Ioannes Roncalli, presenting himself as “Supreme Pastor,” solemnly proclaims the “canonization” of Ioachima de Vedruna de Mas, depicting her as a model of maternal charity, religious founder, and wonder-working intercessor, and inserts her into the liturgical cult of the structures then still outwardly occupying the Apostolic See. The document narrates her life in edifying style, enumerates alleged miracles, and culminates in Roncalli’s juridical formula that she is to be venerated as a “Saint” in the whole “Church.” The entire act, however, is founded upon usurped authority, modernist assumptions, and a sacrilegious falsification of the very notion of sanctity and canonization.
Simulated Holiness and Usurped Authority in the Cult of Ioachima de Vedruna
A Canonization Decree Without Jurisdiction: Nullitas ex Radice
1. Factual level:
The text is a Latin decretal letter, dated 12 April 1959, in which Ioannes Roncalli (“John XXIII”) declares Ioachima de Vedruna to be a Saint, confirming and sealing the earlier beatification and miracle-process conducted under Pius XII, and assigning her liturgical cult:
– He recounts her biography: Catalan noble birth (1783), marriage, motherhood of eight children, widowhood, severe asceticism, works of mercy, founding of the Carmelites of Charity, sufferings in war and exile, illnesses borne with patience, and death in poverty among the sick (1854).
– He presents her virtues as heroic: faith, hope, charity, humility, maternal spirit, docility to ecclesiastical authority.
– He details the canonical process: informative processes, declaration of heroic virtue (Pius XI), recognition of miracles (Pius XII), and finally his own “supreme” judgment:
“Sanctos esse decernimus et definimus, ac Sanctorum catalogo ascribimus…”
– He prescribes her liturgical commemoration and threatens with divine indignation those who would resist the decree.
At the factual level, the narrative is hagiographic and juridico-liturgical. Yet precisely in its calm self-presentation lies the core scandal: a paramasonic, conciliar prototype, Ioannes Roncalli, uses the language and external forms of the Catholic papal magisterium to fabricate a “saint” within a trajectory already bending toward the conciliar revolution. A simulated pope cannot make real saints. Quod nullum est, nullum producit (what is null produces nothing).
2. Juridical-theological contradiction:
– Before 1958, the Church held unanimously that solemn canonizations by a true Pope are infallible in their universal disciplinary and doctrinal aspect, since they bind the whole Church to venerate a person as a model in faith and morals.
– The same pre-1958 ecclesiology (e.g. summarized by St. Robert Bellarmine and classical theologians) teaches that a manifest public heretic cannot be head of the Church and cannot validly exercise papal jurisdiction: he is outside the Church and thus lacks the authority he simulates.
– Ioannes Roncalli, as the initiator of the conciliar revolution, promoter of religious liberty, ecumenism, and openness to condemned errors (cf. Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX; Lamentabili sane exitu; Pascendi; and the anti-liberal, anti-Masonic doctrine reiterated therein), stands objectively under precisely those censures.
Therefore:
– If Roncalli is held as pope, his canonization is inserted into the same line that will soon produce the cult of the conciliar pantheon (John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, “Mother Teresa,” etc.), corroding the very credibility of canonization.
– If Roncalli is recognized as a public heretic and usurper (as demanded by the principles summarized, for example, in the Defense of Sedevacantism file: a manifest heretic cannot be pope, loses office ipso facto, and acts without jurisdiction), then this decretal is void ab initio.
In both cases, the act functions as a weapon of the conciliar sect: either by corrupting true doctrine on canonization from within, or as a pure juridical fiction of an anti-church.
Linguistic Piety as a Mask for Structural Subversion
The document’s language is, at first glance, impeccably “traditional”:
– Frequent references to *materna caritas*.
– Rhetoric of “Supreme Pastor,” “Servant of the Servants of God,” “honor of the Holy Trinity,” “exaltation of the Catholic Faith.”
– Long, baroque Latin periods narrating asceticism, devotions, miracles.
– Threats: “Nemini autem… obniti liceat… indignationem omnipotentis Dei…”
Yet this rhetoric serves a radically different project:
1. Subtle displacement of doctrinal center:
– The text extols “maternal charity,” humanitarian service, care for the sick and poor, pedagogical zeal. These are good in themselves, but they are framed with a distinctly horizontal emphasis, harmonizing perfectly with the emerging anthropocentric cult that will soon culminate in the “Church of the New Advent.”
