The text is a Latin homily delivered in St. Peter’s Basilica on Trinity Sunday by John XXIII during the solemn canonization of John of Ribera. It opens with a doctrinally sound praise of the Most Holy Trinity, presents Ribera as a model bishop of deep Eucharistic piety, pastoral zeal, and doctrinal firmness against Protestant errors, exhorts the faithful (especially those under persecution) to perseverance in the Catholic faith, and concludes with a prayer from the Mass of the Holy Trinity.
Yet beneath its apparently orthodox surface, this discourse functions as a calculated piece of conciliar propaganda: it instrumentalizes a saintly pre-Tridentine and post-Tridentine bishop to legitimize the coming revolution, masking the nascent apostasy of the conciliar sect under a thin veneer of traditional language.
Trinitarian Orthodoxy as a Mask for a New Religion
At first glance, the homily appears irreproachable. It confesses the august mystery of the Most Holy Trinity as the origin, foundation, and summary of the Catholic faith; it connects the Trinity with grace, beatitude, and imitation of God; it praises a holy bishop renowned for doctrinal firmness, pastoral zeal, and Eucharistic devotion. All these elements, taken materially, coincide with Catholic teaching.
But precisely here lies the perfidy. The speech must be read in its historical and theological context: pronounced by John XXIII, initiator of the conciliar revolution, architect of Vatican II, and therefore the first usurper in the post-1958 line of antipopes who erected the *conciliar sect* upon the ruins of the visible structures of the Church. What is presented as continuity is the systematic preparation of rupture. The saint is real; the dogma is untouched in words; but both are silently pressed into the service of a project that will shortly overturn the very principles they symbolize.
The homily must therefore be unmasked on four interlocking levels.
Selective Use of Tradition to Sanctify Ecclesial Usurpation
On the factual plane, the key maneuver is simple: John of Ribera – a Counter-Reformation bishop, resolute opponent of heresy, defender of Catholic Spain – is invoked to crown, with the appearance of traditional sanctity, the authority of the one who will soon convoke Vatican II and unleash the doctrinal devastation condemned by the pre-1958 Magisterium.
The homily underlines:
“virum sanctum… qui firmissima fide actus, conditorem suum… vita et actionibus integerrimis veluti adorantis officio coluerit” – a holy man who by firm faith and blameless life honored his Creator.
“omnes… aditus, ut clerum populumque ad severiorem traduceret vitae consuetudinem” – he led clergy and people to stricter Christian life.
“septies dioecesanas synodos coégit, in quibus de praecipuis doctrinae disciplinaeque capitibus egit” – he held diocesan synods to fortify doctrine and discipline.
Everything said here, in itself, is consonant with integral Catholic doctrine and with the Tridentine model of the episcopate. But this is precisely what makes the manipulation more insidious: a true saint is paraded by an illegitimate authority to confer traditional capital on an anti-traditional program.
From the perspective of the unchanging pre-1958 Magisterium:
– The Church is a perfect, divinely constituted society with immutable dogma, sacraments, and hierarchical structure, not subject to the evolutionist fantasies later promoted by Modernists.
– The same Pius IX who issued the Syllabus condemned the very principles of liberalism, religious indifferentism, and the separation of Church and State that the conciliar sect would embrace.
– St. Pius X in Pascendi and Lamentabili anathematized the evolution of dogma, historicism, democratic conceptions of authority, and subjection of doctrine to modern thought – all foundations of the “aggiornamento” initiated by John XXIII.
The homily never touches any of the impending novelties. It never calls for “religious liberty,” never glorifies “dialogue,” never hints at ecumenical relativism. On the contrary, it extols a bishop who vehemently rejected Protestantism and reformed his diocese according to Trent. Yet within two years, the same usurper will open a council whose texts on religious freedom and ecumenism contradict the doctrinal line of Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, and Pius XI.
This silence is the first mark of spiritual fraud. The saint is authentically Catholic; the one proclaiming him is architect of a non-Catholic future. By canonizing Ribera without disclosing or renouncing the modernist program, the homily becomes a liturgical and rhetorical theft: the sacred authority of a Counter-Reformation shepherd is expropriated to cosmetically legitimize the rise of the *Church of the New Advent*.
