Florence commemorates the fifth centenary of the holy death of St. Antoninus, Dominican of San Marco and Archbishop of that city, and Giovanni Roncalli (John XXIII) addresses Cardinal Dalla Costa with paternal greetings, praising the virtues, austerities, pastoral zeal, Marian devotion, and doctrinal writings of the saint, urging the clergy and faithful to imitate his example. He cites Gregory the Great on the bishop as exemplar, recalls the praise of Eugenius IV, Adrian VI, Clement VII, and Pius XI, and concludes with an Apostolic Blessing intended to crown the jubilee celebrations with spiritual fruit. This seemingly edifying letter, however, is a paradigmatic exercise in appropriating an authentic pre-modern saint in order to clothe the nascent conciliar revolution with borrowed credibility, while carefully evading the dogmatic edge of St. Antoninus’ theology and of the pre-1958 Magisterium that condemns precisely the humanistic, liberal, and modernist tendencies embodied by Roncalli and the structures that followed him.
St. Antoninus as a Banner for the Conciliar Project of Roncalli
Misusing a True Saint to Legitimize a New Religion
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, the first and decisive datum is this: the author is Giovanni Battista Roncalli, self-styled “Ioannes XXIII,” the initial public architect of the so‑called Second Vatican Council and inaugurator of the revolution that dismantled the visible structures of the Church and replaced them with the conciliar sect.
Therefore, this text must be read not as an isolated devotional flourish, but as an early specimen of a systematic tactic:
– to envelop authentic saints of the pre‑conciliar Church in sentimental language,
– to quote selected fragments of venerable authors and pontiffs,
– while simultaneously neutralizing the doctrinal militancy of those same sources against Liberalism, Modernism, religious indifferentism, and the secular state cult of “human dignity”.
The letter praises St. Antoninus as:
“decus… Archidioecesis,”
a model of angelic purity, penitential rigor, prayer, theological learning, Marian devotion, and pastoral charity. All this is indeed true of the saint according to pre‑1958 sources. But what Roncalli carefully withholds is as significant as what he affirms.
St. Antoninus (1389–1459), the Dominican Archbishop of Florence, is known in Catholic tradition not only for personal virtues, but for:
– concrete defence of Catholic moral teaching in public life;
– strict discipline of clergy;
– precise, objective moral theology (e.g. in his Summa), including condemnation of usury, dishonest finance, impurity, and doctrinal deviation;
– understanding of ecclesiastical authority as objectively binding, not dialogical;
– explicit submission to the perennial dogmatic faith that would later be codified and defended by Trent, Vatican I, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X.
Roncalli praises the exterior model while severing it from the doctrinal content that indicts his own program.
This is the core duplicity: the saint is exhibited as an ornament, not as a judge.
Factual Level: Selection, Truncation, and Concealment
1. Roncalli’s narrative:
He stresses:
– Antoninus’ “angelic” youth, severe penances, little sleep, life of prayer.
– His elevation by Eugenius IV based on sanctity, doctrine, prudence.
– His exemplary episcopal life, illuminated by a quotation from Gregory the Great:
“Sit rector operatione praecipuus… Illa namque vox libentius auditorum cor penetrat, quam dicentis vita commendat…”
(“Let the ruler be distinguished by his actions… the word penetrates more readily when commended by the life of the speaker.”)
He recalls that Antoninus wrote many works in which Catholic doctrine is presented with “novum fulmen” (fresh radiance) and pastoral charity, and highlights his Mariology:
“Ab aeterno praecognovit et praeordinavit Deus… Virginem quae esset sanctior universis puris creaturis etiam angelicis.”
All those affirmations are, taken in themselves, consonant with Catholic tradition.
2. What is systematically omitted:
– No mention of Antoninus as a rigorous moral theologian condemning laxity, worldliness, complicity with sin.
– No mention that his Summa and pastoral practice presuppose an objective order of divine and ecclesiastical law binding rulers and peoples, not mere exhortative moralism.
– No mention of the supernatural necessity of the integral faith and sacramental life for salvation: *status gratiae*, mortal sin, sacrilege, Judgment, Hell.
– No linkage between Antoninus’ virtues and the dogmatic condemnations issued by the pre‑conciliar Magisterium against the very currents Roncalli would rehabilitate: Liberalism, Modernism, religious freedom, false ecumenism.
The saint is presented as a generic icon of “holiness” suitable for any spirituality, emptied of precise doctrinal content. This is an early exercise in what Pius X condemned as Modernist symbolism: dogmatic realities reduced to “edifying” impressions, detached from objective, immutable truths.
3. Contextual contrast with authentic Magisterium:
– Pius IX in the *Syllabus Errorum* explicitly condemns the separation of Church and State, religious indifferentism, the subjection of the Church to civil power, and reconciliation of the papacy with liberalism (Syllabus, propositions 15–18, 55, 77–80).
