In this short radio message of 19 February 1959, John XXIII addresses the Vietnamese hierarchy on the occasion of a Marian Congress in Saigon, commemorating both the Lourdes centenary celebrations and the 300th anniversary of the establishment of Apostolic Vicariates in Vietnam. He praises Marian devotion, exalts the memory of missionaries and martyrs, rejoices at the numerical growth of Catholics (about 1.5 million), commends the indigenous clergy, expresses sorrow for those in the North unable to attend because of political circumstances, assures them of his spiritual closeness, and appoints Gregory Peter Agagianian as his legate for the event, concluding with a so‑called “Apostolic Blessing.” The entire tone is one of diplomatic congratulation, sentimental encouragement, and historical celebration—while remaining radically silent about the modernist subversion already emanating from Rome, thus revealing the inner contradiction of a message that invokes Catholic language while serving the nascent conciliar revolution.
Sentimental Diplomacy Instead of Catholic Militancy in Vietnam
Historical Reality Ignored: Vietnam as Stage for the Conciliar Revolution
On the factual level, this message appears, at first glance, pious and harmless: Marian devotion, remembrance of martyrs, gratitude for three centuries of missions. Yet precisely here lies its perfidy: it uses venerable Catholic themes as a decorative veil for a program already directed toward dismantling the very foundations that produced those fruits.
Key factual and contextual points, contrasted with pre‑1958 Catholic doctrine and practice:
– John XXIII speaks as if he were the legitimate successor of Peter, sending a “Legate” to a Marian Congress, imparting an “Apostolic Blessing.” But:
– The doctrinal orientation he immediately begins to embody and prepare—confirmed by his later convocation of Vatican II and systematic protection of modernists—is irreconcilable with the magisterium of Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII.
– The binding condemnations of *Lamentabili sane exitu* and *Pascendi* (St. Pius X, 1907) and the anti‑liberal doctrine of the *Syllabus of Errors* (Pius IX, 1864) remain in force and directly oppose the theological, ecumenical, and political directions that John XXIII would set in motion.
– A “magisterium” that proposes principles and practices already condemned by previous Popes cannot be a continuation of the same authority but is, in classical theology, a sign of rupture and of loss of office for manifest heresy or defection (cf. St. Robert Bellarmine, *De Romano Pontifice*; Canon 188.4 CIC 1917; Paul IV, *Cum ex Apostolatus Officio*).
– The message extols:
– Marian devotion tied to Lourdes.
– Gratitude for missionaries and indigenous clergy.
– Unity with the “Roman Pontiff.”
Yet it carefully avoids:
– Any explicit denunciation of atheistic communism as intrinsically anti‑Christian and subject to Christ the King’s sovereign rights in the temporal order (as repeatedly taught by Pius XI and Pius XII).
– Any warning against the Masonic and liberal forces condemned by Pius IX as the “synagogue of Satan” waging war on the Church.
– Any doctrinal clarity on the exclusive necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation, against indifferentism and syncretism.
This void is not accidental. It corresponds to the emerging modus operandi of the conciliar sect: maintain a shell of Catholic vocabulary while emptying it of its militant, dogmatic, and anti‑liberal content.
The Soft Rhetoric of Pacification as Symptom of Theological Decay
The linguistic texture of this message is revealing.
1. The vocabulary is saturated with:
– “Consolation,” “joy,” “pious gratitude,” “solemn celebrations,” “heavenly favors,” “peace.”
– It praises the Marian Congress as drawing the faithful to “the throne of her mercy” to obtain especially “the most desired and auspicious gift” of restored peace.
2. What is absent is even more decisive than what is present:
– No call to combat error.
– No mention of the intrinsic perversity of communism or of the revolutionary ideologies ravaging Vietnam.
– No explicit assertion of the social Kingship of Christ demanding public subjection of states, as vigorously articulated by Pius XI in *Quas Primas*:
– That peace can exist only in the reign of Christ, and that states sin gravely by rejecting His law.
