On 6 May 1962, in the Vatican Basilica, John XXIII delivered a Latin homily at the solemn act by which he and his conciliar apparatus enrolled Martin de Porres among the “saints.” He links this canonization directly to his expectations for the upcoming Second Vatican Council, presenting Martin’s humility, charity, social concern, and devotion as emblematic fruits of the new orientation he expects from the Council and as a providential sign for contemporary “social institutions” and peoples, especially Peru. The entire discourse functions as a preparatory hymn for Vatican II, using Martin de Porres as a proto-symbol of conciliar humanism and interracial-social integration. Already in nuce, this homily reveals the theological inversion at work: the true doctrine of sanctity and the reign of Christ is instrumentalized to legitimize the conciliar revolution.
Conciliar Beatification of Revolution: John XXIII’s Canonization Homily as Manifesto of the Neo-Church
Direct Connection between Canonization and the Conciliar Revolution
From the opening lines, John XXIII removes all doubt about the ideological function of this ceremony. He states that all minds are drawn to the “gravissimum Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani Secundi eventum,” expressing the hope that by it “novo quodam vigore iuvenescat Mysticum Christi corpus,” that is, that the Mystical Body of Christ “rejuvenate” through this Council.
He immediately subordinates this canonization to that program:
“When We, with highest ceremony, inscribe a man of remarkable and singular virtue in the number of the heavenly Saints, We intended to signify that nothing can be more to be hoped for from the Council than that it might have stirred the children of the Church to the purpose of a holier life.”
Translated sense: sanctity is made the primary “message” and legitimation of Vatican II, and Vatican II is presented as the privileged instrument of ecclesial renewal.
Measured by the constant pre-1958 Magisterium, this shift is already suspect on several levels:
– The Mystical Body of Christ, as taught by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, is perfect in its constitution and indefectible. It does not “need” rejuvenation through a pastoral experiment constructed under liberal premises. To suggest ecclesial “rejuvenation” through a Council impregnated with reconciled liberalism directly contradicts the repeated condemnations of “progress, liberalism and modern civilization” as normative criteria (cf. Syllabus of Errors, prop. 80).
– The idea that the Council’s greatness is measured chiefly by moral uplift (“holier life”) without doctrinal war against modern errors is precisely the modernist displacement condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili and Pascendi: doctrine muted, morality aestheticized, supernatural combat against heresy softened into spiritualized rhetoric.
Already in this introduction, the homily operates as a conciliar charter, not a sober act of Catholic worship. The “canonization” becomes a propaganda vehicle for the future “abomination of desolation” of Vatican II.
Linguistic Cosmetics: Pious Vocabulary as Veil for Subversion
On the surface, the language is devotional: love of God and neighbour, Eucharistic piety, Marian devotion, humility, charity to the poor. These elements, taken materially, correspond to Catholic vocabulary. But under integral Catholic scrutiny, the rhetoric is symptomatic:
1. Strategic centering of Vatican II:
– The homily is framed by the Council at the beginning and end. Martin de Porres is not simply honoured; he is annexed as a “sign” and “fruit” of the new conciliar age.
– There is no mention of the perennial battles of the Church against liberalism, indifferentism, Masonry, Communism, naturalism, or Modernism. Instead, the canonization is enlisted to support the very Council through which those forces will flood the structures occupying the Vatican.
2. Soft, sentimental tone:
– Repeated use of sweetness, gentleness, tenderness, universal sympathy: “suavitas,” “dulcedo,” attraction of all, social sympathy.
– Christ the King is present only implicitly; his royal rights over nations, so forcefully defined by Pius XI in Quas Primas, are entirely absent as a thematic key. The word-choice domesticates sanctity into affective example and humanitarian appeal.
3. Humanistic reframing of sanctity:
– Martin becomes “patronus omnium socialium institutorum” in Peru (cited from Pius XII’s act), and John XXIII stresses that Martin’s methods are “quas pro illis temporibus novas prorsus censuerimus, atque adeo nostrae huius aetatis quasi praenuntias.”
