John XXIII’s allocution of 3 April 1962, delivered at the close of the fifth session of the Central Preparatory Commission for Vatican II, offers a self-congratulatory panorama of the preparatory work, exalts harmonious debate among bishops, praises contemporary interest in the liturgy, endorses the modern means of social communication and “progress” of arts and sciences, laments difficulties facing missions, and concludes with sentimental symbolism (the “golden rose”) as an omen of joy and hope for the coming council. In reality, this speech is a programmatic manifesto of horizontal optimism, naturalistic trust in modern culture, and deliberate muting of the integral Catholic combat against error—an omen not of renewal, but of doctrinal disarmament and ecclesial self-dissolution.

---

Sentimental Optimism as the Prelude to Ruin

John XXIII speaks as if standing at the dawn of a luminous springtime, where polite discussions, adaptation to “new means” of communication, and aesthetic refinements of liturgy will spontaneously blossom into ecclesial vitality. There is no trace of the grave, militant supernatural consciousness that animated St. Pius X in Pascendi and Lamentabili sane exitu, no echo of Pius XI’s insistence in Quas primas that peace is impossible without the public, juridical reign of Christ the King, no fire of Pius IX’s Syllabus unmasking liberalism, indifferentism, and Masonic subversion.

Instead, the allocution replaces the traditional *theologia crucis* with a saccharine rhetoric of “Laetare,” “Gaudete,” “suavity,” “joy,” and a “golden rose” offered to a world already enthralled by apostasy. The tone is theologically symptomatic: where the pre-1958 Magisterium exposes the world, sects, and states as rebelling against God, John XXIII’s discourse caresses “progress” and the modern instruments of influence, as if technology and polite dialogue were neutral tools, lacking an intrinsic orientation in the hands of the enemies of the Church.

This is not merely an unfortunate style. It is a manifesto of a new religion, in which history, culture, and media are welcomed without frontally subordinating them to the absolute sovereignty of Christ and the inerrant, immutable doctrine of the Church. *Lex orandi, lex credendi*: when the language is softened, the dogma is already being suffocated.

Naturalistic Apotheosis of “Progress” Against the Syllabus

One of the key sentences of the allocution declares:

Ecclesia nullo modo moram vel impedimentum infert doctrinarum et artium progressioni atque incremento; quin immo eadem promovet, viamque munit atque patefacit…

(“The Church in no way delays or hinders the progress and development of doctrines and arts; indeed she promotes them, and opens and prepares the way…”)

Stripped of qualification, this is programmatic Modernism.

– The pre-conciliar Magisterium never canonized “progress” as such. Pius IX, in the condemned proposition 80 of the Syllabus, anathematizes the idea that “the Roman Pontiff can and ought to come to terms with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization.” In direct contrast, John XXIII’s rhetoric praises exactly that consonance, without any doctrinal alarms.
– The speech does not distinguish:
– between legitimate development subject to the natural law and the Kingship of Christ,
– and the liberal-progressive ideology intrinsically ordered against the Church.
– Pius XI in Quas primas teaches that the calamities of the age come precisely because “very many have thrust Jesus Christ and his holy law out of their lives;” he demands the restoration of Christ’s social reign, not the benediction of autonomous “progress.” Here, however, the “progress” of arts and media is serenely welcomed, provided only that “spiritual goods and morals” suffer no harm—an utterly vague clause, devoid of dogmatic teeth, easily bent by those determined to harmonize the Church with the world.

This is the essence of the liberal thesis long condemned: the natural order and its cultural, political, technical development are treated as if religiously neutral, to be gently oriented but never judged and condemned in their anti-Christian principles. The allocution’s optimism is not supernatural hope; it is naturalism cloaked in pious verbiage.

From Militancy to Managerial Harmony: The Linguistic Betrayal

Linguistically, the allocution is a case study in capitulation.

– Endless references to “joy,” “suavity,” “oblectamentum” (delight), “sereno more,” “mutua observantia” (mutual respect) dominate. There is no vocabulary of:
– heresy,
– error,
– condemnation,
– excommunication,
– the rights of the Church over states,
– or the duty to reject modernist poison.
– The “varietas iudiciorum” (variety of judgments) arising from different nations and experiences is praised as enriching, leading serenely to an easily obtained consensus once the council opens.

But the Catholic Church is not a parliament of national mentalities; she is the guardian of a divinely revealed deposit, entrusted to Peter to feed sheep and lambs with one doctrine. St. Pius X, in Pascendi, unmasks the Modernists’ glorification of “vital immanence” and experiential plurality of beliefs. John XXIII, by elevating “variety of judgments” born of differing national mentalities into something positive, effectively introduces that very immanentist pluralism into the heart of conciliar deliberation.