– No reminder that persecution, far from being merely a political misfortune, is a providential trial demanding fidelity, confession of the true faith, and refusal of any compromise with false religions or sects.
This delicate, diplomatic style is not benign; it is symptomatic:
– It replaces the Catholic idiom of militant clarity (*sit yes, yes; no, no*) with sentimental obscurity.
– It avoids the sharp lines condemned in the *Syllabus of Errors* as incompatible with “modern civilization,” choosing instead the preparatory rhetoric of coexistence and eventual dialogue.
The message’s language anticipates the future conciliar lexicon:
– “Peace” detached from Christ the King.
– “Unity” detached from unconditional submission to the one true Church.
– “Devotion” detached from doctrinal rigor and sacramental integrity.
Such rhetoric is the verbal camouflage of Modernism: orthodoxy in phrase, heterodoxy in orientation.
Perverting the Legacy of Martyrs: From Confessors of Christ the King to Ornaments of Conciliar Diplomacy
John XXIII recalls with pathos:
– The early Apostolic Vicars in Tonkin and Cochinchina.
– The “many martyrs” whose blood consecrated the faith in Vietnam.
– He praises Vietnamese Catholics for esteeming this as an incomparable gift of God.
But he commits a grave spiritual and theological distortion:
1. He uses the martyrs as a safe, aesthetic memory.
– There is no extension from their witness to the current duty:
– To reject religious liberty, indifferentism, socialism, communism, Freemasonry—all explicitly condemned by pre‑1958 Popes.
– To uphold that the State must recognize the Catholic religion as the only true one, as reaffirmed against liberalism in the *Syllabus* (condemnation of the separation of Church and State, of pluralist religious “freedom” as an ideal, etc.).
2. He never says plainly:
– That the true successors of those martyrs must refuse any compromise with ideological systems denying Christ.
– That “peace” built on coexistence with anti‑Christian regimes that outlaw the Kingship of Christ is not peace but revolt against God.
– That the blood of martyrs cries out against precisely the kind of liberal, ecumenical, and naturalistic concessions which the conciliar sect would soon elevate to principles.
By reducing martyrdom to a historical ornament detached from doctrinal militancy, this message empties their witness of its Catholic cutting edge, making them usable as mascots for the coming religion of dialogue.
Silence on Supernatural Essentials: The Gravest Indictment
Against the directive of integral Catholic faith, the most damning aspect is the silence.
In a context of persecution, ideological warfare, and massive spiritual danger, what is missing?
– No clear call to persevere in the state of grace through the valid sacraments of the true Church.
– No pressing exhortation to frequent Confession and reception of the Most Holy Sacrifice understood as propitiatory and expiatory.
– No mention of:
– Final judgment,
– Hell,
– The necessity of the true faith and true Church for salvation,
– The gravity of heresy or compromise with false religions.
– No denunciation of the secularist, Masonic, and communist ideologies strangling the Church, although Pius IX and St. Pius X had explicitly unmasked and anathematized such forces as instruments of the “synagogue of Satan.”
This is not an oversight of style; it is an inversion of priorities.
According to Catholic principle:
– *Salus animarum suprema lex* (the salvation of souls is the supreme law).
– The duty of the Roman Pontiff is to teach clearly, condemn error, strengthen the brethren in the faith, and recall nations to the reign of Christ.
Here, instead:
– The supernatural is dulled into vague “heavenly favors” and “consolations.”
– The Cross is veiled behind emotional religiosity.
– The prophetic edge of the Papacy is traded for the posture of a humanitarian notary of “peace.”
Such silence in the moment of grave danger is a sign not of prudence but of defection.
Deploying Marian Devotion as an Instrument of the Neo-Church
The text places strong emphasis on:
– Marian piety.
– Lourdes centenary solemnities.
