This Latin circular letter, “Omnes sane,” dated 15 April 1962 and signed by antipope John XXIII, is addressed individually to each residential bishop of the conciliar structure shortly before the opening of Vatican II. It exhorts them to prayer for the “success” of the Council, to personal “holiness” understood primarily as pastoral amiability and collaboration, and to docile participation in the conciliar agenda, presented as a great, grace-filled ecclesial event eagerly awaited by “all who bear the Christian name.” Beneath its courteous tone, the text seeks to bind the episcopate sentimentally and morally to the impending conciliar revolution, disguising rupture and subversion under the language of piety, unity, and obedience.
Omnes sane: Sentimental Mobilization for a Conciliar Revolution
Programmatic Flattery as a Tool of Subversion
Already the first lines are revealing. John XXIII presupposes as self-evident that all must implore the Holy Ghost for the Vatican II assembly, described as a “gravissimus hic eventus” awaited with emotion by “quicumque christiano nomine censentur.” The letter never once contemplates the possibility that such an event could be harmful, misleading, or doctrinally dangerous; it presupposes its legitimacy and beneficence as beyond question.
He writes, in essence (paraphrasing the key thrust): all clearly see that as the Council approaches, the faithful must pray more fervently that the Paraclete assist those who prepare and carry out this great event. There is here the first fundamental deformation: the invocation of the Holy Ghost is instrumentalized to canonize a humanly pre-programmed aggiornamento.
From the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine before 1958, this rhetorical maneuver conflicts with the constant warnings of the Magisterium:
– The Church had repeatedly condemned the very currents (liberalism, false ecumenism, religious indifferentism, collegial democratization, reconciliation with “modern civilization”) which Vatican II was explicitly convened to “re-evaluate” and “dialogue” with. See, for instance:
– Pius IX, Syllabus Errorum (1864), especially condemned propositions 15–18, 55, 77–80.
– Leo XIII, encyclicals such as Immortale Dei and Libertas, affirming the exclusive social kingship of Christ and condemning religious indifferentism.
– St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis and the decree Lamentabili sane exitu, condemning Modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies.”
– Pius XI, Quas primas, teaching that peace and order are only possible under the public reign of Christ the King and explicitly denouncing laicism.
This pre-existing doctrinal wall renders the programmatic optimism of John XXIII not pious, but subversive. He wraps a rupture in sacral language. Instead of warning the bishops against the condemned ideologies permeating the 20th century, he gently choreographs them into a general, smiling “openness” to the Council as a quasi-Pentecostal moment without any doctrinal clarity about its limits.
The key thesis of the letter is therefore gravely deformed: it emotionally binds the episcopate to an event whose animating principles had been clearly rejected by the Magisterium.
Factual Level: Erasing the Real Crisis, Manufacturing Consensus
1. Misrepresentation of the historical situation
The letter paints a serene, almost idyllic picture:
“Hodie cernere est unam, sanctam, catholicam, apostolicam Ecclesiam… amplissima apud omnes auctoritate florere, firmissima eiusdem fidei unitate praestare.”
English: “Today one can see the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church flourishing with very great authority among all, and excelling in the firmest unity of the same faith.”
This is factually untenable, already in 1962:
– Massive penetration of Modernism in seminaries, universities, biblical institutes, and dioceses had been publicly diagnosed and condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili and Pascendi (1907), and the Oath against Modernism (1910).
– Pius XII, in Humani generis (1950), explicitly lamented the spread of “new theology,” dogmatic relativism, and historical-critical rationalism among theologians.
– The faithful and clergy were already gravely disturbed by cancerous errors regarding Scripture, Christology, the sacraments, ecclesiology.
John XXIII silences all this and substitutes a myth of flourishing unity. This is not an omission of detail; it is a strategic falsification. Where previous popes named enemies (Modernists, liberal “Catholicism,” Masonic sects), John XXIII suppresses concrete diagnoses and offers sentimental reassurance.
Silence about the true doctrinal crisis is itself a mark of infidelity. Pius X castigated precisely this modernist tactic: hiding subversion under irenic, spiritual rhetoric while avoiding precise dogmatic confrontation (Pascendi).
