Pope John XXIII’s text “Paenitentiam agere” is presented as a solemn exhortation to prayer and penance in view of the impending Vatican II, grounding the call in Scripture, the Fathers, the practice of the Church, and previous councils, especially to obtain graces for the Council and a “renewal” of Christian life. Beneath this pious exterior, however, stands a calculated misuse of Catholic vocabulary to sanctify the conciliar revolution and to conscript the faithful’s penitential acts into the service of a project objectively ordered against the public Kingship of Christ and the immutable doctrine of the Church.

---

Paenitentiam Agere as Pious Screen for the Conciliar Subversion

The Fundamental Fraud: True Penance Harnessed to a Subversive End

The entire document revolves around one central move: it speaks frequently and at length about penance – an undisputed pillar of Catholic spirituality – yet orders that penance toward a goal diametrically opposed to the purpose given by Our Lord and infallibly explicated by the pre-1958 Magisterium.

Key features:

– The encyclical:
– Repeats the evangelical command: “Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
– Invokes Moses, the Prophets, St John the Baptist, Our Lord, the Apostles.
– Appeals to the practice before earlier councils (Lateran IV, Lyons II, Vatican I).
– Encourages novenas to the Holy Ghost, confession, the Most Holy Sacrifice, mortification, patience in trials.
– But this entire arsenal of Catholic language is subordinated to a single, undisguised objective: to obtain “graces on the imminent Council” understood precisely as Vatican II; i.e. as the launching pad of the conciliar sect.

The text states that the approaching Council will:
– “revive” faith, charity, and morals;
– stir those “separated from the Apostolic See” to seek unity and to enter “one fold under one shepherd”;
– be a privileged moment, an “acceptable time,” for the Church’s renewal.

This is the precise sleight of hand:

– Authentic Catholic doctrine: Penance is ordered to:
– expiation of sin;
– restoration and preservation of the state of grace;
– reparation of God’s outraged Majesty;
– victory over the flesh, the world, and the devil;
– perseverance in the integral faith.
– Here: Penance is ordered to the success of a council historically and doctrinally identifiable as the matrix of:
– religious liberty condemned in advance by the Syllabus of Errors (Pius IX, propositions 15–18, 77–80);
– the ecumenical relativism that places the unique Church of Christ on a spectrum with heresies;
– collegial and democratic distortions of the divinely instituted hierarchy;
– the cult of man contradicting the royal rights of Christ taught in Quas Primas.

Thus the encyclical uses what is holy to crown what would shortly become the programmatic demolition of the visible structures and doctrine of the Church. This is not an accidental defect; it is the core of the document’s theological malice.

Factual and Historical Distortion: Equating Vatican II with Past Councils

The text insists that convening an ecumenical council in 1962 is analogous to Lateran IV, Lyons II, and Vatican I, and that, as in those ages, the faithful must be summoned to intensified penance.

For example, it approvingly recalls:

“Prayer, fasting and almsgiving… as wings by which the Church more easily flies to the merciful ears of God”

and similar appeals by Innocent III, Gregory X, and Pius IX.

But the analogy is mendacious for anyone who measures by pre-1958 doctrine:

– Previous councils:
– Were convoked to condemn specific heresies and moral errors.
– Sought to strengthen the temporal and spiritual rights of the Church.
– Championed the unique truth of the Catholic religion against indifferentism and liberalism.
– Vatican II (in its texts and in the authoritative implementation by the conciliar sect):
– Institutionalized the very doctrines solemnly condemned by authentic popes.
– Produced Dignitatis humanae, directly contradicting the Syllabus on religious liberty (cf. errors 15–18, 77–80).
– Promoted an ecumenism incompatible with the dogma that “the Catholic Church is the only true Church” (against Syllabus error 21).
– Undermined Quas Primas by erasing from public life the duty of states to recognize Christ’s Kingship.

To treat Vatican II as the legitimate heir of Trent and Vatican I, and to command the faithful to do penance for its success, is to falsify history and theology simultaneously. It is the spiritual equivalent of asking Israel to fast and pray for the triumph of the golden calf, using the language of Sinai.