– The rhetoric of “serene debate” and “mutual respect” is employed precisely where the Fathers of the Church spoke of combating heresy, silencing error, cutting off those who pervert the Gospel.
– Where Pius IX and Leo XIII warned against the seductions of liberalism and secret societies, John XXIII’s speech is totally silent about the Masonic, socialist, and secular forces strangling Christian civilization. Silence here is not neutral; it is the loudest possible signal of doctrinal surrender.

Qui tacet, consentire videtur (he who is silent is seen to consent). The allocution’s tone is the tone of a leadership resolved not to condemn.

Liturgical “Renewal” as Door to Desacralization

John XXIII enthusiastically notes the growing focus on the sacred liturgy, commending those who, following Mediator Dei, seek to “restore rites to their native splendour” and arouse the faithful to active participation:

…id laudabilibus sane nisibus assequi contendunt, ut nempe sacri ritus ad nativum revocentur splendorem, iidemque vividius excitent christifideles ad sinceram fovendam pietatem…

(“…they strive, in truly praiseworthy efforts, to bring sacred rites back to their original splendour and to more vividly stir the faithful to foster sincere piety…”)

In isolation, this phrase could be read in continuity with Pius XII’s careful, doctrinally anchored liturgical discipline. But in context—and confirmed by subsequent events—it functions as a coded prelude to the demolition of the Roman Rite:

– No warning is uttered that tampering with the sacral, hierarchical, sacrificial character of the liturgy endangers the very lex credendi.
– No reiteration that the Most Holy Sacrifice is primarily propitiatory, offered to God for sins, not a communal meal or pedagogical show.
– No mention of the danger, emphasized by Pius XII, of archaeologism and of fabricating “primitive” rites to justify novelty.

Instead, the language is plastic and ambiguous—perfectly suited for the architects who, within a few years, will fabricate a rite aligned with Protestant theology, horizontal participation, and anthropocentric celebration. The allocution supplies the spiritual psychology: optimism, creativity, adaptation, “original splendour” undefined—thus manipulable.

This is precisely how Modernism operates, as unmasked in Lamentabili: by soft formulations that allow dogmatic content to be evacuated under the banner of development.

Social Communication: Blessing the Instruments of Subversion

The allocution dedicates an entire section to the press, cinema, radio, and other media, acknowledging their power over youth and calling for vigilance by parents, civil authorities, and morally conscious operators. It cites earlier documents like Vigilanti cura and Miranda prorsus.

On the surface, this seems orthodox. In reality, its deficiencies are lethal:

– There is no reiteration that states and media are bound by the law of Christ the King, and that public propagation of error and immorality is objectively sinful and must be legally suppressed, as Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius XI affirmed.
– It exhorts “vigilance” and “prudence” but does not condemn the liberal error that grants a “right” to spread heresy and vice. The language is pastoral-psychological, not doctrinal-juridical.
– In a climax of naivety, it subtly suggests confidence that these same instruments of mass manipulation can be harmonized with the Church’s mission, without acknowledging that they are structurally captured by enemies condemned repeatedly since the 19th century.

Thus, the allocution facilitates the later conciliar and post-conciliar exaltation of “social communication” as a neutral field of dialogue, preparing the faithful not to resist, but to be catechized by the world through sanitized “Christian” packaging. The prophetic anti-liberal rigor of the Syllabus is tacitly shelved.

Omitting the Central Battle: Modernism Inside the Walls

Most damning is what the allocution does not say.

– It never once mentions *Modernism*—the “synthesis of all heresies” whose propositions had been formally condemned less than 60 years earlier and whose methods (historicism, evolutionism, symbolist re-interpretation of dogma) were visibly resurging.
– It does not invoke Pascendi or Lamentabili sane exitu as non-negotiable norms for the forthcoming council, even though the theological milieu of 1962 was visibly saturated with the very currents condemned there.
– Instead of warning the bishops to defend the deposit of faith against infiltrated errors and Masonic designs (denounced explicitly by Pius IX and Leo XIII), John XXIII flatters their “variety of judgments” and assures them of a consensus that will be “universis acceptus” (“accepted by all”).

Here the rupture is undeniable:

– St. Pius X imposed an oath against Modernism, recognizing a grave internal conspiracy.
– John XXIII, standing at the threshold of a council, refuses to arm the hierarchy with those categories of discernment, and publicly adopts a hermeneutic of trust toward theologians and “experts” in precisely those domains (biblical criticism, liturgy, ecclesiology) where Modernism had been condemned.