– There is almost no doctrinal combat against error, no explicit confession of the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church for salvation, no militant affirmation of the social Kingship of Christ in the sense of Pius XI’s Quas Primas. The supernatural horizon is present verbally, but it does not wound; it does not condemn the world’s apostasy.
2. Bureaucratic sacralization of a modern canonization machine:
– Endless listing of canonical steps and congregational votes gives an appearance of juridical solidity, while distracting from the single decisive question: Is the one who pronounces the sentence truly the Roman Pontiff, or a manifest innovator paving the way for the overthrow condemned in the Syllabus (esp. propositions 55, 77–80)?
– The tone is courteous, administrative, harmonious—precisely the antiseptic bureaucratic idiom the conciliar sect will perfect in later “canonizations.” The juridical form is used to sacralize revolution from within.
3. Theological anesthetic:
– The language avoids any clash with modern errors. No denunciation of laicism, socialism, Freemasonry, liberalism as such in this context; no connection made between Ioachima’s sanctity and the duty of states to recognize Christ the King, as Pius XI insists: peace and order are impossible where Christ does not reign publicly.
– Instead of forming consciences for the doctrinal struggle against the “synagogue of Satan” and secret societies (Pius IX, Syllabus and related texts), it gently integrates a foundress into a soon-to-be-adapted framework of “social services” and “education,” easily naturalized under liberal regimes.
Thus the sugary Latinity functions as a solvent: external continuity of style masking an interior shift from the militant, anti-liberal, anti-modernist Church to a neutral, humanitarian institution whose “saints” embody compatibility with the world’s new order.
Theological Reduction: Sanctity as Social Function and Emotional Exemplarity
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, two fundamental distortions emerge.
1. Canonization detached from the dogmatic battle:
– Classical canonizations held up saints as:
– Defenders of defined dogma;
– Exemplars of sacramental life ordered to salvation;
– Champions of the rights of Christ and His Church over individuals and nations;
– Explicit contradictions of contemporary heresies.
– Here, Ioachima de Vedruna is praised primarily as:
– Mother and widow;
– Educator;
– Nurse of the sick;
– Foundress dedicated to works of mercy.
These aspects may be virtuous; but in this narrative they are abstracted from the dogmatic war of the 19th century:
– No connection is made with the solemn condemnations of liberalism and modern civilization in the Syllabus.
– No highlighting of resistance to the anti-Christian state, though the backdrop of Napoleonic and Spanish upheavals would allow clear teaching about true Church–State relations (Syllabus, nn. 39–45, 55).
– Sanctity is thus presented primarily as benevolent activism plus private piety, an edifying but defanged moralism.
2. Subjectivization and sentimentalism:
– The text heavily leans on interior impressions, visions, and affective language:
– Christ allegedly detaching His arm from a crucifix and calling her: “Veni, mea eris.”
– Multiplication of bread, special insights into future events, sudden healings—all filtered through posthumous processes under authorities already sliding toward aggiornamento.
– The criteria for heroic virtue are described in highly affective terms (maternal tenderness, gentleness, patience in illness) with minimal emphasis on doctrinal clarity, hatred of error, and zealous confession of the integral faith.
In combination:
– Sanctity is subtly redefined as a spirituality easily transposable into the conciliar program: social service, gentle mysticism, obedience to any “church authority” regardless of its doctrinal integrity.
– This is the same spiritual profile that later “canonizations” will exalt in figures whose public teaching and praxis objectively contradict pre-1958 doctrine.
Lex orandi, lex credendi: to impose as universally venerated such a profile, through an authority already compromised, is to catechize the faithful into a faith where doctrine is plastic but humanitarian virtue is absolute.
Miracles as Instrumentum for the Neo-Church’s Self-Legitimation
The decree amasses miraculous language:
– Healings of children from diphtheritic laryngitis and severe pulmonary conditions;
– Multiplication of bread;
– Incorruptibility of the body;
– Alleged supernatural interventions in favor of devotees.
However:
1. Epistemic and doctrinal problem:
– The recognition of miracles is an act of ecclesiastical judgment. If the judging instance is in the hands of doctrinally subverted authorities, then:
– Either the judgment is unreliable;
– Or it is used selectively as propaganda for a new ecclesiology.