– Translation: his charity and social concern are presented as precursors of modern “social institutions,” mirroring the conciliar sect’s obsession with “social justice” and horizontal activism, rather than with confession of the true faith, restoration of Catholic states, or defense against heresy.
This linguistic architecture reveals the modernist method: retain pious language while smuggling in naturalistic, egalitarian, and proto-ecumenical emphases. It is precisely what St. Pius X diagnosed: the modernist “wraps his doctrines with such clever art that he avoids striking the ear too crudely,” while changing the substance.
Theological Displacement: From Supernatural Kingdom to Social Humanitarianism
On the theological level, several distortions and omissions are decisive.
1. Silence on the objective doctrinal crisis
The homily never:
– warns against modern errors condemned by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII;
– mentions Modernism, indifferentism, secularism, atheism, socialism, Freemasonry as enemies of souls, though by 1962 they openly assaulted Church and society;
– affirms the exclusive necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation, though the Syllabus (prop. 15–18) and all pre-conciliar magisterium insist on this against liberal latitudinarianism.
This silence is not accidental; it is programmatic. While Pius XI in Quas Primas attributes the “misfortunes of the world” to the refusal of the reign of Christ and calls for public subjection of nations to Him, John XXIII, on the eve of his Council, uses a canonization platform without once proclaiming the rights of Christ the King over public life or condemning the liberal states that crush those rights.
Such silence in an official act, precisely where pre-1958 Popes spoke most clearly, is a signature of doctrinal betrayal. The integral Catholic perspective must judge: *tacere ubi oportet clamare est prodere* (to be silent where one must cry out is to betray).
2. Sanctity detached from war against error
Martin de Porres is described in edifying terms:
– love of God and neighbour;
– deep Eucharistic and Marian piety;
– charity to poor, sick, enslaved, and despised;
– humility, patience, forgiveness of injuries.
All of this can be materially true of a confessor-saint. However, John XXIII instrumentalizes these traits as if sanctity consists primarily in:
– social benevolence,
– promotion of humanitarian care,
– anticipation of modern egalitarian ideals.
No mention is made that true sanctity:
– is intrinsically bound to adherence to the integral Catholic faith;
– includes hatred of error and false religion;
– serves the extension of the one true Church, not the levelling of confessions.
By choosing precisely those aspects of Martin’s life useful to conciliar rhetoric and ignoring the dogmatic militancy inseparable from Catholic sanctity, John XXIII preaches an amputated concept of holiness compatible with religious pluralism and secular democracy—exactly the anthropology that will be codified by the Council and its subsequent usurpers.
3. Canonization as endorsement of a new ecclesiology
John XXIII repeatedly associates Martin’s life with what he “most expects” from Vatican II.
He proposes this “saint” as:
– a sign for youth in a time of “insidiae ac pericula” (dangers), but does not identify those dangers as doctrinal subversion and moral liberalism unleashed by the same circles pushing the Council;
– an encouragement for the Peruvian nation and “social institutions.”
The rhetoric reduces Martin to a symbol of:
– interracial fraternity,
– social uplift,
– institutional activism.
This is the emerging ecclesiology of the “Church of the New Advent”: the Church as sacrament of human unity, no longer as militant guardian of revealed truth against a world estranged from God.
The contrast with pre-1958 teaching is stark:
– Pius IX and Leo XIII vigorously defend the rights and liberties of the Church against the liberal state, unmasking Masonic plots (see Syllabus, and the appended condemnations of sects and governments seeking the Church’s destruction).
– Pius XI’s Quas Primas insists that public life, laws, education, must be subjected to Christ’s kingship, and that the plague of “laicism” is the root of social ruin.
– Pius X’s Lamentabili and Pascendi crush any idea of dogma evolving to conform to “modern needs.”
John XXIII’s homily, by contrast, is entirely reconciling: *no clash* with the world, no denunciation of the ideologies preparing the obliteration of Catholic order; instead, a gentle social-symbolic “saint” to crown a Council conceived, already in this text, as harmonious renewal aligned with modern sensitivities.