– The Blessed Virgin as “Queen of Missions.”
At first glance, this seems deeply traditional. However:
1. Marian devotion is instrumentalized:
– It is detached from her role as destroyer of all heresies and terror of demons.
– It is turned into a unifying sentiment that can coexist with doctrinal relativism and religious pluralism.
– It is used to bind the faithful emotionally to the person and authority of John XXIII and the structures occupying Rome, precisely at the moment when those structures are turning against the integral Magisterium.
2. The message encourages:
– Trust in Mary for “peace” without making clear that true peace is inseparable from public recognition of Christ’s Kingship and subjection of nations to His law (Pius XI, *Quas Primas*).
– A Marian congress that becomes an aesthetic spectacle while doctrinal and liturgical subversion advances.
This manipulation of Marian language is characteristic of the conciliar sect:
– Keep external Marian forms to reassure the faithful.
– Use them as anesthesia while neutralizing the anti‑modernist, anti‑Masonic, anti‑liberal force of true Marian militancy.
Naturalistic “Peace” and the Eclipse of Christ the King
Central in the message is the hope for “solid, restored peace” in Vietnam.
Not once, however, does John XXIII:
– Explicitly teach that peace can only be secured when individuals and nations obey the law of Christ and acknowledge His royal rights, as Pius XI solemnly insisted:
– Peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ, not in a pluralist, neutral state.
– Condemn the concept of a religiously indifferent state, which Pius IX formally rejected, including:
– The separation of Church and State (Syllabus, prop. 55).
– The idea that civil authority is source of rights unconstrained by divine law (prop. 39).
– The thesis that the Roman Pontiff should “come to terms” with liberalism and modern civilization (prop. 80).
By speaking of peace without reaffirming these condemned liberal theses, the message:
– Implicitly aligns with the very liberalism the earlier Popes fought.
– Prepares the ground for conciliar “religious liberty” and diplomatic coexistence with anti‑Christian regimes.
This is the language of political humanitarianism, not of the Vicar of Christ:
– It is horizontal, statist, psychological.
– It neglects the solemn duty to proclaim that any state excluding Christ the King is unjust and ordered toward ruin.
The Role of the Legate: Agagianian as Liturgical Ornament of a New Program
The appointment of Gregory Peter Agagianian as legate is presented as an honor:
– He will add “noble splendour” to the celebrations with his eloquence.
– The Holy See promises spiritual favours.
But in the context of the emerging conciliar agenda, this gesture functions as:
– A consolidation of obedience to the new orientation:
– The Vietnamese hierarchy and faithful are invited to manifest their unity specifically with John XXIII, not with the perennial anti‑modernist Magisterium.
– The Marian Congress becomes a stage on which attachment to Rome is re-coded as attachment to the coming revolution.
– A symbolic merging of authentic missionary heritage with the conciliar future:
– The blood of martyrs and labours of true missionaries are rhetorically annexed to legitimize a line of “authority” that soon will contradict their faith, their ecclesiology, and their understanding of the Mass and sacraments.
This is a classic tactic of doctrinal usurpation:
– Retain historical symbols.
– Insert them into a new narrative and orientation.
– Use them to disarm resistance among the faithful.
Vietnamese Fidelity Exploited and Betrayed
John XXIII especially praises:
– The Catholics of North Vietnam, suffering difficulties beyond their control.
– He notes with satisfaction that they remain “closely united” to the Roman Pontiff and their bishops and priests.
From an integral Catholic perspective, two elements must be underlined:
1. The fidelity of Vietnamese Catholics—formed by pre‑conciliar doctrine, sacraments, and discipline—is authentic and heroic.
– Their attachment, insofar as it was to the Roman See as it had always taught and governed, was objectively meritorious.
– They clung to the faith in the face of communism, persecution, and deprivation.
2. That very fidelity is here being redirected:
– They are urged to remain united to John XXIII’s program, at the threshold of Vatican II.
