The radiophonic message of John XXIII, dated April 27, 1959, exhorts bishops, clergy, religious, and laity to intensified Marian prayers during May for the success of the planned ecumenical council, presenting the Blessed Virgin as powerful intercessor, model of prayer with the Apostles at Pentecost, and heavenly patroness whose aid is sought above all for this impending assembly.
Marian Piety Subordinated to a Revolutionary Agenda
The text appears, at first glance, as a traditional Marian exhortation: invocation of the *Augusta Dei Parens*, appeal to May devotions, the Rosary, novenas before Pentecost, and the language of penance and intercession. Yet precisely here lies its deepest problem: a seemingly pious Marian vocabulary is instrumentalized to baptize and shield an enterprise that would inaugurate the most devastating subversion of Catholic faith and worship in history.
The message must be read in light of integrally Catholic doctrine prior to 1958 and of the objective fruits that followed. Measured by this norm, it is a programmatic misuse of Marian devotion to secure popular religious assent for the convocation of an ecumenical council that — in its actual realization and aftermath — became the matrix of the conciliar revolution, the enthronement of religious liberty, false ecumenism, collegiality, anthropocentrism, liturgical devastation, and effective dethronement of Christ the King.
Already in this short text we see:
– Theological and rhetorical manipulation of authentic Marian doctrines.
– Silence regarding the public, social reign of Christ so forcefully taught by Pius XI in *Quas Primas*.
– An irenic, preparatory ecumenical horizon entirely foreign to the anti-liberal, anti-modernist Magisterium of Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII.
– A pietistic veil thrown over a political-theological project that will directly collide with the Syllabus of Errors, *Lamentabili sane exitu*, *Pascendi Dominici gregis*, and *Quas Primas*.
Instrumentalizing Mary to Legitimize the Coming Conciliar Subversion
On the factual level, the message links May devotions with the success of a future council:
“As we have already publicly declared, we have decided to convoke an Ecumenical Council, which will deal with that which greatly concerns the whole Church.”
The faithful are commanded, through their lawful pastors, to storm heaven for the “happy outcome” of this undertaking by invoking the Blessed Virgin, *Auxiliatrix christianorum* and Queen of Heaven and earth.
What is omitted is decisive:
– No indication that an ecumenical council is, in Catholic theology, a gravest and extraordinary measure, historically convened chiefly to condemn heresies and define dogma with clarity.
– No warning that any council is bound *in toto* by the prior Magisterium; no mention of the obligation to defend and apply the anti-liberal, anti-modernist doctrinal bulwark erected especially by Pius IX and St. Pius X.
– No explicit reference to the duty of the council to reaffirm the condemnations of the Syllabus of Errors (1864) against religious indifferentism and liberalism, or of *Lamentabili sane exitu* and *Pascendi* against the evolution of dogma and historical relativism.
– No mention of the social kingship of Christ and the obligation of states to publicly recognize His reign, gloriously restated by Pius XI in *Quas Primas* (1925) against laicism and the cult of man.
The council is presented as a generalized “cause of great importance,” clothed in deliberate vagueness. This studied imprecision already signals rupture. True Catholic councils say why they are convoked: to condemn errors, to restore discipline, to safeguard the depositum fidei. Here, instead, a Marian halo is placed around a blank check.
Pius XI had condemned the secular apostasy that refuses to recognize Christ’s public kingship, insisting that there is no hope for peace until individuals and nations submit to His reign (*Quas Primas*). John XXIII’s message anticipates, under Marian colors, a council that will, in fact, bless precisely those liberal principles solemnly proscribed by his predecessors, culminating in the cult of “human dignity” and religious liberty.
To co-opt Marian devotion in service of that trajectory is not mere imprudence: it is a profound perversion of Catholic piety.
Linguistic Cloaking: Pious Vocabulary as Mask of Modernist Intent
The rhetoric of the message is calculated and revealing.
1. Heavy Marian language:
– The Blessed Virgin is called *Augusta Dei Parens*, powerful advocate, Mother of mercy, intimately united with the Church, associated with Pentecost.
– These affirmations, taken in themselves, are orthodox and echo Pius XII’s *Mystici Corporis*. The text even cites that encyclical.
2. Emotional piety and collective mobilization:
– The faithful are urged to daily visits to Marian altars, family prayers at home, offerings of sufferings by the sick, petitions of children.
– This creates a climate of affective trust and docile obedience: the perfect medium for attaching Marian fervor to an undefined but “of great importance” project.
3. Suspicious vagueness:
– Nowhere is the doctrinal content or precise purpose of the council clarified.
– There is no mention of dogmatic definitions, condemnations of modern errors, or the defense of the temporal rights of Christ and His Church against the modern state.
This linguistic constellation is a classic symptom of the new conciliar mentality: replace precise doctrinal statements with sentimental-religious atmospherics; veil ruptures behind “pastoral” rhetoric; prepare consciences to accept any novelty as if it were the fruit of Marian intercession and the Holy Ghost.