Symptomatic Fruits: From Martin de Porres to Neo-Church Humanitarianism
This homily is a symptom, not an isolated act. Read in light of what followed—Vatican II, the new rites, false ecumenism, religious liberty, the cult of man, the enthronement of secular categories—it appears as an early manifesto of the conciliar sect.
1. Recasting saints as icons of egalitarianism
By highlighting Martin’s love for:
– “agricolas, et homines vel nigrae cutis vel mixto genere natos,”
– his care for those held in abject servitude,
John XXIII treats him as harbinger of racial and social inclusion.
Catholic doctrine indeed teaches that all men are created in the image of God and called to the same supernatural end; racism and unjust servitude are grave sins. But the neo-church’s pattern is to:
– absolutize horizontal equality over the vertical submission of all nations to the reign of Christ;
– convert confessor-saints into mascots of a purely natural “human dignity” narrative that can be shared with non-believers.
The link to “omnium socialium institutorum” in Peru, already established by Pius XII and gladly reused here, is seized as bridgehead: the saint is annexed to social institutionalism, a stepping stone to the later religion of NGOs, “human rights,” and endless dialogue.
Integral Catholic theology demands: *ordo caritatis*—the order of charity—requires first the love of God above all, then the supernatural good of souls, before temporal relief. The homily in effect reverses the emphasis, permitting reinterpretation of sanctity as social service compatible with religious indifferentism.
2. Preparing the ecumenical and interreligious dogmalessness
Note what is absent:
– Any assertion that Martin’s sanctity flows from his adhesion to the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation in the proper sense.
– Any polemic against false religions, schismatic sects, or heretical communities dominating Latin America through liberal policies.
– Any reference to the necessity of the Most Holy Sacrifice, of the state of grace, of penance, of avoiding sacrilege, of the Last Judgment.
This silence fertilizes the soil for:
– the later ecumenical pantheon of the conciliar sect, where canonizations are no longer bulwarks of dogma but sentimental decorations;
– the pseudo-theology that treats saints as “witnesses” to universal human values, not as defenders of exclusive Catholic truth.
By using the canonization liturgy not to reaffirm dogma against error but to celebrate pastoral tones and social symbolism, John XXIII performs exactly the modernist maneuver: he empties solemn acts of their dogmatic edge.
3. Canonization in a compromised system
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, anchored in pre-1958 theology:
– A manifest modernist or one initiating a revolution towards condemned principles cannot, while holding what appears externally as the Papal office, exercise the charism of infallibility in fabricating new cultus aligned with his errors.
– The traditional doctrine, as consistently expounded by theologians like St. Robert Bellarmine, Wernz-Vidal, and reflected in 1917 CIC can. 188.4, affirms that a public defection from the faith severs jurisdiction *ipso facto*. If such is the case for a simple bishop, *multo magis* for a supposed Roman Pontiff who sets himself to inaugurate an aggiornamento harmonizing with liberalism and Modernism, precisely what Pius IX and St. Pius X anathematized.
– A “canonization” performed as ideological canon for a coming Council imbued with principles previously condemned cannot be treated as a guaranteed act of the true Magisterium; it is an act of the emerging neo-church.
Therefore, the use of Martin de Porres to underpin Vatican II is theologically perverse: either the act is null as coming from a usurper embracing condemned principles, or, at minimum, it is doctrinally suspect, being pressed into service of an agenda contrary to prior Magisterium. The faithful must not be deceived by the sentimental portrait into forgetting that sanctity can never be placed in service of liberalism, “religious liberty” in the conciliar sense, or the dethronement of Christ the King from public life.
Modernist Rhetoric vs. Pre-Conciliar Condemnations
To expose the spiritual bankruptcy of the attitudes in this homily, it is enough to juxtapose its spirit with binding pre-1958 teaching:
– Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors:
– Condemns the thesis that “the Roman Pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” (prop. 80).
– Condemns religious indifferentism, the idea that any religion may lead to salvation (prop. 16), and the separation of Church and State (prop. 55).
