Venerable Brothers are summoned to a novena and prayers to the Holy Ghost and to Mary and Joseph for the success of the projected Vatican II, so that, through abundant graces, the coming council may manifest the Church’s unity, truth and charity before the world and draw separated brethren into her bosom; the ceremony is to be crowned by episcopal consecrations in St Peter’s, the future council hall, as a visible pledge of missionary zeal and conciliar hope. In reality, this text is the pious-smelling prologue to a programmed demolition: under devotional varnish it inaugurates, in germ, the new cult of the conciliar revolution, the displacement of the true Magisterium by a paramasonic “spirit of the council,” and the preparation of souls for that abomination of desolation which will publicly enthrone man in the place of Christ the King.
Consecrating a Revolution: From Catholic Pentecost to Conciliar Pentecostalism
This letter of the usurper John XXIII (Angelo Roncalli), dated 11 April 1961, is a paradigmatic document of the conciliar sect’s method: Catholic phrases, Catholic feasts, Catholic persons invoked – all pressed into the service of a project that, by its aims and effects, contradicts the unchanging doctrine of the Church before 1958.
The text calls for:
– a universal novena before Pentecost “for” the Second Vatican Council;
– intensified supplications for those preparing the council;
– particular trust in the Holy Ghost as “Spirit of truth” guiding this enterprise;
– invocation of Mary as “patroness” of the council and Joseph as special protector;
– solemn episcopal consecrations in St Peter’s on Pentecost as a sign of missionary outreach and conciliar expectation;
– hope that the future council will present to the world a spectacle of unity, truth and charity that will attract those outside the Church.
All this seems orthodox at first glance. Yet precisely this form reveals the perfidy: the text is an exercise in liturgical and affective capture, redirecting Catholic devotion away from the divine mandate customarily exercised – *defendere, confirmare, definire* (to defend, confirm, define) – and towards a future, undefined, open-ended “event” whose real content is never honestly stated.
What appears as an invitation to prayer is in truth the spiritual mobilization of the faithful behind a conciliar operation which will enthrone the very errors solemnly condemned by the Magisterium of Pius IX, Leo XIII, St Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII.
Factual Level: The Pious Facade Hiding a Programmed Subversion
1. False premise of an extraordinary “Conciliar” Pentecost
The text constantly links the projected council to Pentecost, to the descent of the Holy Ghost, and to the promise of Christ:
“Ille vos docebit omnia et suggeret vobis omnia, quaecumque dixero vobis” – “He shall teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you” (Jn 14:26).
This promise, as every doctrinal manual before 1958 teaches (e.g. the classical ecclesiology of Billot, Van Noort, Journet in their pre-conciliar sense), is given to the Apostles and their legitimate successors in the exercise of the authentic Magisterium, not to an undefined future assembly used as a platform to dilute, relativize, or “update” what Christ has already said.
The letter subtly insinuates that the council will be a privileged locus of new illumination, as if the Church had somehow insufficiently manifested unity, truth, and charity until this twentieth-century “event.” This stands in tension with the constant doctrine that Revelation is complete and that councils exist to defend and explicate, not reinvent or “open” the Church to the world.
2. Absence of any real doctrinal or disciplinary necessity
Every true ecumenical council in history was convoked to address concrete doctrinal errors or grave disciplinary crises:
– Nicaea: Arianism.
– Trent: Protestantism.
– Vatican I: rationalism, liberalism, papal primacy and infallibility.
This letter offers no such concrete doctrinal necessity. It speaks in vague terms of “great work,” “hope,” “splendour,” “spectacle,” and missionary expansion, but is silent on the mounting modernist infiltration condemned by St Pius X in Pascendi and by the Holy Office in Lamentabili sane exitu. This silence is not neutral; it betrays complicity. St Pius X identified Modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies” and imposed an oath; Roncalli’s text entirely suppresses this ongoing battle, as if the danger lay not within but only outside.
3. The manipulative linkage of novena, consecrations, and council
The letter proposes:
– a universal novena to the Holy Ghost before Pentecost;
– on Pentecost in St Peter’s, episcopal consecrations, explicitly connected to the coming council.
This is political liturgy: a carefully staged rite to sacralize a predetermined agenda. Instead of prayer for the defence of defined dogma, the faithful are drafted to implore grace for a future *non-defined* program. This instrumentalizing of prayer prepares the psychological ground for unconditional acceptance: “You prayed for this; therefore the Holy Ghost wills all that we will later promulgate.”