– St. Pius X in *Lamentabili sane* and *Pascendi* condemns precisely the notion that doctrine is to be reinterpreted according to historical circumstances, that dogma evolves, that the Magisterium’s judgments are merely provisional or purely pastoral.
St. Antoninus stands with those popes in the same theological universe: objective, immutable doctrine, hierarchical Church, condemnation of error. Roncalli’s letter refuses to situate Antoninus here. That silence is not neutral; it is programmatic.
Linguistic Level: Pious Ornament as Smoke-Screen
The rhetoric of the letter is deliberately soft, emotive, and non-combative:
– “Dilette Fili Noster” – sugary paternal address.
– Repeated emphasis on sweetness of example, “suaviter alliciat,” “salutares fructus,” “amantissime in Domino.”
– Almost exclusive use of affective categories: innocence, prayer, devotion, “almam Dei Genetricem,” “tutissima tutela.”
This is in stark contrast with earlier authentic Magisterial style when confronting the modern world:
– Pius IX and Leo XIII speak in juridical, doctrinal, precise terms, condemning errors by name.
– St. Pius X calls Modernism the “synthesis of all heresies,” imposes censures, and commands interior assent to doctrinal decisions.
– Pius XI in *Quas Primas* denounces secularism and laicism as a “plague,” insisting that “peace will not come” until individuals and states recognize the social Reign of Christ.
Roncalli’s letter lacks:
– any doctrinal condemnation,
– any mention of reigning social apostasy,
– any summons to restore Christ’s public Kingship as demanded by *Quas Primas* against liberal states and Masonic conspiracies.
Instead, it is a hermetically sealed devotional piece. That stylistic choice is itself theological: he shifts from dogmatic-pastoral government to sentimental-moral inspiration, which is the Modernist method of dissolving dogma into “experience”.
The tone is bureaucratically pious, avoiding conflict; Antoninus is domesticated into a harmless “model” for any regime, any theology, including those anathematized by the very popes Roncalli implicitly cites.
Theological Level: The Saint against Roncalli’s Implied Modernism
Even in a short letter, the dogmatic omissions are decisive. Measured against pre‑1958 Catholic doctrine:
1. Silence on the Social Kingship of Christ:
– Pius XI states unmistakably in *Quas Primas* that:
– Christ’s Kingship must be recognized not only privately but publicly;
– states have the duty to submit their laws to Christ and His Church;
– secularism and laicism are crimes leading to social ruin.
Roncalli mentions nothing of:
– Christ’s objective rights over Florence and Italy,
– the duty of public authorities to profess the Catholic faith,
– the grave sin of liberal, Masonic civil orders.
He reduces the jubilee to interior imitation of a saint, drained of political and doctrinal consequence. Lex orandi, lex credendi: when public, juridical, kingship language disappears, liberal-democratic apostasy fills the void.
2. No condemnation of the enemies identified by the authentic Magisterium:
Pre‑1958 popes consistently unmask the Masonic, secular, socialist, and rationalist conspiracy against the Church (see excerpts in the Syllabus and related allocutions; see also Leo XIII’s *Humanum Genus*).
St. Pius X’s condemnation of Modernism (1907) is binding and is reaffirmed with excommunication for persistent opponents.
Roncalli:
– says nothing about these condemned errors;
– offers no warning against the liberal-masonic Italian environment;
– treats St. Antoninus as if he existed in a vacuum, unrelated to the ongoing war between the City of God and the City of Man.
This is a theological falsification by omission. A true Roman Pontiff, in 1959, addressing Florence in honour of Antoninus, could not honestly ignore the apostasy of nations, the infiltration of secret societies, and the threat of Modernism so clearly exposed by his immediate predecessors.
3. Marian piety instrumentalized, not doctrinally anchored:
Roncalli quotes Antoninus’ beautiful lines on the Virgin as more tender than any earthly mother and as sanctified above all creatures. This is Catholic.
But he does not connect this Mariology with:
– her role as Terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata against heresies;
– her Queenship over societies, as taught by Pius XII (*Ad Caeli Reginam*) and presupposed by *Quas Primas*.
Instead, Marian devotion is presented in purely affective terms, entirely compatible with a sentimental ecumenism that never demands conversion, never defends dogma, never resists false religions.
4. Authority reduced to moral exemplarism:
Gregory the Great is cited on bishops living what they preach. Excellent. But Roncalli then refrains from affirming:
– that bishops are also judges of doctrine;
– that they must condemn heresy, excommunicate obstinate innovators, and use coercive authority for the salvation of souls;
– that the faithful owe religiosum voluntatis et intellectus obsequium (religious submission of will and intellect) to the authentic Magisterium, including disciplinary acts aimed at safeguarding faith.
This fits Modernist tendencies condemned in *Lamentabili sane*:
– propositions denying the binding character of ecclesiastical censures (e.g. prop. 8: those ignoring Roman Congregations’ condemnations “are free from all fault” – condemned);
– the reduction of Church teaching to non-binding suggestions.
