The text under review, issued by antipope John XXIII under the title “Grata Recordatio,” recalls with sentimental warmth the rosary encyclicals of Leo XIII, exhorts the faithful to recite the Marian rosary especially in October, commemorates the death of Pius XII and the election of John XXIII as an alleged sign of continuity of the Roman Pontificate, praises missionary initiatives and a North American seminary, calls political leaders to avoid war and respect “legitimate rights,” condemns laicism and materialism in generic terms, and finally asks for prayers for the “Roman Synod” and the upcoming “ecumenical council,” presented as a source of renewal and growth of the “Church.” Beneath this apparently pious Marian varnish, the document functions as a programmatic prelude to the conciliar revolution: it uses orthodox forms to introduce a new ecclesiology, a humanistic pacifism, and a deceptive claim of continuity that prepares the self-destruction of the visible Church.
Marian Vocabulary as a Mask for Conciliar Subversion
The first impression is deceptive: the letter appears to be a simple exhortation to the rosary. It cites Leo XIII, extols the Mariale Rosarium, recalls Pius XII, denounces in words certain errors, and invites prayer for peace. Many inattentive readers see only incense, but miss the smoke: a subtle redirection of supernatural means toward naturalistic and revolutionary ends.
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, several structural perversions emerge at once:
– The usurper John XXIII attempts to clothe his authority in the mantle of Leo XIII and Pius XII, invoking their Marian encyclicals to legitimize his own program, while preparing the very conciliar process that will systematically contradict Leo XIII’s Immortale Dei, Libertas, and Pius XI’s Quas Primas, as well as the anti-modernist condemnations of St. Pius X (see Lamentabili and Pascendi, confirmed with excommunication).
– The rosary is instrumentalized: not primarily to implore the triumph of the social Kingship of Christ and the defeat of error, but to support the “Roman Synod” and the forthcoming “ecumenical council” destined to enthrone religious liberty, collegiality, false ecumenism, and the cult of man.
– The supposed “continuity of the Roman Pontificate” is invoked precisely at the threshold of its public eclipse: this is the rhetoric of usurpation, not of tradition.
Thus, what looks devotional is in fact a controlled demolition charge placed at the foundations of Catholic order.
Factual Level: The Manipulated Narrative of Continuity
1. Appropriation of Leo XIII and Pius XII
The text begins by recalling the encyclicals of Leo XIII on the rosary, praising them as “rich in wisdom” and “always timely,” urging the October rosary. This seems Catholic. But immediately this memory is weaponized to present John XXIII as their organic successor and guarantor of continuity.
Key maneuver:
– He links Leo XIII’s Marian Rosary teaching directly to his own “from youth” devotion and current exhortation, as if nothing decisive had changed.
– He recalls Pius XII’s death and his own election as a seamless handing-on of the same office: “Alter Pontifex Pontifici alteri… sacram hereditatem… tradere visus est” — “One Pontiff seemed to hand on to the other the sacred inheritance.”
This rhetoric must be tested against the pre-1958 Magisterium:
– Pius IX’s Syllabus (prop. 80) condemns the idea that the Roman Pontiff should reconcile himself with “progress, liberalism, and modern civilization” understood as laicist ideology. Leo XIII and St. Pius X elaborate this condemnation.
– Pius XI in Quas Primas demands public and social recognition of Christ the King; peace is promised only in the Kingdom of Christ, not in a neutralist order of “fraternity” between truth and error.
The post-1959 trajectory (council, religious liberty, ecumenism) contradicts this line. Therefore the appeal to Leo XIII–Pius XII continuity is not descriptive; it is manipulative. The usurper invokes their names to anesthetize resistance before overturning their doctrine.
2. Selective, sentimental remembrance of Pius XII
Pius XII is mentioned mainly as a pious predecessor whose life was “adorned with many noble deeds,” in order to:
– underline institutional continuity,
– frame John XXIII as legitimate heir,
– and connect both to a generic “pastoral solicitude” for all nations.
What is suppressed?
– No mention of Pius XII’s doctrinal firmness against modern errors.
– No mention of his defense of the objective rights of the Church against totalitarian states.
– No reinforcement of his condemnation of nouvelle théologie tendencies that feed directly into the council John XXIII is about to convoke.
This studied silence is significant: it is not a faithful continuator honouring the anti-modernist heritage; it is a politician harvesting sentimental capital while burying the doctrinal edge.