– Pius X, Lamentabili and Pascendi:
– Condemns the idea that dogmas evolve to adapt to modern conscience, or that ecclesiastical authority should submit to “historical criticism.”
– Orders unrelenting war against Modernism, the “synthesis of all heresies.”
John XXIII’s homily:
– treats the upcoming Council as self-evident blessing, without one word of doctrinal caution;
– employs a vocabulary of optimism, praxis, social resonance;
– ignores the duty to denounce liberal-secular ideology strangling Christian nations, including in Latin America;
– instrumentalizes a canonization to pre-sell the narrative that the Council will simply intensify holiness without confronting modern errors.
This is exactly the rhetorical pattern condemned by Pius X: modernists claim they only desire renewal and sanctity, while in practice dismantling the doctrinal bastions and reinterpreting everything through historical consciousness and pastoral expedience.
Thus the homily’s sweetness is poisoned. It is not an innocent panegyric but a manifesto: sanctity is invoked to disarm vigilance, to present the conciliar turn as organic fruit of Catholic life, while in truth it inaugurates a radical mutation of doctrine, liturgy, and ecclesial self-understanding.
Silence on Christ the King: A Deliberate Omission
Integral Catholic faith confesses, with Quas Primas, that:
– peace and order in society are impossible until individuals and states publicly acknowledge the reign of Christ;
– it is a grave error to relegate Christ to private devotion, excluding Him from public law, education, politics.
In this homily:
– Christ is presented as Redeemer and model, but not as the publicly defrauded King whose rights demand restoration.
– The Peruvian nation is exhorted vaguely to emulate Catholic “glories” and bring forth new examples of sanctity; there is no call for Peru (or any state) to recognize Catholicism as sole true religion, to conform laws to divine and natural law, to reject laicism.
Instead, Martin is linked to “social institutions” and interracial charity; the perspective tends towards the neo-church’s later cult of human rights and dialogue.
This omission is not trivial. On the eve of Vatican II—knowing the previous magisterial condemnations of liberalism, and the demands for Christ’s social kingship—John XXIII uses a high-profile liturgical homily to:
– say nothing of the duty of states towards the true Religion,
– say nothing of the criminal separation of Church and state,
– say nothing of the Masonic and secularist assault so clearly exposed by Pius IX and Leo XIII.
The resulting message: sanctity without kingship, charity without confession, Council without condemnation. This is theological and spiritual bankruptcy: *to praise a confessor while muzzling the confession of Christ’s sovereign rights*.
Conclusion: Canonized Rhetoric in Service of the Abomination
This homily, read honestly “from the perspective of integral Catholic faith,” is not a harmless devotional text. It is:
– a deliberate relocation of canonization into the orbit of an impending Council designed to harmonize with errors previously condemned;
– an exemplar of modernist rhetoric: retaining certain devout expressions while gutting the militant, doctrinal core of Catholic sanctity and the social kingship of Christ;
– an ominous sign of the emerging paramasonic structure that will occupy the Vatican, using saints (real or constructed) as mascots for its humanistic program.
By omitting explicit doctrinal clarity, by refusing to confront the ideological enemies of Christ, by subordinating a solemn act of the Church’s cultus to the propaganda of Vatican II, John XXIII’s discourse manifests the very inversion denounced by true Popes: it places man before God, history before Revelation, society’s sensibilities before Christ’s absolute rights.
The true faithful, bound to the unchanging teaching prior to 1958, must see in such texts not the voice of the perennial Magisterium, but the early echo of that conciliar neo-church which will enthrone religious liberty, ecumenism, and the cult of man, and thereby profane the name of sanctity itself. The authentic cult of saints can never be made a banner for the surrender of doctrine. Where that happens, there is not the Catholic Church, but the counterfeit.
Source:
In sollemni canonizatione Beati Martini De Porres Confesoris, Laici professi ex Ordine Praedicatorum, Homilia Ioannis PP. XXIII, d. VI m. Maii a. 1962 (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025