2. Fabricated universality of enthusiasm
The letter insinuates that everyone bearing the Christian name awaits the Council with moved hearts. This is historically and theologically false:
– Many bishops, theologians, and laity feared exactly the dilution of doctrine, the surrender to liberalism, and the undermining of the social kingship of Christ.
– There was no dogmatic or canonical obligation to greet an undefined “pastoral Council” with uncritical enthusiasm.
The text uses the technique of manufactured consensus: whoever doubts is implicitly outside the harmonious choir of “all.” This is psychological pressure, not Catholic exhortation.
3. Concealing the Council’s revolutionary intent
The letter frames the episcopal role as collaboration with a given, unquestioned Conciliar project. It thanks them for preparatory work (referencing the preconciliar Acta et Documenta), but does not remind them that their first duty is custodial: to guard the deposit of faith (*depositum custodi*), to resist novelties, to reject any proposition contrary to prior solemn teaching.
This omission is decisive. A truly Catholic papal letter, on the eve of a Council, would:
– Reiterate non-negotiable dogmas;
– Warn against condemned opinions (Modernism, false ecumenism, religious liberty as a right of error, collegialism against papal primacy, etc.);
– Forbid any texts that appear ambiguous or contrary to prior definitions (per Vatican I, Pastor aeternus; and the maxim *eodem sensu eademque sententia* — in the same sense and same judgment — cf. Vatican I, Denz. 3043).
None of this appears. Instead, a vague moralism and soft piety are offered as sufficient preparation.
Linguistic Level: Sentimental Irenicism as Mask for Doctrinal Dilution
The entire letter is steeped in a carefully curated tone: paternal, amiable, affective, autobiographical. This style is not innocent; it is a technique.
Key traits:
– Excessive personalization: he stresses private letters from previous popes, his memories as bishop and diplomat, quasi-familial language. This creates an emotional bond to his person rather than to defined doctrine.
– Absence of dogmatic precision: no list of errors to combat, no explicit reference to the Syllabus, Lamentabili, Pascendi, Humani generis, or Quas primas. Catholic language is reduced to generic calls for “holiness,” “patience,” “charity,” “obedience,” without doctrinal content.
– Romanticized view of episcopal life: he acknowledges difficulties, loneliness, lack of human support—but frames the answer purely in terms of interior consolation, not doctrinal steadfastness and militant defense of the flock against wolves.
This sugary rhetoric is itself symptomatic of Modernist infiltration: replacing clear dogmatic militancy with psychological empathy. Leo XIII and Pius XI speak of the social reign of Christ, the rights of the Church, the objective errors of liberalism; John XXIII speaks of feelings, burdens, and gentle exhortation.
The choice of language reveals the underlying project: to neutralize episcopal vigilance by enveloping it in emotional flattery. Instead of commanding them to wield the staff against error, he invites them to accept the Council as an almost sacramental moment of collegial affection.
Theological Level: Subtle War Against the Pre-Conciliar Magisterium
1. The Holy Ghost invoked in service of mutability
The letter repeatedly implores the Holy Ghost for the Council without specifying the immutable norm: that no Council has authority to contradict prior dogma, and that any such attempt is null. Pre-1958 theology is unambiguous:
– Councils are at the service of the deposit of faith, not sources of innovation.
– Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII consistently reject the idea of dogma “evolving” under pressure of historical consciousness (condemned in Lamentabili 21–23, 54, 58–65).
By omitting these principles, John XXIII implicitly promotes the modernist conception of the Spirit as the engine of aggiornamento. The letter thus participates in the error condemned as: “veritas mutatur cum homine” (“truth changes with man”; cf. Lamentabili 58).
2. Reduction of episcopal office to a moral-psychological exemplarism
The text insistently calls bishops to “holiness” primarily as moral edification, as if their decisive function in the crisis were personal niceness, not doctrinal guardianship:
– He cites 2 Corinthians 6 on ministers commending themselves through patience and tribulations—but without linking this to their duty to resist heresy.
– He quotes Ignatius of Antioch about obedience to the bishop and the bishop’s central role in ecclesial acts, but again evacuates the doctrinal content: Ignatius defends hierarchical authority against schism and false teaching; John XXIII instrumentalizes the quote to bolster conciliar “unity” without mentioning that unity must be in truth.