This silence is not ignorance; it is policy. It signals the abandonment of the Church’s divinely mandated duty to guard, judge, and condemn. Instead, the conciliar apparatus is invited to function as a convocation of co-researchers in dialogue with the age. Such an approach is irreconcilable with the pre-1958 ecclesiological doctrine that the Magisterium is *regula fidei*, not one opinion among many.

Sentimentality and Symbolic Manipulation: The Golden Rose

The conclusion of the allocution descends into a theatrical evocation of the ancient ceremony of the “aurea rosa,” lavishly described and linked to paschal joy, culminating in a quote of Innocent III:

Hodieunum officium… totum est plenum laetitia, totum gaudio cumulatum…

(“Today’s office is wholly full of joy, wholly filled with gladness…”)

He presents this “golden rose” as a mystic prelude and auspice for the forthcoming council, to be a sign of charity and fragrance of virtues for the entire world.

This is spiritually perverse on two levels:

– The world of 1962 is:
– drenched in atheistic communism,
– corroded by liberal democracy and moral dissolution,
– infiltrated by anti-Christian sects (explicitly denounced by Pius IX and Leo XIII).
In such an hour, the Vicar of Christ is traditionally called to trumpet penance, combat, condemnation of errors, insistence on the Kingship of Christ, not to distribute symbolic roses of generalized optimism.
– Innocent III’s joy, cited here, arose within a Christendom that, despite its sins, still acknowledged the visible supremacy of the Church and the objective order of Christian society. To transplant his rhetoric to 1962, without his militancy and judicial authority, is an abuse: it weaponizes historic papal imagery to sanctify the opposite orientation—reconciliation with the world.

Thus, the sentimental golden rose functions as a narcotic. While wolves encircle the flock, the shepherd offers perfumed symbols and assures all that the upcoming council is a radiant promise. The faithful are disarmed emotionally before they are deceived doctrinally.

Preparation for the Conciliar Revolution: A Symptomatic Reading

Viewed in light of integral Catholic teaching before 1958, this allocution is not an isolated, harmless address. It is:

– a concentration of:
– naturalistic optimism,
– uncritical openness to “modern means”,
– relativizing praise of plural opinions,
– silencing of Modernist and Masonic threats,
– liturgical language ripe for exploitation,
– sentimental substitution of affective imagery for doctrinal clarity.
– a symptom of the systemic apostasy that would manifest itself openly in the conciliar and post-conciliar decrees:
– the cult of “religious liberty” as a supposed right to propagate error (condemned by Pius IX and Leo XIII),
– false ecumenism treating heretical communities as “sister churches,”
– collegiality undermining the monarchical structure of the Church,
– anthropocentric liturgical reform, evacuating the explicit propitiatory and sacrificial expression.

The speech’s “serene” rhetoric is not a virtue; it is the anesthetic of doctrinal vigilance. Where authentic popes used words as swords to defend the flock, John XXIII uses words as cushions to lull it.

Lex credendi requires an unyielding confession that:
– Revelation is closed with the Apostles.
– Dogma does not evolve in meaning.
– Error has no rights.
– The Church is a perfect society, superior to the state in religious matters.
– The Mass is the unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary, not a community celebration.
– Modernism is intrinsically incompatible with the Catholic faith.

This allocution, on every essential point, either passes over these truths in silence, relativizes them through its tone, or aligns practically with the condemned liberal thesis. It is the polite face of the revolution.

Conclusion: The Bankruptcy Revealed

Measured by unchanging Catholic doctrine prior to 1958, the allocution of 3 April 1962 reveals:

– On the factual level:
– a deliberate reframing of the forthcoming council as a harmonious, universally palatable event,
– with no mention of the need to condemn errors or reaffirm, against the age, the censures of the Syllabus and anti-Modernist decrees.
– On the linguistic level:
– a sugary, bureaucratically serene vocabulary that displaces the militant precision proper to the Church’s magisterial language.
– On the theological level:
– an implicit acceptance of liberal progressivism,
– an ambiguous endorsement of liturgical “renewal” later used to devastate the rite,
– a humanistic trust in media and culture largely controlled by the enemies of Christ.
– On the symptomatic level:
– the allocution stands as a prelude to the conciliar and post-conciliar eclipse of the Kingship of Christ, the collapse of missionary exclusivity, and the institutionalization of the very errors condemned by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII.

What presents itself as a rose of joy is, in light of the perennial Magisterium, a sign of withering fidelity. The “golden rose” held up by John XXIII is not the flower of Catholic victory, but the gilded emblem of a Church about to renounce its own divine weapons.

---

Source:
Allocutio habita post exactos labores Sessionis quintae Commissionis Centralis Concilio Oecumenico Vaticano II apparando (die 3 m. Aprilis, A.D. MCMLXII)   (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025