Linguistic Cloaking: Orthodox Vocabulary as Camouflage

The rhetoric of “Paenitentiam agere” is deliberately chosen to anesthetize:

– Tone: Smooth, paternal, exhortative, apparently ascetical, saturated with Scripture. This gives an aura of continuity precisely where a radical rupture is about to be institutionalized.
– Lexical strategy:
– Frequent use of *paenitentia*, *renovatio*, *auxilium caeleste*, *unitas*, *regnum Dei*.
– Citation of Joel: “Rend your hearts and not your garments… let the priests weep between the porch and the altar”.
– Invocation of St Paul on self-discipline: “Castigo corpus meum et in servitutem redigo”.
– Repetition of Our Lord’s warnings: “Nisi paenitentiam egeritis, omnes similiter peribitis.”
– Missing, or more precisely, strategically redefined:
– No clear denunciation of the modern errors explicitly catalogued by Pius IX and St Pius X—errors already raging in theology and society in 1962.
– No warning that the very “renewal” language is the code of those condemned in Lamentabili and Pascendi for their doctrine of dogmatic evolution.
– No precise reaffirmation that the only possible unity is the return of heretics and schismatics to the one true Church by abjuration of their errors.

Instead, terms like “renewal,” “revival,” “new splendour,” appear as neutral or positive, preparing minds for the modernist *aggiornamento* that St Pius X had already unmasked as the synthesis of all heresies.

This is the method of Modernism described by St Pius X: retain Catholic words, empty or invert their meaning, then use them as vehicles for revolution. *Paenitentiam agere* is a clinical instance.

Theological Inversion: Penance Emptied of Its Ecclesial Objectivity

The encyclical frequently states authentic principles:

– Inner contrition and sacramental confession are necessary.
– External mortifications are useless without true conversion.
– Penance is “a laborious kind of baptism” (rightly recalling Trent).
– Sufferings patiently borne and voluntarily accepted can be offered in union with Christ.

All of this, taken in isolation, echoes Catholic teaching. But the theological structure into which these truths are inserted is perverted in several decisive ways.

1. Instrumentalization of Penance for a Human Council Project

The text repeatedly orders the faithful to:
– offer penance “for the fruitful success” of the coming Council;
– obtain “abundant heavenly light” for the conciliar fathers;
– secure “a new and more beautiful age for the Catholic name.”

Yet nothing in the document:
– specifies that the Council’s task is the condemnation of errors already solemnly rejected by Pius IX and Pius X;
– warns against the condemned theses of dogmatic evolution, liberalism, religious indifferentism, or the sovereignty of the people over God (Syllabus 39–40, 55, 77–80);
– pledges fidelity to the anti-modernist line as non-negotiable.

Penance is not ordered to defending the deposit of faith against innovators, but to empowering those very innovators gathered under the conciliar banner. This is a perversion of the sacrificial economy: grace is being begged to lubricate apostasy.

2. Misuse of the Pauline Theology of Suffering

The document cites St Paul:

“I rejoice in my sufferings… and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ in my flesh, for his body which is the Church.”

But the “body” implicitly targeted here is the emergent neo-church: the “Church of the New Advent” that would officially enthrone religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality. The text presses the faithful:

– to unite their trials and voluntary penances to the passion of Christ “for the Council”;
– to act as if that conciliar structure is the privileged organ of the Redemption’s application.

This amounts to a theological lie. Sufferings have supernatural value only when united to the true faith and true Church. To bind them deliberately to a process that, in fact, installed a paramasonic structure in the place of the hierarchy is to direct sacrifice away from Christ’s order and toward an anti-church.

3. Absence of Militant Defense of the Faith

True penance in the Church, especially in times of crisis, is inseparable from:

– confession of the integral faith;
– combat against error;
– support for the rightful authority when it defends, not when it betrays, the deposit.