Controlled Orthodoxy in Language: Pious Eloquence Serving a Subversion
On the linguistic level, the homily is a quintessential example of controlled orthodoxy: polished Latin, traditional citations, edifying narratives, all carefully steering clear of the doctrinal battle lines that, at that very moment in history, were decisive.
Observe the rhetoric:
– Abundant emphasis on personal holiness, pastoral dedication, catechesis, Eucharistic devotion, clerical reform, visitations, synods.
– Emotive praise for persecuted Catholics: “O quanto vos, filii, amore et sollicitudine complectimur”, and exhortation not to lose courage under anti-religious regimes.
– Repeated stress on individual perseverance and moral integrity.
What is missing?
– No explicit reassertion that the Catholic Church is the only ark of salvation, contrary to the condemned indifferentism (Syllabus, propositions 15–18).
– No explicit reaffirmation of the duty of States to recognize and publicly worship Christ the King, as taught by Pius XI in Quas Primas and denied by liberalism (Syllabus, 77–80).
– No clear denunciation of “religious liberty,” “freedom of cults,” and secularism as intrinsically perverse (Syllabus 55, 78–79).
– No re-presentation of the integral anti-modernist doctrine of St. Pius X, though the times already demanded it.
The omissions are systematic, not accidental. The language celebrates an apolitical, interiorized, sentimental Catholicism: heroism of individuals under persecution, virtue of a bishop, personal piety. All good, but deracinated from the public, social Kingship of Christ and from the militant, dogmatically vigilant character of the pre-conciliar Church.
This is precisely the liberal operation condemned by Pius XI: to accept Christ as a spiritual symbol, while de facto expelling Him from public and juridical order. The homily never sets John of Ribera as a model of integral Catholic resistance against error in doctrine and public life; it domesticates him into a generic icon of pastoral kindness and edifying activity. The severe polemical edge characteristic of Tridentine Catholicism is blunted.
Thus the rhetoric, while orthodox in phrase, is modernist in function: it prepares ears to accept “renewal” by accustoming them to a vocabulary of holiness that is non-combative, de-dogmatized, and easily harmonized with the impending cult of “dialogue” and “human rights.” The saint is no longer presented as champion of the Church’s exclusive rights and dogmatic intransigence, but as a humanitarian shepherd – the prototype of the coming conciliar pseudo-bishop.
Silencing the Militant Dimension: From Counter-Reformation to Conciliar Appeasement
On the theological level, the contrast between pre-1958 doctrine and the underlying project of the homily is stark once we recall what the authentic Magisterium taught.
1. Pius IX (Syllabus of Errors) condemned:
– The separation of Church and State (55).
– The equality of religions and religious indifferentism (15–18).
– The “reconciliation” of the Papacy with liberalism and modern civilization (80).
2. Leo XIII and Pius XI taught the binding duty of public submission of States to Christ and His Church (cf. Immortale Dei, Libertas, Quas Primas).
3. St. Pius X in Pascendi and Lamentabili denounced:
– The evolution of dogma.
– Historicist reductions of Revelation.
– Subjection of theology to modern philosophy.
– The attempt to harmonize Catholicism with liberal-democratic principles.
John of Ribera’s historical role – implementing Trent, combating heresy, asserting Catholic identity against Protestant and Morisco threats – stands naturally within this pre-1958 line. Yet John XXIII, instead of making him a banner of doctrinal intransigence and anti-liberal Catholic order, neutralizes him into an edifying exemplar while simultaneously plotting a council that will contradict these very principles.
The homily’s praise of firmness against Lutherans is safe, because it is backward-looking. There is no warning against the new enemies: Modernists, ecumenists, liberal Catholics, paramasonic networks infiltrating seminaries and episcopates – precisely those condemned by St. Pius X as the “most pernicious” enemies from within. This silence is damning.
Given what followed (Vatican II’s texts on religious liberty and ecumenism; the destruction of the Most Holy Sacrifice through the Novus Ordo; the practical enthronement of man in place of Christ), it is clear that:
– The homily’s orthodoxy is tactical. It cultivates the illusion of continuity to disarm resistance.