– The text never grounds the miraculous claims in a context of anti-modernist rigor; instead, it merely reports that competent organs of the same apparatus that will soon welcome religious liberty and interreligious syncretism have assented.
2. Functionalization:
– The miracles serve structurally to:
– Confirm Roncalli’s usurped jurisdiction (“only a true Pope canonizes with such signs”);
– Accustom consciences to accept future “miraculous” endorsements of doctrinally suspect figures.
– Thus even if some phenomena were preternaturally real or piously believed, they are harnessed to legitimate a conciliar revolution which the same pre-1958 magisterium condemns.
Given Pius X’s categorical rejection in Lamentabili and Pascendi of the modernist exploitation and relativization of miracles and sanctity, the use made here of miracles as decorative seals on a new canonization ideology must be scrutinized, not naively accepted.
Obedience Severed from Truth: The Perverse Use of Ecclesiastical Threats
A striking feature is the heavy-handed juridical threat:
“Nemini autem iis, quae per has Litteras statuimus, obniti liceat. Quod si quis temere ausus fuerit, indignationem omnipotentis Dei et Sanctorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli se noverit incursurum.”
From the perspective of unaltered Catholic doctrine:
1. Conditionality of such threats:
– The obligation to submit to papal and ecclesiastical decrees is absolute only when:
– The authority is legitimate;
– The decree does not contradict faith or morals;
– The act falls within the true competence of the office.
– A manifest heretic or innovator, if such, cannot bind consciences with acts that presuppose a jurisdiction he does not possess. Attempts to do so imitate the Church’s style while lacking her authority—an ecclesiastical simulation.
2. Inversion of obedience:
– Integral Catholic teaching places obedience under truth: *non licet obedire iniquitati*.
– Here, the faithful are ordered, under divine wrath, to venerate a figure canonized by one who inaugurates doctrines condemned by:
– Pius IX’s Syllabus (rejection of reconciliation with “progress, liberalism and modern civilization,” n. 80);
– Pius X’s anti-modernist teaching;
– Pius XI’s insistence on the public Kingship of Christ (Quas Primas), diametrically opposed to later conciliar religious liberty.
Thus:
– The threats unintentionally reveal the mechanism of the conciliar sect: exploiting the faithful’s inherited reflex of obedience to impose novelties, pseudo-saints, and anthropocentric cult, in direct conflict with prior magisterium.
– Authentic obedience today demands refusal to bend before acts that rest on usurped authority and serve a revolutionary program.
Symptom of the Coming Deluge: Pre-Conciliar Form, Conciliar Content
This 1959 decretal occupies a liminal position: externally pre-conciliar, internally proto-conciliar. Several symptomatic elements must be highlighted.
1. Harmonization with condemned liberal-modern order:
– The biography constantly situates Ioachima within wars, exiles, liberal persecutions—yet there is no robust doctrinal denunciation of the liberal state as described and condemned by Pius IX and Leo XIII.
– Her works—schools, hospitals, care of the poor—appear as anticipations of what the post-1958 neo-church will eagerly present to the world as its primary mission: social service, dialogue, humanitarian presence.
2. Integration into an ecclesiology soon to mutate:
– The decree emphasizes her submission to bishops, to congregational processes, to ecclesiastical structures—structures in which, historically, infiltration and compromise were already advanced.
– By canonizing her at this moment, Roncalli:
– Brands her institute and legacy with his own “pontifical” seal.
– Ensures that the Carmelites of Charity will later be mobilized in favor of conciliar reforms, ecumenical openness, and the cult of man, with “their” foundress as flag.
3. The silent refusal to confront modernism as the central evil:
– The document is completely silent about:
– Modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies” (Pius X);
– The grave infiltration of the Church by masonic and liberal forces Pius IX openly denounced;
– The requirement that all true saints of the last times stand as uncompromising witnesses against the doctrinal dissolution of their age.
– Instead, its entire tone suggests that the great problem of the world is merely the lack of charity and care, not apostasy and doctrinal treason.
– This silence is the loudest accusation: the supernatural is invoked decoratively, but the decisive doctrinal front line is avoided.
The Instrumentalization of Women and Family for a Humanitarian Gospel
The document especially presents Ioachima as:
– Ideal mother;
– Ideal Christian wife and widow;
– Ideal foundress of an active female congregation.
