God.
– The false principle that the Pope must “reconcile himself” with modern civilization and liberalism (Syllabus 80).
This allocution, at the threshold of a supposed ecumenical council, says nothing of these. No reaffirmation of condemned theses; no call for governments to submit to Christ’s law; no exposure of secret societies. Instead, the horizon is “peace,” “abundance,” and a new era of admiration from “the whole world” for the Church’s constructive work.
Such silence is not neutral; it is an implicit contradiction of the prior papal warnings. By offering to the same “modern world” not anathemas but an extended hand and a smile, John XXIII inaugurates precisely what Pius IX declared impossible and condemned as error 80. The allocution is, in essence, a manifesto of reconciliation with that liberal, laic, masonic order — beneath a fragile veil of pious vocabulary.
Elevation of Vatican II to Providential “Event” Above the Deposit of Faith
John XXIII presents the coming council as an extraordinary divine gift, an almost eschatological dawn:
“eventum sane magnum ac singulare Divinae Providentiae munus”,
calling all to prayer so that this “great and singular” grace may bear fruit. His language effectively absolutizes an unheld council — whose content is not yet defined — as inherently blessed.
But Catholic doctrine knows only one absolutely binding, irreformable content: the revealed deposit of faith, guarded and defined across the centuries. Ecumenical councils are instruments, not new lights; they are great only insofar as they repeat, clarify, and defend what was already given.
By announcing in advance the council itself as “Divine Providence’s singular gift” without specifying that its greatness will consist precisely in reaffirming and enforcing prior condemnations and definitions, John XXIII shifts the center of gravity from *depositum fidei* to *eventus concilii*. The “event,” the “assembly,” the “opening to the world” are sacralized. This sacralization later allowed post-conciliar ideologues to treat Vatican II as a “new Pentecost,” an untouchable super-council whose “spirit” could even override prior magisterium — an idea utterly foreign and contrary to all pre-1958 Catholic teaching but logically rooted in this rhetorical inflation.
St Pius X and Pius XI insist: progress in the Church is only homogeneous development, never rupture; councils are at the service of previous dogma, never laboratories for novel doctrines. Elevating a pastoral council as epochal turning point prepares exactly the “evolution of dogma” condemned in Lamentabili (prop. 58–65) and Pascendi.
The Pious Shell and the Poisoned Kernel: Peace without Conversion, Unity without Truth
The allocution repeatedly speaks of “peace,” “unitas,” “tranquilla consortio humana,” and extends an image of the Church as peaceful city among the “towers” of the world. Yet the conditions of true peace are never articulated. Pius XI, in Quas primas, identified with crystalline clarity:
– The calamities of nations come from rejecting Christ’s Kingship.
– There can be no lasting peace until individuals and states recognize the reign of Christ and submit their laws to His law.
– The Church must publicly assert her rights and reject laicist usurpations.
Here, peace is no longer explicitly tied to the return of nations under the sweet and strict yoke of Christ’s social Kingship. “Peace” becomes a vague aspiration, apparently compatible with the very modern order condemned by prior popes. Unity is envisaged (“ut unum sint”), but not in the sense of the return of heretics and schismatics to the one true fold; rather, as a prelude to the later ecumenical program, which treats non-Catholic communities as “partners” in a shared search.
The absence of the words that matter — *conversion, condemnation of errors, kingship of Christ over states, necessity of the true Faith, danger of hell* — is more damning than open denial. It is the perfected modernist method: retain the shell of phrases about Christ, Scripture, prayer, and the Eucharist, while emptying them of the militantly exclusive, royal, and dogmatic content that offends the world.
Symptom of Systemic Apostasy: From Pre-Conciliar Clarity to Conciliar Vagueness
When this allocution is read against the luminous severity of the 19th–early 20th century papal condemnations, its character becomes unmistakable: it is a hinge-text, a gentle, smiling rupture.
Key symptomatic features:
– Replacement of the Church’s defensive, condemnatory posture toward modern errors with a self-satisfied optimism that “the whole world” admires the Church’s efforts.