– The absence of polemical clarity regarding liberalism and Modernism, at such a critical juncture, is not a neutral omission but a moral complicity.
– The canonization is used as a liturgical shield: “How could a ‘pope’ who canonizes a Counter-Reformation saint be plotting doctrinal subversion?” – precisely the psychological trap.
Authentic Catholic doctrine demands the opposite method: clarity, explicit condemnation of contemporary errors, vigilant application of past magisterial teaching to present dangers. Here we find pious generalities where there should have been surgical denunciation.
Instrumentalizing Persecution: Pious Words, No Condemnation of Internal Apostasy
A particularly revealing section addresses Catholics suffering under open persecution. The homilist speaks movingly to those in lands where rulers wage war on God and the Church:
“bello in Deum tamquam in infensissimum hostem luce et palam denuntiato… fidem radicitus convellere conantur” – rulers declare war on God and seek to uproot the faith.
He embraces them spiritually, praises their suffering for Christ, recalls youth who overcame flames and beasts by faith. On the surface, this is noble and consoling.
But once again: what is omitted?
– There is no distinction between persecution from anti-Christian regimes and betrayal from within pseudo-Catholic structures.
– There is no warning that the more deadly war is that of internal Modernism, which St. Pius X had already designated as the “synthesis of all heresies.”
– There is no alert that “Catholics” will soon be poisoned not only by communist violence, but by bishops and “popes” preaching religious liberty, false ecumenism, and liturgical profanation.
– There is no call to examine and reject those who corrupt doctrine under the guise of authority.
Instead, the persecuted are invited to find comfort in the sympathy of the very hierarchy that, in its higher ranks, is already preparing to betray the integral faith. The rhetoric of solidarity becomes a shield for internal apostasy.
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, this is particularly grave. The greatest danger to souls is not brute persecution – which often produces martyrs – but the corruption of dogma and worship. This homily cries over wounds inflicted by obvious enemies while carefully avoiding mention of the dagger already wielded by infiltrated Modernists within the hierarchy. It is political theatre: lamenting communism while incubating conciliarism.
Suppression of Christ’s Social Kingship and the Politicized Context
We must also note the timing: 1960, only three decades after Pius XI’s Quas Primas, a document that solemnly reasserted:
– The universal Kingship of Christ over individuals, families, and States.
– The duty of civil rulers to recognize and serve Christ and His Church.
– The condemnation of laicism, secularism, and indifferentism as a “plague” destroying society.
Authentic continuity would demand that a solemn homily in the Vatican, on the feast of the Trinity, canonizing a Counter-Reformation bishop, thunder with reaffirmations of:
– The non-negotiable rights of the Church against secular powers.
– The condemnation of liberalism and Masonic principles infiltrating constitutions.
– The obligation of Catholic rulers to confess Christ the King publicly and legislate according to His law.
Instead, what we hear is:
– A spiritualized, interior encouragement.
– Praise of individual virtue.
– Silence on the political and doctrinal demands of Christ’s Kingship.
This silence is striking, especially since Pius IX unmasked Freemasonry as the driving force behind persecution and laicization, and Pius XI openly linked the crisis of modern society to the refusal to submit to Christ’s reign.
The conciliar sect, whose foundations are being laid by this very antipope, will embrace precisely those condemned errors:
– “Religious liberty” in the sense repudiated by the Syllabus.
– “Ecumenism” that treats false religions as means of grace.
– A de facto surrender of Christ’s social Kingship in exchange for a seat at the table of the world’s religions.
The homily’s refusal to reiterate the pre-1958 line at a moment when it would have been most natural and necessary is not neutral. It is symptomatic of an ecclesial politics that seeks to appear pious while slowly muting the very doctrines incompatible with the new world-religion project.
Joannis de Ribera as a Captive Banner: From Catholic Bishop to Conciliar Mascot
One must insist: John of Ribera, as portrayed, is a true model of Catholic episcopal life:
– Zealous teaching of doctrine.
– Establishment of seminaries.
– Synodal governance according to Trent.