But the Holy Ghost cannot be invoked to sanction novelties that contradict His previous work. *Spiritus Sanctus non est auctor confusionis nec contradictionis* (the Holy Ghost is not the author of confusion nor of contradiction). When a “council” will later be used to promote condemned errors – religious liberty (against the Syllabus of Pius IX), false ecumenism, collegial democratization, the cult of man – it becomes evident that this preparatory letter functions as a devotional anesthesia.
Linguistic Level: Sweetened Ambiguity as a Tool of Modernist Strategy
1. Sentimental verbosity and absence of dogmatic clarity
The text abounds in soft, sugary phrases:
– “modicum semen apparebat, in arborem crescit virentem…”
– “flagrantes in universa Ecclesia Nobiscum admoveantur Spiritui Sancto preces”
– “mirum unitatis, veritatis caritatisque spectaculum”
This language is affective, aesthetic, pictorial – deliberately non-dogmatic. Compare with the sharp precision of Pius IX in the Syllabus or St Pius X in Pascendi, where errors are identified, named, condemned, and anathematized. Here nothing is condemned; everything is aspiration, “spectacle,” “hope,” “joy.” Such rhetoric is not accidental: it is the modernist tactic denounced by St Pius X, who exposed how they avoid clear propositions and hide poison in vague, emotive formulas.
2. The substitution of “spectacle” for authority
The letter culminates in the desire that the Church should present to all a:
“mirum unitatis, veritatis caritatisque spectaculum” – “a wondrous spectacle of unity, truth and charity.”
Here, the very terms “unity, truth, charity” are hollowed out and turned into stage decorations for a show intended to impress the world. Authentic Catholic doctrine teaches that:
– unity is unity of Faith and submission to the Roman Pontiff;
– truth is the immutable deposit of Revelation;
– charity is rooted in supernatural love ordered to God and salvation of souls.
But the rhetoric of “spectacle” reveals a naturalistic, media-conscious mentality: the Church must “look” united, “appear” loving, “offer” a spectacle that will attract. The emphasis is on optics, consensus, and emotional appeal, not on conversion to defined dogma.
3. Omission of combat vocabulary
Not a single word in the letter about:
– heresy,
– errors,
– modernism,
– Freemasonry (so clearly unmasked by Pius IX and Leo XIII),
– the need to condemn, correct, or discipline.
The Magisterium before 1958 constantly spoke of the enemies of the Church: liberals, naturalists, rationalists, secret societies. Here, absolute silence. This is itself a linguistic confession: the enemy is no longer seen outside, because he has been welcomed within.
Theological Level: A Pseudo-Pentecost Against the Reign of Christ the King
1. Usurping Pentecost for a Conciliar Program
By tying the council to Pentecost, Roncalli attempts to confer charismatic legitimacy on what will become the charter of the neo-church. Yet Pentecost is the seal of a completed Revelation and the beginning of a mission to teach “all that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:20), not to “develop” doctrine according to modern man.
Pius XI in Quas Primas (1925) teaches that peace and order can exist only when individuals and nations publicly recognize the social Kingship of Christ. He identifies the plague of laicism, religious indifferentism, and the dethronement of Christ from public life, insisting that rulers and peoples must submit to His law. This apostolic letter, however, in preparing the terrain for Vatican II, does not even hint at the Kingship of Christ over states, nor at the imperative of subordinating civil laws to divine law.
Instead, its horizon is horizontal:
– “spectacle” to attract those outside,
– hope that “seeing” this, they will draw near.
No call to abjure errors, no profession of the one true Catholic faith as necessary for salvation, in direct opposition to the clear condemnations of indifferentism in the Syllabus (propositions 15–18, 77–80).
2. Subtle relativization of the unique authority of the traditional Magisterium
By presenting the coming council as a quasi-charismatic eruption of the Spirit – surrounded by novenas, consecrations, Marian and Josephite patronage – the letter insinuates that the decisive criterion of truth will be this new conciliar event.
Yet the doctrinal principle is immutable:
– Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.
– Councils have no mandate to innovate, only to guard, define, and apply.
– Any council that “updates” doctrine to harmonize with condemned errors, by that fact, betrays its mandate.
St Pius X’s Lamentabili sane exitu condemns the proposition:
“The Church cannot, even by dogmatic definitions, determine the genuine sense of the sacred Scriptures” (prop. 4, condemned).
Modernist councils and texts that treat dogma as open to “pastoral” reinterpretation over time stand under that condemnation. This letter prepares that perversion by treating the coming council as a future source of orientation without reaffirming its absolute duty to bind itself to the prior infallible teaching.
