The document is a brief Latin letter of Giovanni Roncalli (John XXIII) to Basil Heiser, superior of the Conventual Franciscans, praising the plan to celebrate the 19th centenary of the martyrdom of St James the Less in the Basilica of the Holy Apostles in Rome, exhorting to renewed devotion to St James and St Philip, linking their veneration to protection for the impending Second Vatican Council, and invoking heavenly aid so that the Council may bring about a “springtime” of spiritual renewal and renewed light and strength for the “Church.”
This apparently pious text is in fact a small but clear specimen of the conciliar revolution’s method: appropriation of apostolic language to consecrate an already‑planned betrayal, wrapping the nascent neo‑church and its Oecumenicum Vaticanum II in the borrowed halo of the Apostles to disguise the demolition of the very faith they shed their blood to defend.
Invocation of Apostolic Martyrs to Legitimize a Counterfeit Council
From Genuine Apostolic Cult to an Umbrella for Vatican II
On the factual level, the letter:
– Calls St James the Less an “inserted star” in the choir of Apostles, rightly venerable for his martyrdom.
– Praises the decision of the Conventual Franciscans to organize solemn centenary celebrations in the Basilica of the Holy Apostles dedicated to James and Philip.
– Insists that such celebrations will benefit “this Our City and the universal Church,” particularly in view of the approaching “Oecumenicum Concilium Vaticanum secundum.”
– Exhorts the faithful to study James’s canonical epistle, especially its teaching that faith without works is dead.
– Invokes the intercession of James, Philip, and all the Apostles so that the upcoming council may be flooded with heavenly gifts, bringing new light, new strength, and a vernal renewal for the “Church.”
– Concludes with an “Apostolic Blessing” dated 30 April 1962.
All of this sounds orthodox if read in isolation. But read in its historical and theological context—and under the light of pre‑1958 magisterium—it becomes a deliberate liturgical‑devotional veil thrown over the preparation of the most devastating pseudo‑council in history. The letter’s entire logic is: because the Basilica is apostolic, and because the Apostles are glorious, therefore the centenary celebrations should converge toward spiritual support for Vatican II, as if this assembly were simply the continuation and flowering of apostolic doctrine.
Here lies the core perversion: the Apostles, who anathematized every novelty against the deposit (cf. Gal 1:8–9), are invoked to bless the very process that would enthrone doctrinal evolution, religious liberty, false ecumenism, and the cult of man—errors already solemnly condemned by the integral Magisterium, notably in the Syllabus of Errors and in Lamentabili sane exitu.
Linguistic Sanctification of the Conciliar Revolution
The rhetoric of the letter is a clinical example of modernist technique: soft, uplifting, devout in form, yet quietly re‑anchoring supernatural realities into the program of a naturalistic, man‑centered council.
Key elements:
1. Subtle functionalization of the Apostles
The text places the Apostles—especially James and Philip—primarily in a utilitarian role relative to Vatican II:
“Quod quidem et Nostrae huic Urbi et Ecclesiae universae prospere cedet, cum Sanctorum Apostolorum munimine… magnum cum instat eventum, scilicet Oecumenicum Concilium Vaticanum secundum, summopere opus esse…”
Translation: “This will be of benefit to this Our City and the universal Church, since in the present circumstances, when the great event of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council is at hand, the help, protection and light of the Holy Apostles are especially needed.”
The Apostles are thus instrumentalized as mascots for a pre‑decided “great event,” never once described in the precise language the Church had always used for true Councils: defense of defined dogma, condemnation of heresies, restoration of discipline.
2. Appeal to “spiritual springtime” rhetoric
The letter speaks of “spiritualis renovationis quasi floridum ver” (a kind of blossoming spring of spiritual renewal). This phraseology—apparently innocent—prefigures the entire conciliar propaganda of “renewal,” “aggiornamento,” “new Pentecost,” all notoriously left undefined. Nowhere does he say: strengthening of the condemned truths of Quanta Cura, Syllabus, Pascendi, Lamentabili, Quas Primas, the social Kingship of Christ. The content of “renewal” is left open: a classic modernist ploy, condemned explicitly by St Pius X, who exposes the technique of speaking of “reform” and “progress” while meaning dogmatic mutation (Pascendi, Lamentabili).
3. Selective orthodoxy as a smokescreen
The mention of James’s epistle and the axiom that faith without works is dead is doctrinally true. But note the tactic: one uncontroversial moral point is highlighted, while absolute silence reigns regarding:
– the uniqueness of the Catholic Church as the one ark of salvation, defended by Pius IX against indifferentism (Syllabus, 15–18, 21);
– the duty of nations to profess the Catholic faith and submit to Christ the King (Quas Primas);
– the mortal poison of secret societies and paramasonic sects (Syllabus, multiple references to Freemasonry and liberalism);
– the intrinsic errors which Vatican II was already preparing: religious liberty, ecumenism with heretics, collegiality relativizing papal monarchy.
This silence is not accidental. It is part of the *methodus tacendi*—the method of silence—by which modernists refrain from repeating prior condemnations in order to cause them to fade from practical consciousness, preparing the ground for their opposite.