– Their obedience, formed under true Popes, is being harvested to support an authority that will soon systematically undermine:
– The dogma of “no salvation outside the Church” in practice.
– The condemnation of liberalism and religious indifferentism.
– The integrity of the Most Holy Sacrifice through the later liturgical devastation.
Thus, the message is doubly tragic:
– It consoles them while preparing their betrayal.
– It asks them to trust the very centre that is about to unleash the doctrinal and liturgical collapse that will wound the missions more deeply than persecution itself.
Systemic Pattern: From Anti-Modernist Magisterium to Conciliar Sect
This seemingly modest radio message must be read as a piece in a larger pattern.
By comparison with pre‑1958 magisterial norms:
– St. Pius X:
– Condemned the thesis that dogma evolves and that truth changes with history (*Lamentabili*, prop. 58–64).
– Imposed the Anti‑Modernist Oath to safeguard against precisely the tendencies later promoted at the Council convoked by John XXIII.
– Pius IX:
– Condemned religious indifferentism, state neutrality in religious matters, freedom of public cults as an ideal, and reconciliation of the Papacy with liberalism and modern “civilization” (Syllabus, esp. 15–18, 55, 77–80).
– Pius XI in *Quas Primas*:
– Declared that individual and social peace depends solely on recognizing the reign of Christ over persons, families, and nations.
– Explicitly linked the calamities of the modern world to the rejection of this Kingship.
Against this luminous, firm doctrinal front, John XXIII’s message:
– Embraces:
– Sentimental irenicism.
– Silence on condemned liberal and modernist principles.
– A diplomatic, non‑doctrinal vocabulary suitable to future ecumenism and religious liberty.
– Uses:
– Marian and missionary language as an emotive shield to hide the shift.
– Prepares:
– The transformation of Catholic missions from supernatural conquest for Christ the King into coexistence and dialogue, culminating in the ecclesiological and liturgical wreckage of the “Church of the New Advent.”
This demonstrates, in miniature, the spiritual bankruptcy at work:
– Orthodoxy is feigned; the substance is evacuated.
– The authority of the Papacy is invoked; its proper function—guarding, defining, condemning—is suspended.
– The Vietnamese faithful are praised; they are simultaneously directed toward obedience to a paramasonic structure that will feed them diluted doctrine and invalid or profaned rites.
Conclusion: A Pious Tone Masking the Architecture of Apostasy
From the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine:
– The message’s positive elements (Marian devotion, honouring martyrs, gratitude for the faith) are not sufficient to redeem it; they are precisely the instruments by which a new orientation is smuggled in.
– Its omissions and tone are not neutral:
– The absence of explicit reaffirmation of the social Kingship of Christ, the condemnation of false religions and ideologies, the necessity of the true Church, and the centrality of the Most Holy Sacrifice and state of grace, in a time and place of acute persecution, is itself an indictment.
– This radio address exemplifies how the conciliar sect began: not with crude denial, but with selective silences, sentimental vocabulary, and the pastoral exploitation of genuine Catholic piety in order to detach souls from the rigorous, anti‑modernist line solemnly taught up to Pius XII.
Under the polished Latin and courteous phrases, the structure is clear:
– Substitute militant Catholic truth with vague calls for “peace.”
– Use Marian and missionary symbolism to legitimize an authority preparing to overturn the very magisterium that nurtured those missions.
– Exploit the fidelity of suffering Catholics, directing it toward allegiance to a new religion of dialogue, humanism, and religious pluralism.
This message to Vietnam is thus not an edifying monument of pastoral charity, but an early stone in the edifice of that neo‑church which would soon devastate altars, dissolve doctrine, and betray both martyrs and missionaries in the name of a counterfeit peace without Christ the King.
Source:
Nuntius Radiophonicus dato Mariali Conventui Vietnamensi (die XIX m. Februarii, A.D. MCMLIX) (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025