On the surface, such models are legitimate. However, the way they are framed reveals further deformation:
1. Domestic virtue without militant confession:
– Virtues toward husband, children, servants are extolled.
– Yet nothing is said of forming children to resist liberalism, religious indifferentism, false freedoms condemned by the magisterium.
– The family is praised as a natural locus of charity, but not as a bastion of counterrevolutionary Catholic order under Christ the King.
2. Female congregations tilted toward horizontal activism:
– The charism emphasized: nursing, teaching, social works, presence among the poor.
– This is precisely the profile that, in the conciliar sect, will be secularized into NGOs in habits, then without habits, then without doctrine.
Thus Ioachima’s image is repurposed:
– not as a champion of the social reign of Christ,
– but as a proto-icon of the new “feminine” spirituality of the neo-church: tender, socially engaged, obedient to whatever hierarchical label is in place, theologically silent.
From Materna Caritas to Cultus Hominis: The Hidden Axis
Contrasting the decree with Quas Primas (Pius XI) and the Syllabus of Errors (Pius IX) exposes the axis of deviation:
– Pius XI: true peace and order only where Christ reigns publicly; secularism and laicism are a “plague” to be condemned; states and rulers must submit to Christ.
– Pius IX: the state cannot be neutral; religious liberty, indifferentism, subjection of Church to state, and reconciliation with liberal progress are condemned.
In this light, the Roncallian text:
– Uses traditional phraseology about the Holy Trinity and Christ’s glory;
– But completely omits any robust assertion that Ioachima’s sanctity demands from nations and rulers the acknowledgment of Christ’s kingship and the rejection of secularist principles;
– Fails to use her life under persecution as a platform to restate the perennial doctrine on the duty of states toward the Church.
This omission is not accidental; it is programmatic:
– The decree is a liturgical-legal step toward an ecclesial body that lives comfortably inside the liberal order and eventually blesses religious liberty, ecumenism, and dialogue as new norms.
– “Maternal charity” is detached from the objective order of Christ’s Kingship and reattached to a generalized cult of human dignity and service.
Thus the cult of Ioachima de Vedruna, as configured here, becomes a piece in the larger mosaic of the Church of the New Advent: saints as patronesses of social work, no longer as militant witnesses against the anti-Christian order.
Conclusion: Why This “Canonization” Must Be Rejected
From the perspective of unchanged Catholic doctrine before 1958, the following points emerge inevitably:
– A manifest innovator and doctrinal subverter cannot be the Roman Pontiff. If Ioannes Roncalli falls under this description (his subsequent council and its fruits confirm this), then:
– He lacked jurisdiction to perform an infallible canonization.
– His decretal is a juridical simulacrum, not an act of the Catholic Magisterium.
– Canonizations, as traditionally understood, are either infallible acts of a true Pope or they are not canonizations at all. They cannot become a factory of ambiguous figures aligned with a new religion without simultaneously undermining their own theological rationale.
– The text’s omissions and tone, its functionalization of miracles, its reduction of sanctity to social virtue and inner sweetness, its total silence on the doctrinal war against liberalism and modernism, brand it as an instrument of that very revolution condemned by prior pontiffs.
– True Catholic piety cannot accept as binding a “canonization” issued by an anti-church structure that weaponizes the memory of pious souls to fortify its own apostasy.
Therefore:
– The cultus constructed here around Ioachima de Vedruna, as imposed by Roncalli’s decree, is not an act of the spotless Bride of Christ but a gesture of the conciliar sect.
– Faithful adhering to integral Catholic faith must withhold assent from such acts, not out of contempt for genuine virtues that this woman may have possessed in the sight of God, but out of fidelity to the unchangeable principles of doctrine, jurisdiction, and sanctity taught by the true Church before 1958.
– Sanctity remains what it has always been: uncompromising adherence to the whole Catholic faith, militant rejection of condemned errors, and submission to true, not simulated, apostolic authority under Christ the King. Any structure or decree that subverts this order, however enveloped in pious Latin, unmasks itself as part of the abomination of desolation, not of the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
Source:
Beatae Ioachimae De Vedruna De Mas Viduae, Legiferae Matri Sororum Carmelitidum A Caritate, Sanctorum Honores Decernuntur, XII Aprilis 1959, Ioannes PP. XXIII (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025