3. Prayers for the “Roman Synod” and “Ecumenical Council”
Near the end, the letter openly reveals its strategic goal: the rosary is solicited so that:
– the Roman diocesan synod may be “fruitful and salutary,”
– and the coming “ecumenical council” may bring “marvelous increase” to the “Church,” and attract separated “brethren and sons” back by the exemplary vigour of Christian virtues.
Here the mask slips:
– The document links Marian devotion to support for a future event which, in effect and content, will contradict integral doctrine on religious freedom, the nature of the Church, ecumenism, collegiality, and liturgy.
– The “increase” envisioned is not a deeper rooting of nations under Christ the King, but structural adaptation to modern errors.
This is precisely the inversion condemned by St. Pius X: using Catholic formulas to justify an evolution of doctrine under historical pressure.
Linguistic Level: Softened Rhetoric and the Language of Humanistic Pacifism
The vocabulary of “Grata Recordatio” is revealing. It oscillates between traditional phrases and new, ambiguous language that anticipates the conciliar style.
1. Sentimentalism instead of dogmatic clarity
Expressions such as “grateful remembrance,” “sweet memory of youth,” “our heart’s dearest devotion,” and “joyful celebrations” dominate; they create affective resonance but replace the sharp, doctrinally armed polemics of Pius IX, Leo XIII, and St. Pius X.
Where earlier popes named and anathematized specific systems—liberalism, indifferentism, socialism, modernism—John XXIII prefers:
– generic references to “certain philosophies and practical attitudes,”
– calls for “mutual respect,” “fraternal union of peoples,” “solid peace,”
– and a serene optimism about “better times” and a mysterious “reawakening force” among peoples.
This is not accidental; it is the rhetorical symptom of a shift from Ecclesia docentis (the teaching Church that commands and condemns) to a dialoguing religious NGO.
2. Horizontalised vocabulary of peace and fraternity
The letter repeatedly underlines:
– “mutual respect,”
– “fraternal union of peoples,”
– attention to “civil and social good” of men, in view of the eternal.
The order is significant. The supernatural end is mentioned, but functionally subordinate: peace, fraternity, and human social well-being are the practical focus; the Kingship of Christ, the necessity of belonging to the true Church, the horror of heresy and schism, are not concretely articulated.
Contrasted with Pius XI’s Quas Primas:
– Pius XI teaches that without public, social submission of states to Christ the King, there can be no true peace.
– Here, John XXIII avoids the demand for confessional states, content with asking leaders not to trust in war and to respect “eternal laws” in a vague sense.
The rhetoric of “peace” detached from explicit doctrinal submission is the seed of the later conciliar cult of “dialogue,” condemned in substance by the Syllabus of Errors.
3. Ambiguity about condemned systems
John XXIII states that some philosophies and life-styles are incompatible with Christian doctrine and adds that he will never cease to affirm this “with serene but firm mind.” He names “laicism” and “materialism” as examples.
However:
– There is no direct reiteration of the Syllabus’ condemnation of religious liberty, indifferentism, separation of Church and State.
– No explicit rejection of liberal democracy’s underlying naturalism.
– No denunciation of freemasonry by name, despite its documented role against the Church (see the Syllabus conclusion reproduced in the instructions above, and prior papal condemnations from Clement XII to Leo XIII).
This careful selectivity is typical of modernist evasion: mention some safe enemies, remain silent on the core liberal-democratic heresies with which the conciliar sect will soon make its pact.
Theological Level: A Pious Shell Concealing Doctrinal Dynamite
The heart of the problem lies not in the praise of the rosary, but in the ends to which that praise is ordered and the omissions which betray a new theology.
1. Apparent orthodoxy of Marian devotion
The letter calls the rosary an “excellent formula of prayer and meditation,” linking the Angelic Salutation, the Lord’s Prayer, the Gloria Patri, and the mysteries of Christ’s Incarnation and Redemption. This is consistent with Leo XIII.
However, under integral Catholic criteria, the supernatural weapons must be ordered to:
– the triumph of Christ’s Kingship over individuals and nations,
– the conversion of heretics and infidels to the one true Church,
– reparation for sins, especially doctrinal errors and sacrileges,
– the defense of the rights and liberty of the Church against states.
But John XXIII redirects this arsenal:
– toward supporting a “council” that will proclaim religious freedom and ecumenism,
– toward an irenic, naturalistic peace program,
– toward a “mutual respect” among peoples which, in actual conciliar implementation, recognizes error’s public rights.