4. Absence of militant soteriological language
The apostles are called “princes of the Churches” and “lights of the world” (citing the hymn “Ecclesiarum principes”), but the letter carefully avoids reminding that these princes died to defend defined dogma against judaizers, gnostics, and all innovators. No hint of:
– hell,
– necessity of remaining in the integral faith,
– sacramental confession,
– the possibility of losing one’s soul through heresy.
The whole tone is consoling, optimistic, bureaucratically devout; the supernatural combat dimension is drained away. This is symptomatic of the conciliar sect’s anthropology, condemned already by Pius X as “immanentism” and “vitalism”: Christ and the saints reduced to symbols of “renewal,” rather than judges of error and sin.
Theological Contradictions with Pre-1958 Magisterium
From the perspective of unchanging Catholic doctrine, several grave problems emerge.
1. False presupposition: Vatican II as unquestionably legitimate and beneficial
The entire letter assumes as axiomatic that Vatican II is a holy, Spirit‑led council that deserves the Apostles’ patronage. But the Church does not sanctify a Council merely because it is announced by someone bearing papal garments. A council is legitimate only if:
– convoked and ratified by a true Roman Pontiff;
– harmoniously continuing prior infallible teaching;
– defending the faith and condemning errors.
Pius IX in the Syllabus explicitly condemns the notion that Popes and Councils have erred when defining faith and morals (proposition 23). Conversely, he presupposes that true councils reiterate, not relativize, doctrine. St Pius X in Lamentabili condemns the idea that dogmas are interpretations of religious experience subject to evolution (prop. 22, 58–60). Yet Vatican II—already in preparation when this letter was written—was designed to smuggle exactly such evolution under the mask of “pastoral” language.
By hitching apostolic devotions to this “great event” without doctrinal criteria, Roncalli performs a theological fraud: he borrows apostolic authority to prop up a future program which, in its texts on religious liberty (Dignitatis humanae), ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio), collegiality (Lumen gentium), and the world (Gaudium et spes), will contradict the Syllabus, Quanta Cura, Mortalium Animos, and Quas Primas. This is *non possumus* (we cannot) from the perspective of integral Catholic faith.
2. Silencing the Kingship of Christ and the condemnation of liberalism
Pius XI in Quas Primas teaches plainly:
– Peace and order are impossible until states publicly recognize the social reign of Christ.
– Secularism and laicism are a “plague.”
– Civil authority must submit to Christ’s law; religious indifferentism is condemned.
The letter, positioning Vatican II under apostolic auspices, does not once recall the duty of states to confess Christ or the prior condemnations of laicism. Instead, it speaks in vague terms about “spiritual renewal,” without warning against the liberal principles which Vatican II will soon exalt: religious freedom as a civil right independent of objective truth, parity of false cults in the public square, the “opening to the world.”
This silence is particularly damning in light of Syllabus 55, which condemns the principle that Church and State should be separated. Vatican II’s orientation—already publicly described by Roncalli—was to reconcile the “Church” with modern pluralist states, in stark opposition to the pre‑conciliar doctrine. To ask the protection of James, the author of a canonical epistle saturated with denunciations of worldliness and friendship with the world, for such a project is theological sarcasm.
3. Absence of anti-modernist vigilance explicitly mandated by St Pius X
St Pius X imposes, with highest authority, that modernism—the “synthesis of all heresies”—be fought, that novelties in exegesis, dogma, liturgy be rigorously censored (Pascendi, Lamentabili, the Anti‑Modernist Oath). This letter, however, presents the upcoming Council only under the sentimental sign of hope and “spring,” without the slightest allusion to the Church’s duty to condemn errors, identify modernists, or uphold censures.
This omission is incompatible with the mind of the true Magisterium. When a supposed “supreme authority” speaks of a general council yet intentionally omits its primary end (defense and clarification of dogma, condemnation of contemporary errors condemned in prior pontificates) and instead exalts it as an opening to the times, this betrays a different religion.
4. Misuse of apostolic intercession to shield an agenda of compromise
The text solemnly calls on:
“Pater luminum… in proxime sacrosanctam agendam Synodum largitatem supernorum donorum effundat, ut Ecclesia, nova collustrata luce, virtute nova communita…”
Translation: “the Father of lights… may pour forth the abundance of heavenly gifts upon the soon to be held most holy Synod, so that the Church, enlightened by new light, strengthened by new power, may bestow her maternal gifts of salvation upon the human race…”
The expression “nova collustrata luce” (“enlightened by new light”) is central. Truth is one; revelation closed with the death of the last Apostle. There is no “new” light that changes doctrine. St Pius X condemned precisely the idea that dogmas evolve to new meanings in step with consciousness (Lamentabili, 58–60). To beg that a council be illuminated by “new light” is acceptable only if it means a deeper articulation of the same dogma. But in the mouth of Roncalli, architect of a “pastoral” council that refused anathemas and systematically softened doctrinal clarity, “new light” signals the adoption of a modernist hermeneutic.