3. Perverse instrumentalization of Mary and Joseph
Mary is invoked as:
“mater gratiae et Concilii patrona caelestis” – “Mother of grace and heavenly patroness of the Council.”
Joseph is invoked as protector, to whom the council is “entrusted.”
This is presented as pious; in fact, it is theological abuse. Our Lady is Mediatrix of all graces ordered to the glory of her Son and the preservation of the deposit of faith. To present her as patroness of an event whose leading spirits will promote religious freedom, false ecumenism, collegialism, and the cult of man is to drag her name into a project contrary to the reign of her Son.
Similarly, St Joseph, Protector of the Universal Church, is not guardian of a conciliar rupture. To co-opt their names is to seek supernatural cover for naturalistic revolution.
4. Suppression of the duty to resist error
Integral Catholic theology (e.g. St Robert Bellarmine, Cajetan, Suarez) affirms that manifest heretics cannot hold authority in the Church; the faithful must not follow teachings that contradict previous defined doctrine. Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code declares that public defection from the faith vacates ecclesiastical office. Pius IX in the Syllabus, Pius X in Pascendi, Pius XI in Quas Primas, all outline a coherent front against liberalism and modernism.
This letter not only fails to recall these principles; it pushes the faithful in the opposite direction: universal trust in the leadership of a conciliar process steered by men already imbued with precisely the errors previously condemned. Thus, the text is not neutral; it is a theological trap, demanding docile consent to a future “council” without any criterion beyond an appeal to the Spirit – the classic modernist pseudo-charismatic justification.
Symptomatic Level: Fruit of the Conciliar Revolution and Systemic Apostasy
1. Ecclesiological mutation: from Church teaching the world to Church displaying itself before the world
The letter aspires that the council will cause the Church to:
“praebeat cunctis mirum unitatis, veritatis caritatisque spectaculum, quod conspicientes ad eam trahantur, qui extra maternum eius sinum degunt”
– “present to all a wondrous spectacle of unity, truth and charity, so that, seeing it, those who have long lived outside her maternal bosom may be drawn to her.”
Note the inversion:
– Conversion is not by preaching the necessity of the Catholic faith and condemning errors.
– Conversion is hoped as a spontaneous attraction produced by observing a “spectacle” of unity and love.
This anticipates the false ecumenism of the neo-church, which:
– replaces dogmatic clarity with “dialogue”;
– refuses to demand abjuration of heresy from Protestants and schismatics;
– treats communities rejecting the Papacy, sacramental order, and Marian dogmas as “sister churches.”
Pius IX explicitly condemned the idea that “every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true” and that “Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion” (Syllabus, 15–18). Yet the entire conciliar-and-post-conciliar orientation, foreshadowed here, dissolves those condemnations into practice.
2. Naturalistic horizontality and the cult of man
The invocation of unity and charity as a “spectacle” to attract outsiders betrays a naturalistic mentality: truth is made subordinate to aesthetic and emotional impact. This is the seed of the later cult of man, where councils and “popes” praise human dignity abstracted from the supernatural order, promote “human rights” detached from Christ’s rights, and treat all religions as partners in building peace.
Pius XI, in Quas Primas, directly chastises this mentality:
– He attributes the world’s disasters to the fact that “very many have removed Jesus Christ and His most holy law from their customs, from private, family, and public life.”
– He states there will be no peace until individuals and states recognize and submit to the reign of Christ.
– He condemns laicism and religious neutrality of the state as deadly errors.
The Roncallian letter, by contrast, does not even mention the duty of nations to submit to Christ the King. Instead, it heralds a council that will later be used to enshrine religious liberty as a “right,” directly contradicting the Syllabus and Quas Primas. Thus, the document is a symptom of the shift from *Regnum Christi* (Kingdom of Christ) to *cultus hominis* (cult of man).
3. The conciliar “spirit” replacing the Holy Ghost
The repeated appeals to the Holy Ghost in the letter are weaponized. Once the faithful are conditioned to equate the conciliar process with the action of the Spirit, any opposition to its outcomes will be branded as opposing the Holy Ghost.
But according to St Pius X in Pascendi and Lamentabili, the modernists precisely invoke an inner, evolving “religious sense” – pseudo-charismatic – to justify mutation of dogma and discipline. The appeal to “Spirit” without submission to binding pre-conciliar definitions and condemnations is the typical mark of that heresy.