Again: the language is orthodox-sounding, but carefully clipped to avoid real dogmatic and disciplinary consequence.
Symptomatic Level: Early Icon of the Conciliar Usurpation
This letter is a minor but revealing document of the emerging conciliar sect. Several symptoms stand out:
1. Co-opting pre‑conciliar saints:
– St. Antoninus is invoked as if he were spontaneously on the side of Roncalli’s future aggiornamento.
– Yet Antoninus’ theology, if applied, would condemn:
– religious liberty in the conciliar sense;
– ecumenism that treats heretical sects as “means of salvation”;
– liturgical desacralization;
– moral laxity in marriage, modesty, economics, and public life;
– the cult of “human dignity” divorced from the state of grace.
This is the pattern endlessly repeated later: genuine saints are hijacked as mascots for the neo‑church, while their doctrine is suppressed.
2. Absence of the anti-Modernist edge:
– No mention of the Oath Against Modernism of St. Pius X (still formally in force in 1959).
– No call to fidelity to the condemnations of *Pascendi*, *Lamentabili*, Syllabus, anti-Masonic bulls.
– No identification of the true enemies of souls: modern philosophy, liberal democracy hostile to Christ, moral relativism, false religions.
By contrast, Pius IX (Syllabus 80) condemns the idea that the Roman Pontiff can or must reconcile with “progress, liberalism and modern civilization.” Roncalli’s entire career and language move in precisely that direction.
3. Preparatory shift from dogmatic clarity to pastoral vagueness:
– The letter is purely “pastoral,” exhortative, “positive,” without doctrinal precision or polemical defense of truth.
– This anticipates the Vatican II style: non-anathematizing, dialogical, optimistic, ambiguous.
Such a method is not neutral: *qui tacet consentire videtur* (he who is silent is seen to consent). In an age of aggressive anti-Christian ideologies, a would-be Pope who refuses to wield the sword of doctrine betrays the office.
4. The counterfeit continuity:
Roncalli cites:
– Eugenius IV,
– Adrian VI,
– Clement VII,
– Pius XI,
to create an appearance of continuity. Yet he restricts himself to innocuous praises, leaving aside:
– Eugenius IV as pope of the Council of Florence, with its dogmatic decrees on the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church.
– Adrian VI as severe moral and doctrinal reformer.
– Pius XI as champion of Christ the King against secular states.
This is pseudo-continuity: gestures toward tradition without its doctrinal teeth, a rhetorical bridge used to lead souls from the Catholic Church into the “Church of the New Advent.”
Where a True Pontiff Would Have Spoken Differently
If we measure Roncalli’s letter by the standard of the unchanging Magisterium before 1958, several glaring contrasts emerge.
A true successor of Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII, writing in 1959 to Florence for the centenary of St. Antoninus, would have:
– Explicitly recalled the saint’s unwavering fidelity to Catholic dogma and his severity against moral corruption among clergy and laity.
– Insisted on the duty of Florence and Italy to recognize publicly the Kingship of Christ, condemning laicism in the spirit of *Quas Primas*.
– Warned clearly against Liberalism, Modernism, Communism, and Masonry, in continuity with the Syllabus, *Humanum Genus*, *Pascendi*, and the repeated papal condemnations of secret societies.
– Reminded bishops and faithful of their obligation to reject all novelties that relativize dogma, democratize Church authority, or reduce religion to humanitarian sentiment.
– Called for rigorous discipline: modesty, purity, honest economic dealings, doctrinal orthodoxy, fitting the moral theology of Antoninus.
Roncalli does none of this. His silence is eloquent. His Marian and hagiographical rhetoric is deployed without the doctrinal edge demanded by the saints he invokes. This is not mere “style”; it is the gradual substitution of a new religion: cultus hominis (cult of man), dialogical humanism, sacramental simulacra.
Conclusion: The Letter as a Gentle Mask for Radical Treason
The document, read superficially, appears pious, traditional, filled with admiration for an austere Dominican saint and for Marian devotion. But under the scrutiny of integral Catholic doctrine, it reveals itself as:
– a strategic appropriation of St. Antoninus’ reputation, stripped of his doctrinal and disciplinary intransigence;
– an exercise in selective continuity designed to anesthetize resistance to the coming conciliar subversion;
– an embryonic manifesto of the neo‑church’s method: never deny explicitly at first, but omit, dilute, sentimentalize, and in this way neutralize the Faith.
The gravest accusation is precisely the silence: no assertion of the social Kingship of Christ; no denunciation of the reigning apostasy; no re-affirmation of the anti-Modernist magisterium; no insistence that doctrines and condemnations of the pre‑1958 Church bind in conscience.
Such silence, in one who claimed the See of Peter, is not a minor oversight. It is a programmatic betrayal.
Source:
Florentinorum Civitas – Ad Eliam Tit. S. Marci S. R. E. Presb. Card. Dalla Costa, Archiepiscopum Florentinum, quinto exeunte saeculo a S. Antonini obitu (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025