The effect: episcopal sanctity is interiorized and psychologized. Missing is the essential dimension: *episcopus* as doctrinal judge bound to condemn error. St. Pius X’s entire reform of the clergy, his insistence on doctrinal examinations, anti-modernist oath, and disciplinary sanctions, is effectively silenced.
This is directly at odds with the integral doctrine that:
– The bishop’s first pastoral charity is truth.
– Tolerance of heresy is a grave betrayal of office.
– “Separatim ab Episcopo nemo quidquam faciat eorum quae ad Ecclesiam spectant” (Ignatius): this assumes a Catholic bishop guarding Catholic doctrine, not a functionary inside a revolutionary assembly under a paramasonic agenda.
3. Ambiguous use of Eucharistic piety
The letter exalts the Most Holy Sacrifice and Eucharistic devotion as the fountain of episcopal strength. On its face, this is orthodox in vocabulary. Yet it is deployed in isolation from:
– The propitiatory, sacrificial character of the Mass under attack by liturgical innovators;
– The need to defend the traditional rite and theology of the Mass against precisely those reformist currents that Vatican II would unleash;
– The necessity to condemn abuses, profanations, and the reduction of the Eucharist to a communal symbol (all issues already brewing at the time).
Thus a true doctrine is praised in language, while the duty to defend it concretely is omitted. This pattern—affirm traditional words, deny or omit their consequences—is a classic modernist tactic condemned by St. Pius X.
4. Pseudo-ecclesiology: idealized unity versus militant Church
John XXIII claims that:
“Hodie cernere est unam, sanctam, catholicam, apostolicam Ecclesiam amplissima auctoritate florere, firmissima fidei unitate praestare.”
This contradicts visible reality and prior papal warnings. Pius IX in the Syllabus and subsequent allocutions denounced governments, secret societies, liberal Catholics, and Masonic machinations attacking the Church at all levels. Pius XI and Pius XII recognized growing apostasy, moral and doctrinal collapse, and persecution.
To pretend that the Church stands in serene, flourishing unity on the eve of Vatican II is to deny the Church militant. It is a new ecclesiology of “already reconciled” modern world and Church—a foretaste of the conciliar sect’s false self-understanding as an open, dialogical, universally loved NGO. By covering over the war waged by liberalism, Freemasonry, and socialism, the letter effectively disarms the episcopate.
Symptomatic Level: A Manifesto of the Conciliar Sect’s Method
Seen in light of the integral pre-1958 Magisterium, “Omnes sane” is not an innocuous spiritual letter; it is a tactical document. Its symptoms:
1. Sacralization of an impending revolution
– The Council is treated as unquestionably inspired and grace-filled, before it speaks.
– The Holy Ghost is rhetorically bound to a human agenda never defined in continuity with prior condemnations.
This aligns perfectly with the modernist strategy: first demand trust in “the Spirit,” then use that aura to introduce ambiguous or novel doctrines (religious freedom, collegiality, ecumenism, anthropocentric liturgy).
2. Emotional blackmail of bishops
– It is addressed “to each” bishop personally, in epistolary intimacy.
– It envelops them in paternal language, thanking and praising them in advance.
– It suggests that their holiness and fidelity are proven above all by their generous collaboration with the Council.
Thus any bishop later resisting ambiguities is subtly framed as lacking docility, charity, or unity. This moral pressure is more effective than open command.
3. Systematic silence on condemned errors
The letter does not:
– Mention Modernism by name.
– Recall Pascendi, Lamentabili, the Syllabus, Quas primas, Humani generis.
– Warn against false ecumenism or religious freedom.
– Command vigilance against liturgical subversion.
This silence is decisive. In times of grave doctrinal danger, silence about specific errors is complicity. As St. Pius X insisted, shepherds who refuse to name and strike wolves are traitors to their office.
4. Reorientation of obedience
The document presupposes that obedience to the “Roman Pontiff” (here, John XXIII) and his conciliar program is the highest form of fidelity. But true Catholic obedience is always subordinate to the immutable deposit of faith.
When the personal program of a claimant to the papacy functions to introduce or bless novelties condemned by prior popes, the obligation is not submission but resistance, as Catholic theologians have long taught (e.g., “resistere in facie” when a superior endangers the faith, echoing Gal. 2:11).
“Omnes sane” is thus an instrument for redirecting episcopal obedience away from the perennial Magisterium toward a new, self-referential conciliar regime.