Thus the saints are conscripted to bless what the prior Magisterium had cursed. This is not merely misleading; it profanes their memory.
Symptom of the Conciliar Sect: Piety as a Tool of Subversion
This letter must be seen as symptomatic, not isolated.
– It is dated 1962, immediately prior to the opening of Vatican II.
– It is addressed to a branch of Franciscans already largely docile to aggiornamento.
– It prominently connects legitimate devotion to an Apostle with alignment to a revolutionary council.
Several systemic traits of the conciliar sect are concentrated here:
1. Devotional camouflage
Modernism, as St Pius X notes, often hides under traditional formulae and devout gestures. Here:
– Traditional Latin.
– Praise of martyrs and canonical Scriptures.
– Breviary hymn citation.
All of that is orthodox camouflage. Under it: the strategic re‑orientation of devotions toward support of a council designed not to defend but to dilute dogma; a council which would never quote the Syllabus to bind consciences, never re‑affirm the full political rights of Christ the King, never renew the anti‑masonic condemnations with vigor, and never impose the Anti‑Modernist Oath again.
2. Systematic omission as doctrinal signaling
Qui tacet consentire videtur (he who is silent is seen to consent). In a letter that deliberately links itself to an ecumenical council, the refusal to mention:
– the obligation to anathematize errors,
– the past condemnations of precisely those liberal ideas Vatican II will embrace,
is not an oversight but a programmatic signal: a “new style” of authority, allergic to condemnations, dialogical, horizontal, in open conflict with the pre‑1958 papal praxis.
3. Apostolic names, anti-apostolic content
The epistle of James thunders against double‑mindedness, friendship with the world, and a faith without works. Yet the “renewal” sought by Vatican II under Roncalli culminates, through its implementation, in:
– demolition of the Most Holy Sacrifice in favor of an anthropocentric rite,
– practical religious indifferentism and false ecumenism,
– doctrinal relativization through ambiguous texts.
To chain St James to such an enterprise is to invert his mission. It is precisely the kind of misuse of Scripture and saints that Lamentabili condemns when it censures modernist manipulations of biblical meaning (e.g. props. 9–19, 61).
Denunciation of the Usurper and the Vacant Apostolic See
In light of the pre‑1958 theological principles (as summarized in the provided Defense of Sedevacantism file), the situation is clear:
– A manifest heretic, or one who publicly promotes doctrines contrary to prior defined teaching, cannot be head of the Church or even a member of it (*manifestus haereticus* non potest esse Papa). St Robert Bellarmine, consistently interpreted, affirms that a manifest heretic loses jurisdiction *ipso facto*.
– The preparatory and later public teachings of Roncalli—especially the convocation and orientation of a council in tension with prior solemn condemnations—fit the pattern of a will to “reconcile” with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization, an attitude explicitly condemned by Pius IX (Syllabus 80).
– To present Vatican II as “sacrosancta Synodus” oriented to a “new light” that effectively sets aside binding anti‑liberal teaching manifests adherence to propositions already censured.
Therefore, this letter bears the signature of one already embarked on a path incompatible with the office of Vicar of Christ. Its invocation of apostolic heavenly aid for a subversive project underlines, rather than extenuates, its culpability. It is an act of moral and theological imposture: the usurper speaking in the name of the Apostles to inaugurate the anti‑apostolic program of the conciliar neo‑church.
Consequences for the Faithful and the Duty of Separation
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, the faithful must draw concrete conclusions:
– They cannot read such texts as harmless historical curiosities. This letter exemplifies how the conciliar sect uses familiar Catholic language as a vehicle for transition to another religion.
– They must reject the conciliar narrative that Vatican II was a simple continuation of Trent and Vatican I. Here, that lie appears in embryonic form via the presumed harmony between apostolic martyrdom and a council of accommodation.
– They must cleave to the pre‑1958 Magisterium—Syllabus, Quanta Cura, Quas Primas, Pascendi, Lamentabili, the Anti‑Modernist Oath—as the normative expression of the Church’s stance toward liberalism, religious liberty, and doctrinal evolution.
– They must denounce the counterfeit “apostolic” devotions that direct piety toward supporting the structures occupying the Vatican. Authentic veneration of St James and St Philip today means rejecting the betrayal of their teaching carried out under the banner of Vatican II and its usurpers.
Extra hanc fidem nulla salus (outside this faith there is no salvation). Any text that conscripts the Apostles to serve the conciliar revolution must be unmasked as an instrument of the abomination of desolation. The only legitimate response is a return—without compromise, without sentimentalism—to the immutable doctrine, cult, and discipline of the Catholic Church as taught, defined, and guarded until 1958, under which the Apostles were honored not as ornaments for humanistic projects, but as pillars of an uncompromising, supernatural, and exclusive faith.
Source:
Apostolorum choro – Ad Basilium M. Heiser, Ordinis Fratrum Minorum Conventualium Moderatorem Generalem, undevicesimo volvente saeculo ex quo S. Iacobus Minor Ap. glorioso martyrio cursum vitae consumm… (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025