In Quas Primas, Pius XI teaches clearly that peace and order are only possible in the *Regnum Christi*, socially and politically acknowledged. In the Syllabus, Pius IX condemns the separation of Church and state, indifferentism, and the reconciliation with “modern civilization” as understood by liberalism. In Lamentabili and Pascendi, St Pius X denounces precisely the doctrines and methods of those who would draft Vatican II.

“Paenitentiam agere” does not:

– reaffirm the Syllabus as a binding norm against liberal democracy and naturalism;
– reaffirm Pascendi’s uncompromising condemnation of modernist exegesis and dogmatic evolution;
– warn that any “reconciliation” with the world’s principles is treason to Christ the King.

Its silence is not neutral; it is the most damning feature. Against this background of pre-existing condemnations, to exhort to penance for a council that was, in fact, designed to overturn those condemnations is to turn penance into complicity.

From Authentic Penance to Naturalistic “Renewal”: The Conciliar Fruit

Symptomatically, the encyclical elevates notions that would become dogma in the conciliar sect:

– An expectation of a “new and more beautiful age” of Catholicism emerging from Vatican II.
– Emphasis on broad participation, novenas, visible unity of crowds, and a global “religious spectacle” of devotion.
– A hope that those “separated” will be “stimulated” toward unity by the Council’s events.

These ideas, read in the light of what followed, expose their inner logic:

1. Replacement of Supernatural Combat with Optimistic Humanism

Rather than calling the faithful to wage war (*certamen fidei*) against the modernist infiltration already condemned by St Pius X, the text:
– presumes that the episcopal body, including already compromised hierarchs, will be docile instruments of the Holy Ghost;
– does not mention the grave danger of false theology in universities and seminaries;
– frames the Council as a guaranteed outpouring of graces, irrespective of the doctrinal disposition of the participants.

This directly contradicts the sober, militant warnings of the true Magisterium, which constantly taught that:
– heretics and innovators can ascend to high office;
– the faithful must test new doctrines against the previous definitions;
– not every council is ipso facto protected if its acts deviate from Tradition.

2. Ecumenical Ambiguity over Conversion

The encyclical desires that those separated from the Apostolic See be encouraged:

to sincerely and actively seek unity and to enter the one fold under one shepherd.

On the surface, this sounds Catholic. But:

– There is no explicit insistence on abjuration of heresy.
– No mention that Protestantism and schism “cannot please God in the same way as the Catholic Church” (Pius IX condemning the contrary as Syllabus error 18).
– The vocabulary matches the soft ecumenism incubating in theological circles: “dialogue,” “search for unity,” “separated brethren,” instead of clear calls to conversion.

This reveals the underlying modernist orientation: unity as process, convergence, and common prayer, not as a juridical and dogmatic return to the one true Church.

Symptomatic Exposure: An Encyclical of the Conciliar Sect

Examined against the integral Catholic doctrine before 1958, “Paenitentiam agere” exhibits the essential marks of the conciliar sect’s rhetoric:

– It retains traditional devotions (penance, fasting, novenas, indulgences, Eucharistic worship).
– It cites authentic councils and saints.
– It speaks respectfully of the Sacrament of Penance and the interior life.

Yet simultaneously:

– It is silent on the concrete, named modern errors the imminent Council would, in fact, adopt.
– It canonizes, in advance, the Council as unquestionable object of supernatural trust, refusing the possibility that it might deviate from the prior Magisterium.
– It transforms penance into a functional support mechanism for the coming revolution.

This is precisely how the *abominatio desolationis* operates: not merely by crude denials, but by sugaring apostasy with the sweetest language of tradition.

To put it plainly:

– A true Roman Pontiff, formed in the line of Pius IX and St Pius X, facing the twentieth-century crisis, would:
– denounce by name liberalism, socialism, communism, false religious liberty, and ecumenism;
– command penance specifically to avert infiltration and doctrinal betrayal in the Council;
– insist that every conciliar text must be measured rigorously by prior definitions, with no novelty tolerated.

Instead, this encyclical demands docile trust in the very episcopal body that would open the floodgates to doctrinal relativism, liturgical deformation, and the cult of man. It is the spiritual conditioning of the flock to accept wolves as shepherds.