Thus a holy practice is misappropriated to support an unholy project. Bonum ex integra causa (the good arises from an integral cause): when the end is corrupted, the formal moral object of the exhortation is tainted.
2. Ecclesiology: the false claim of unbroken Roman Pontificate
The central theological falsification is the assertion that the Roman Pontificate remains intact and “stands firm” as visible sign of continuity:
“dum humanae res omnes… decidunt, Romanum tamen Pontificatum… incolumem superstitare” — while human affairs collapse, the Roman Pontificate remains unscathed.
But integral Catholic teaching, as synthesized (and cited in the provided Defense of Sedevacantism file) from St. Robert Bellarmine, Wernz-Vidal, John of St. Thomas, Pius IX, and canon 188 §4 (1917 Code), affirms:
– A manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
– Public defection from the faith vacates ecclesiastical office automatically.
– A non-Catholic cannot head the Church whose faith he rejects.
John XXIII’s subsequent actions and the council he convokes (with religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism, anthropocentric liturgical reform) manifest adherence to principles directly condemned by the pre-1958 Magisterium. The same integral theology thus judges the claim of “incolumis Pontificatus” (unharmed pontificate) as objectively false.
Therefore, the encyclical’s theological core rests on a counterfeit: the usurper uses Catholic doctrine on the indefectibility of the Papacy to shield his own defection, transforming a dogma into a rhetorical shield for apostasy.
3. Redefinition of the Church’s mission
The document insists that the “Catholic Church, in all that she does, is guided by heavenly inspiration and eternal truth,” and that her children must contribute generously to mutual respect, fraternity of peoples, and peace.
Compare:
– Pius XI (Quas Primas) teaches that the Church’s primary mission is to extend the reign of Christ the King, publicly and socially, and only thus secure authentic peace.
– Pius IX condemns the principle that the state should be indifferent to religion and that all forms of worship should enjoy equal public rights.
John XXIII subtly shifts emphasis:
– from converting nations and subjecting laws to Christ,
– to promoting “mutual respect” and “fraternal union” in a framework that anticipates the later doctrinal corruption of religious freedom.
The supernatural vocabulary remains, but the teleology is altered. This is the essence of Modernism: as St. Pius X exposed, it does not always deny dogmas; it reinterprets them dynamically to conform to modern sensibilities.
4. Optimism about “peoples” and “consciences” without call to conversion
A striking feature: the encyclical looks at “all lands” and discerns an “arcane force” reviving, by which peoples will be moved to seek the true good of human society. It hopes appropriate remedies will be found in doctrine affirming the rights and dignity of the human person.
Missing:
– A clear affirmation that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.
– A concrete call to non-Catholic rulers and nations to recognize the true religion and submit to Christ’s Church.
– An explicit denunciation of false religions and sects.
– Warning that “human dignity” detached from man’s duty to acknowledge Christ becomes the idol of liberalism, condemned in the Syllabus.
Instead, the document anticipates the anthropocentric language of the conciliar sect, where “human person” and “conscience” become central while the claims of the true Church are relativized.
Silence here is not neutral; it is doctrinally symptomatic.
Symptomatic Level: Grata Recordatio as a Programmatic Prelude to the Conciliar Sect
Seen in light of the integral pre-1958 Magisterium, this encyclical is not an isolated Marian exhortation; it is one of the first public texts of the conciliar revolution. Its “grateful remembrance” is the sugar coating on the pill of systemic apostasy.
1. Preparation for Vatican II: instrumentalizing Marian piety
By linking the rosary with:
– prayers for a “fruitful” Roman Synod,
– prayers for a “marvelous growth” of the Church through the coming council,
the text exploits simple Marian devotion to disarm suspicion toward an “ecumenical council” convoked without necessity, under modernist pressure, and designed (as history immediately confirms) to:
– abandon the Syllabus’ anti-liberal condemnations,
– enthrone religious liberty (Dignitatis humanae),
– propagate false ecumenism and interreligious relativism,
– democratize ecclesial governance through collegiality,
– and shatter the Roman liturgy.
This is a classic modernist method: seize the symbols (rosary, Marian language, continuity rhetoric) while inverting their substance.