– Eucharistic piety.
– Care for catechesis of children and the faithful.
– Vigilance against Protestant heresy and moral corruption.
All this reflects the very ecclesiology, sacramental theology, and pastoral ideal defended by Trent, the anti-modernist Magisterium, and the integral Catholic faith.
But in the hands of John XXIII, this saint is subtly re-framed:
– His intransigence against error is presented without concrete application to contemporary errors (Modernism, liberalism, ecumenism, religious liberty).
– His Tridentine rigor is aestheticized, turned into a monument, not a weapon.
– His example is invoked to support obedience to the same central authority that has secretly changed its program from guarding Tradition to dismantling it.
The strategy is that of all revolutionary movements infiltrating institutions: they do not initially attack the institution’s heroes; they canonize them, quote them, wrap themselves in their mantle – while simultaneously preparing a reinterpretation that empties them of doctrinal content.
Thus, John of Ribera is not honored as an argument against conciliar novelties (which would be the only coherent use of his life), but as a decorative proof of “continuity” for the benefit of naive Catholics. It is a rhetorical exploitation of sanctity in the service of what will soon be the *paramasonic structure occupying the Vatican*.
The Final Prayer: True Words in the Mouth of a False Shepherd
The homily ends with the beautiful collect of Trinity Sunday:
“Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui dedisti famulis tuis in confessione verae fidei, aeternae Trinitatis gloriam agnoscere, et in potentia maiestatis adorare unitatem, quaesumus ut eiusdem fidei firmitate, ab omnibus semper muniamur adversis.”
This prayer is entirely orthodox. It recognizes:
– The confession of the true faith.
– The glory of the eternal Trinity.
– Adoration of the divine unity.
– The need to be protected by the firmness of that faith from all adversities.
Yet this orthodoxy in verba, pronounced by a man spearheading a process that will:
– Dilute the exclusive “confession of the true faith” into ecumenical ambiguity.
– Replace the integral Catholic religion with a “subsists in” formula.
– Undermine the firmness of faith through doctrinal innovations and liturgical corruption,
reveals the depth of the contradiction.
The tragedy is not that the text is overtly heretical; it is that it uses true Catholic formulas while directing the Church’s visible structures into paths explicitly condemned by the pre-1958 Magisterium. *Verba orthodoxa, mens perfida* (orthodox words, perfidious mind). This dissonance between word and deed is itself a moral and spiritual crime.
Conclusion: Uncompromising Discernment Against Conciliar Manipulation
From the standpoint of unchanging Catholic doctrine:
– The dogmatic affirmations about the Trinity and about sanctity found in this homily are materially orthodox and can be received insofar as they repeat the perennial teaching of the Church.
– The portrayal of John of Ribera as a model bishop largely corresponds to Catholic standards of the Tridentine episcopate.
– However, the context, omissions, and subsequent actions of John XXIII expose the homily as part of a broader strategy: to cloak the incipient conciliar revolution in the language, symbols, and saints of Tradition, in order to deceive the faithful and neutralize resistance.
Therefore:
– One must categorically refuse to take this homily as a guarantee of doctrinal continuity or legitimacy of John XXIII’s authority.
– One must unmask the manipulation by which true saints and authentic devotions are co-opted by the *neo-church* to canonize its own apostasy.
– One must return to the integral pre-1958 Magisterium (Trent, Vatican I, the Syllabus, Pascendi, Quas Primas, Lamentabili) as the exclusive, non-negotiable criterion for judging persons, texts, councils, and structures.
– One must recognize that the gravest threat is not in such polished homilies, but in the doctrinal and liturgical earthquake they serve to mask.
In the light of that immutable doctrine, this discourse stands as a telling document of transition: a carefully crafted bridge between Catholic language and anti-Catholic outcomes. The faithful must refuse the seduction of such bridges and hold fast to that faith which, as the true Magisterium insists, neither evolves into Modernism nor bows before the idols of liberalism, ecumenism, and the cult of man.
Source:
die 12 mensis Iunii A.D. MCMLX: In Sollemni Canonizatione Beati Ioannis De Ribera, Confessoris (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025