Here, that pattern begins: vague pneumatological enthusiasm, no reaffirmation of fixed doctrine, implicit demand for trust in the leaders of a project whose true orientation is never dogmatically clarified. This is not the Paraclete promised by Christ; it is the “spirit of the council” that will legitimize:
– interreligious prayer assemblies,
– praise of false religions,
– profanation of the Most Holy Sacrifice,
– abolition in practice of the social Kingship of Christ.
4. The paramasonic structure and its psychological operations
In light of Pius IX’s explicit warnings in the Syllabus and subsequent allocutions about Masonic sects as principal forces waging war on the Church, it is significant that this letter:
– never mentions the threat of secret societies;
– never names modernism or liberalism;
– never recalls the solemn condemnations already in force.
Instead, it advances a project whose concrete fruits – as history confirms – coincide with the goals denounced by Pius IX: religious indifferentism, separation of Church and state, neutral schooling detached from the Church, glorification of “modern civilization” and liberalism.
The structure occupying the Vatican after 1958 bears the unmistakable traits of a paramasonic operation:
– gradual substitution of content while retaining forms;
– use of Marian and Pentecostal language to disarm resistance;
– deployment of councils and synods as democratic façades masking predetermined programs.
This letter is an early, lucid sample of that method.
Silences that Condemn: What This Text Refuses to Say
Measured against integral Catholic doctrine, the most damning evidence lies in what is omitted.
1. Silence on:
– the obligation of states to recognize the Catholic Church as the only true religion (Syllabus, 77);
– the condemnation of religious freedom understood as civil right to propagate error (Syllabus, 79);
– the duty to reject and combat modernist exegesis, theology, and pastoral practice (Lamentabili, Pascendi);
– the reality of hell, judgment, sin, and sacrilege.
2. Silence on:
– the objective necessity of conversion of heretics and schismatics by abjuration of their errors;
– the Catholic teaching that outside the Church there is no salvation understood in its perennial sense, not in a diluted, universalist reading.
3. Silence on:
– the binding nature of previous magisterial condemnations, as if the new council were free to treat them as outdated “contextual” statements instead of living, normative judgments.
Such systematic silence is not pious modesty; it is strategic suppression. *Qui tacet consentire videtur* (he who is silent is seen to consent). By not reaffirming truths under violent attack from modern culture and infiltrators, the letter tacitly allies itself with the project of neutralizing those truths.
Exposure of the Spiritual Bankruptcy
From the perspective of unchanging Catholic theology prior to 1958, the bankruptcy of this letter manifests in several converging points:
– It cloaks a revolutionary project in devotional language, asking the faithful to pray not that the council defend defined doctrine, but that it succeed as a grand “spectacle” for the world.
– It instrumentalizes Pentecost, Mary, and Joseph to legitimize an enterprise that historically results in the dissolution of Catholic polity, liturgy, and dogma in the minds of millions.
– It refuses to name or combat the real enemies identified by prior popes: modernism, liberalism, naturalism, secret societies; instead, it prepares to embrace their principles under conciliar labels.
– It subtly shifts the source of authority from the completed deposit of faith and its prior definitions to a future “event” presented as the work of the Spirit – effectively replacing the Holy Ghost with the “spirit of the council.”
– It evacuates from ecclesial language the note of militancy and doctrinal clarity, substituting soft, sentimental, and ambiguous rhetoric perfectly suited to smuggle in condemned errors.
Thus, the letter “CELEBRANDI CONCILII” is not an innocent call to prayer but an early manifesto of the conciliar sect’s method: enveloping apostasy in incense and Latin syllables. Fidelity to Pius IX, St Pius X, Pius XI and the entire pre-1958 Magisterium demands that such texts be unmasked, rejected, and opposed with the same intransigent zeal with which our forefathers resisted Arianism, Protestantism, and every prior assault on the Bride of Christ.
Where the letter seeks to consecrate a new Pentecost of aggiornamento, the integral Catholic conscience must instead cling to the true Pentecost, to the definitive, inerrant teaching of the Church before the revolution, and to the social and liturgical reign of Christ the King over persons, families, and nations – *regnum veritatis et vitae, regnum sanctitatis et gratiae, regnum iustitiae, amoris et pacis* (a kingdom of truth and life, of holiness and grace, of justice, love and peace) in the only sense ever taught and defended by the true Church.
Source:
Celebrandi Concilii Oecumenici, Epistula Apostolica de supplicatione habenda proximo festo Pentecostes pro Concilio Oecumenico Vaticano II, XI Aprilis MCMLXI, Ioannes PP. XXIII (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025