– Integration of “laity and experts” and a technocratic apparatus in a way that prefigures the democratization of teaching authority, condemned as inversion of order.
– Total absence of the vocabulary with which the magisterium had just fought modernism: *error, heresy, modernists, socialism, liberalism, false freedom of conscience, secret societies*. This absence is no oversight in such a programmatic speech.
– Sacralization of a future council independent of defined content, which later facilitated treating Vatican II as a new constitution of the Church.
The conciliar sect that emerged openly after 1965 did exactly what this allocution silently presupposed: it canonized “religious liberty,” praised non-Catholic religions, dismantled the public reign of Christ the King, and implemented a sacramental and liturgical revolution that attacked the very heart of the Most Holy Sacrifice. The seed is visible here: an entirely new attitude toward the world and error, masked by references to Gospel and prayer.
Usurped Authority and the Abuse of Apostolic Symbols
A final aspect demands attention: John XXIII’s self-referential use of the name “Ioannes,” linking himself to John the Baptist and John the Evangelist, as if clothing his initiative in their authority. He speaks of his choice of name, his tiara coronation under the sign of the Good Shepherd, and invites meditation on John as daily homage to the council.
Yet:
– John the Baptist’s mission is to call to penance, denounce sin, and identify the Lamb of God; he dies for condemning adultery. No such spirit inhabits this allocution; there is no prophetic denunciation — only institutional satisfaction.
– John the Evangelist transmits the most exalted Christology and the sharpest antithesis between light and darkness, truth and lies, Church and world. His writings are the least compatible with doctrinal relativism or “dialogue” with error. To appropriate his name while sowing the premises of a council that would relativize dogma and court false religions is a grotesque inversion.
Pre-1958 doctrine on the papacy (Vatican I, Leo XIII) presupposes that a true Pontiff is doctrinally one with his predecessors; if someone uses the papal office to inaugurate a course that glosses over their solemn condemnations, exalts reconciliation with condemned principles, and prepares structural revolution, he thereby manifests a rupture incompatible with the divine promises regarding the See of Peter — and thus exposes the illegitimacy of his claim.
In this light, the allocution is not a benign historical curiosity; it is a primary document of the paramasonic neo-church’s self-conscious birth. It recites Scripture and tradition only to place them as ornaments upon a new edifice — that “mystical tower” — whose stones are compromise, worldliness, and doctrinal vagueness.
Conclusion: The Mask Has Always Been Visible
Examined under the light of the immutable Catholic magisterium prior to 1958:
– This allocution embodies a radical shift from dogmatic clarity to optimistic ambiguity.
– It systematically omits the supernatural and juridical claims of the Church over souls and societies, instead elevating procedural, diplomatic, and emotional elements.
– It idealizes a “council” explicitly framed to avoid condemnations and to ingratiate the Church with the modern world, in direct contradiction to the Syllabus, Pascendi, and Quas primas.
– It abuses biblical language while preparing the practical negation of that very language’s doctrinal content.
What later exploded in the liturgical, doctrinal, and moral devastation of post-conciliarism was not an accident; it was already inscribed, like a genetic code, in such speeches. The face of the project is courteous, its vocabulary devout, but its core is a dethronement: of Christ the King from public life, of dogma from pastoral action, of the pre-1958 Magisterium from Catholic conscience.
Against this, the only Catholic response is the unqualified adherence to the perennial doctrine, the rejection of the conciliar sect’s program in all its forms, and the renewed proclamation of what Pius IX, St Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII taught without equivocation: no peace without the Kingship of Christ, no unity without conversion to the one true Church, no “new Pentecost” that contradicts what the Holy Ghost has already defined through the ages.
Source:
Allocutio habita exactis laboribus Sessionis septimae Commissionis Centralis Concilio Oecumenico Vaticano secundo apparando: Summus Pontifex gaudet accuratam Concilii praeparationem ad finem esse perd… (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025