Contrast with Quas primas and the Syllabus: Two Opposed Religions
To expose fully the theological bankruptcy of this letter, one must juxtapose it with pre-1958 doctrinal landmarks.
1. Pius XI, Quas primas (1925)
Pius XI:
– Teaches that true peace is only possible where Christ the King reigns socially.
– Denounces laicism and secularism as a “plague” born of the denial of Christ’s public rights.
– Insists that states and rulers have the duty to recognize and honor Christ and His Church publicly.
– Condemns the relegation of religion to the private sphere.
John XXIII’s letter, in contrast:
– Says nothing of Christ’s social kingship.
– Ignores the political and social apostasy sweeping nations.
– Presents the Church as flourishing and united, without calling for the restoration of the reign of Christ in law, culture, and institutions.
This is not a mere omission; it is a reversal of emphasis. The bishops are not summoned to fight to restore the rights of Christ in society; they are summoned to “prepare” for a Council that will, in fact, embrace religious liberty and inter-religious “dialogue,” in open contradiction to Quas primas and the Syllabus.
2. Pius IX, Syllabus Errorum (1864)
The Syllabus condemns, among others:
– The separation of Church and state as an ideal (55).
– The equality of all religions before the law (77ff).
– The idea that the Roman Pontiff must reconcile with liberalism and modern civilization (80).
“Omnes sane” is a soft prelude to precisely that reconciliation. By omitting any reference to these condemnations, and by praising a supposed flourishing harmony, John XXIII prepares the episcopate to accept positions previously denounced. The letter thus functions as a spiritual anesthetic before surgery on the body of doctrine.
The Gravity of the Silences: No Warning of Judgment, Sin, Heresy
Silence about the last things and about concrete doctrinal perils is, in this context, the most damning feature.
The letter contains:
– No reminder of the Four Last Things.
– No warning that bishops will render a fearful account for tolerating heresy, liturgical abuse, or moral corruption.
– No explicit call to extirpate false doctrines, punish sacrilege, or resist pressure from anti-Christian powers (Freemasonry, communism, secular regimes), though pre-1958 popes singled these out repeatedly.
Instead, we find tender words about the weight of the cross, loneliness, the need for consolation, and Eucharistic comfort—true in themselves, but weaponized to distract from the real battlefield.
In the integral Catholic perspective, such silence is an indictment:
– A shepherd who, on the eve of a Council, does not arm his bishops against the world’s errors, but rather caresses them into sentimental unity around an undefined project, betrays the supernatural mission of the Church.
– A letter that never once confronts Modernism, despite its ongoing spread, aligns in practice with the modernist program: doctrinal relativization, emphasis on experience and community, subordination of dogmatic clarity to pastoral atmospherics.
Conclusion: Omnes sane as Mirror of the Conciliar Sect’s Spiritual Emptiness
Seen against the bright, sharp teaching of Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII, “Omnes sane” is not an expression of Catholic piety; it is a paradigmatic text of the emerging conciliar sect:
– It canonizes a future revolution in advance by invoking the Holy Ghost while never binding the Council to the prior condemnations of error.
– It flatters and sentimentalizes the episcopate to secure its docile participation in that revolution.
– It systematically omits the concrete doctrinal, moral, and social battles defined by earlier popes.
– It replaces militant defense of the deposit of faith with psychological comfort, vague calls to holiness, and emotional references to unity and obedience.
In doing so, it exemplifies the spiritual and theological bankruptcy of post-1958 posturing: words of devotion without the substance of doctrine; invocations of grace without the courage to anathematize error; appeals to unity emptied of the only unity that saves, *unitas in veritate*.
A true Catholic bishop reading this letter in the light of the perennial Magisterium should have recognized the pattern: sweet language masking an invitation to collaborate in the dismantling of the visible structures of the Church and the enthronement of a neo-church more compatible with condemned liberalism and Masonic ideals.
Gratia non destruit veritatem, sed confirmat. (Grace does not destroy truth, but confirms it.) When “grace” and “Spirit” are invoked to suspend, relativize, or bypass the clear teachings of prior popes, we are no longer before the voice of the Bride of Christ, but before the murmuring of another spirit.
Source:
Omnes sane – Ad singulos Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopos, adventante Concilio Oecumenico Vaticano II (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025