Silence on Christ the King and the Social Order: Practical Apostasy

One of the gravest omissions concerns the public reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

– Quas Primas (Pius XI) teaches that:
– the ills of society come from excluding Christ and His law from public life;
– states and rulers must publicly recognize and honor Christ the King;
– peace and order are impossible where Christ’s sovereignty is denied.

“Paenitentiam agere,” issued on the eve of Vatican II:

– Does not reaffirm the binding duty of nations and legislators to submit to the law of Christ.
– Does not condemn secularism, laicism, or the separation of Church and state as such (Syllabus error 55).
– Does not warn against false “human rights” that enshrine freedom to insult God and propagate error.
– Speaks generically of “humanity wandering without a guide,” without naming the liberal and masonic systems specifically and juridically condemned by pre-1958 popes.

This silence is programmatic. It clears the way for the Council’s and the neo-church’s embrace of:
– religious liberty as a “right” of the human person to publicly profess false religions;
– “dialogue” with those sects that Pius IX and Leo XIII unmasked as instruments of Satan;
– reconciliation with “modern civilization” condemned as such in the Syllabus (error 80).

Authentic penance, in Catholic doctrine, is inherently bound to the restoration of Christ’s public reign and the submission of laws, customs, and states to His dominion. A document that calls for penance while sidestepping this is not neutral—it is anti-Catholic in effect.

Corrupting the Notion of Ecclesial Authority and Obedience

Another subtle, but decisive, thread:

– The encyclical presents the upcoming Council as the unproblematic exercise of the authority of “the successors of the Apostles,” and treats adhesion to its project as the natural expression of Catholic obedience.
– It presupposes that all those “having peace and communion with the Apostolic See” are genuine shepherds to be followed in this enterprise.

This directly collides with the principles articulated by sound theologians cited in the Defense of Sedevacantism file:

– A manifest heretic cannot hold jurisdiction in the Church; *ipso facto* he loses any office (cf. St Robert Bellarmine, Wernz-Vidal, John of St Thomas’ distinction between hidden and manifest heretics).
– Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code: public defection from the faith vacates an ecclesiastical office by the law itself.
– The faithful owe no obedience to commands or programs that contradict prior dogma.

“Paenitentiam agere” never admits the possibility that clergy publicly flirting with condemned modernist theses could be disqualified from authority. Instead, it sacralizes the entire conciliar body, inviting the faithful to fortify with their penances a hierarchy already teeming with deviations that had been anathematized.

Thus penance, instead of being a weapon against false shepherds, is distorted into an act of submission to them. This is ecclesial auto-destruction presented as piety.

Conclusion: An Encyclical That Weaponizes Penance Against Tradition

Seen without illusions, “Paenitentiam agere” is not a neutral or benign call to conversion. It is a masterpiece of pre-conciliar conditioning:

– It borrows genuine Catholic ascetical doctrine.
– It hides modernist goals behind venerable expressions.
– It forbids any thought that the Council might need to be resisted if it contradicts the deposit of faith.
– It silently omits the non-negotiable doctrinal ramparts erected by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St Pius X, and Pius XI.
– It invites the simple and devout to pour their sufferings into a cistern engineered to irrigate the desert of the conciliar revolution.

In doing so, it reveals itself as a document of the conciliar sect in embryo: the words of Catholicism harnessed to the program of its eclipse.

Authentic penance today, as always, must be:
– interior and sacramental, rooted in true contrition;
– exterior, by mortifications and patient endurance;
– doctrinal, by assenting entirely to the unchanging Magisterium prior to the conciliar usurpation;
– militant, by rejecting ecumenism, religious liberty, dogmatic evolution, and the cult of man;
– ordered to the triumph of the social and public *Regnum Christi*, not to the consolidation of the neo-church.

Any summons that diverts penance from these ends or subordinates it to the conciliar project stands, in objective fact, against the integral Catholic faith, no matter how elegantly it cites Scripture or the Fathers.

---

Source:
Paenitentiam Agere   (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025