2. The humanistic pacifism condemned implicitly by prior popes
The text’s anti-war appeals, detached from the demand for confessional states and the supremacy of Christ’s law, fall into condemned naturalism:
– Pius XI: true peace is possible only in Christ’s kingdom; pacifism without submission to the King is illusion.
– Pius IX: the thesis that civil liberty for all cults and public manifestation of all opinions does not corrupt morals is condemned.
“Grata Recordatio” denounces war and urges leaders to consider eternal laws, but does not demand that states publicly acknowledge the true faith. This nuanced omission aligns with the liberal thesis that religious neutrality of the state can still be moral if some general “eternal values” are remembered.
But Catholic doctrine before 1958 is unambiguous: separatio Ecclesiae et Status (the separation of Church and State) as a principle is condemned (Syllabus, prop. 55). The encyclical’s language slides toward that condemned position by leaving out the duty of states to honour Christ and His Church explicitly.
3. Silence on the real enemy: Modernism within
Most damning is what the letter does not say:
– No reference to the internal, doctrinal crisis condemned by St. Pius X as Modernism, “the synthesis of all heresies.”
– No warning against the infiltration of rationalism, historical criticism, ecumenist relativism into seminaries and theological faculties.
– No condemnation of the systematic undermining of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the sacraments being prepared by innovators.
Instead, the only evils clearly named are laicism, materialism, and war—external threats. The great apostasy brewing within the hierarchy and clergy is veiled in silence.
This pattern precisely matches the mechanism described in the provided “False Fatima” analysis: external dangers are highlighted (e.g., communism; here “laicism”), while the more lethal enemy—modernist subversion in the Church’s own ranks—is ignored or protected.
Silence on this point, at the very moment when the usurper prepares a council that will give institutional form to Modernism, is not accidental: it is evidence of complicity.
4. Use of Marian intercession to sanctify ecclesial self-destruction
The encyclical dares to ask the faithful to beg the Blessed Virgin Mary for the “good outcome” of the same council that will:
– dilute the uniqueness of the Catholic Church by speaking of the “Church of Christ” as subsisting more broadly;
– promote religious liberty in contradiction to prior Magisterium;
– launch reforms culminating in a new rite which obscures the sacrificial, propitiatory character of the Mass.
To enlist Our Lady for such ends is an abuse of her holy name. Genuine Marian devotion—as taught by St. Louis de Montfort, Leo XIII, and Pius XI—is intrinsically ordered to:
– deeper adherence to defined doctrine,
– hatred of error,
– victory of Christ’s Kingship over nations,
– and defense of the Church’s rights.
Here, Marian devotion is turned into a psychological lubricant for accepting the “Church of the New Advent,” the paramasonic structure that will occupy the Vatican.
Exposure of Spiritual Bankruptcy
Under the sole and exclusive criterion of unchanging Catholic theology before 1958, “Grata Recordatio” stands condemned not primarily for what it affirms explicitly (the rosary, Mary’s intercession, the supernatural character of the Church), but for:
– the duplicitous use of orthodox language in the service of an imminent heterodox restructuring;
– its omissions regarding the Kingship of Christ in society, the unique salvific necessity of the Catholic Church, and the mortal danger of Modernism;
– its reorientation of the Church’s mission from militant defense of truth and conversion of nations to a horizontal program of “mutual respect” and “fraternity of peoples;”
– its demand that the faithful spiritually underwrite the conciliar project which, in light of prior doctrine, cannot be understood as anything other than the organized enthronement of apostasy.
The text is thus an early monument of the conciliar sect’s method: retain Catholic decorations, evacuate Catholic content, and exploit the rosary and Marian piety as camouflage for the emerging abominatio desolationis in the holy place.
Authentic fidelity to Leo XIII’s rosary encyclicals and to Pius XI’s Quas Primas, to Pius IX’s Syllabus, and to St. Pius X’s anti-modernist magisterium requires not submission to the program outlined here, but its rejection. The rosary must be taken up not to support synods and councils of revolution, but:
– to implore God to shorten the days of deception,
– to preserve and restore the Most Holy Sacrifice and the sacraments in their integrity,
– to sustain those few bishops and priests who possess valid orders and hold the integral faith outside the conciliar sect,
– and to obtain the defeat of the paramasonic structure occupying Rome.
Any other use of Marian devotion—especially when directed toward legitimizing antichrists who publicly betray the prior Magisterium—is not piety but sacrilegious fraud.
Source:
Grata Recordatio (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025