The style anticipates the later technique of the conciliar sect: *verba pia, sensus impius* — pious words, impious direction.
Theological Inversion: Marian Mediation Detached from the Kingship of Christ
The message grounds the appeal to Mary in her intercession at Pentecost and her union with the nascent Church. Yet its theological framing is partial and distorted.
– Mary is indeed *Mediatrix* in the order of grace; her unique role at Pentecost is rightly honored.
– But Catholic doctrine never presents Mary as patroness of structural reform that dilutes doctrine, nor as guarantor of “aggiornamento” with the world.
In authentic theology:
– Mary’s role is inseparable from the full, public confession of her Son’s Kingship over individuals, families, and nations.
– The same Pius XI who proclaimed the feast of Christ the King also defended the absolute rights of the Church against secular usurpation, echoing Pius IX’s Syllabus, and denounced laicism as a “plague.”
This message, however:
– Abstracts from the integral teaching on the social reign of Christ.
– Ignores the mounting liberal-democratic and masonic encirclement of the Church, so lucidly unmasked by Pius IX and subsequent pontiffs.
– Presents Mary almost as a celestial seal of approval on an ecumenical process whose practical fruits would be rapprochement with those very liberal and masonic errors.
Thus, Marian mediation is subtly detached from militant defense of the integral Catholic order. She is invoked not as terror of heretics and hammer of errors, but as emblem of a consensual, irenic ecclesial opening that would neuter precisely those anti-modernist defenses that her true sons on earth had erected in obedience to her Son.
This is a theological inversion: *Marian devotion without doctrinal militancy* — the exact opposite of what the pre-1958 Magisterium embodied.
Silences that Accuse: No Mention of Modernism, No Warning of Apostasy
The gravest indictment of this text lies in its omissions.
At the very moment when:
– Modernism, condemned by St. Pius X as *omnium haereseon collectaneum* (the synthesis of all heresies), is regrouping in seminaries, universities, and episcopates.
– Liberal Catholicism continues to promote religious freedom, separation of Church and state, and “reconciliation with modern civilization,” all solemnly condemned by the Syllabus of Pius IX and by Leo XIII.
– International masonic influence, denounced repeatedly by the pre-1958 Magisterium, presses for universal “human rights,” laicism, and a UN-style ecclesiology of dialogue.
This message says nothing about:
– The duty of the upcoming council to reaffirm the Syllabus and anathematize liberalism.
– The obligation to condemn again the propositions of *Lamentabili sane exitu* and *Pascendi*, especially the evolution of dogma and historicism.
– The mortal danger of naturalism, indifferentism, communism, and — even more importantly — modernist infiltration within the hierarchy itself.
Instead, the enemies appear only in vague, impersonal terms: “nefariae pestes undique imminentes” (“wicked plagues looming on all sides”), without doctrinal naming, without the clarity of Pius IX, Leo XIII, or St. Pius X, who explicitly identified socialism, communism, freemasonry, rationalism, liberalism, indifferentism, modernism.
Silence where duty demands precision is not neutrality; it is complicity. *Qui tacet consentire videtur* (he who is silent seems to consent).
From Suppliant Church to Democratic Mass-Mobilization: A Modernist Ecclesiology Emerges
The message’s call to universal prayer is outwardly legitimate; the Church has always summoned the faithful to united supplication. Yet the underlying ecclesiological tone foreshadows the democratizing, horizontal tendencies of the conciliar sect.
Note the structural tendencies:
– Repeated emphasis on “the whole Christian people” being mobilized.
– Implicit suggestion that the efficacy and direction of the council is significantly tied to such mass participation.
Of course, intercessory prayer by the faithful is always precious. But the Catholic understanding is clear:
– The authority to convoke, direct, and define in a council resides in the hierarchy instituted by Christ, not in popular pressure or sentiment.
– The deposit of faith is *objectively fixed*; it is not the product of the *ecclesia audiens* (the listening Church) feeding “experience” into the *ecclesia docens*.
The message’s rhetoric anticipates a different vision:
– Council as event of the “whole people of God.”
– Prayer as psychological preparation for acceptance of whatever “renewal” will follow.
– A blurred line between the teaching Church and the listening Church, precisely the confusion condemned by *Lamentabili sane exitu* (propositions 6–8), which rejects the idea that the Magisterium merely ratifies the opinions of the faithful.
Thus, under the pretext of Marian-focused supplication, we witness the early moves of a democratic, experiential ecclesiology that would later flower in pastoral ambiguity, synods-as-parliaments, and the cult of dialogue.
Ecumenical Council Without Anathemas: The Pre-Emptive Pastoral Disarmament
This message does not explicitly pronounce the later slogans of the conciliar sect, yet it prepares them:
– The council is presented as a positive, hopeful event, with no hint of doctrinal combat.
– There is no mention of anathemas, condemnations, or the Church’s right and duty to wield her authority against errors, a duty upheld strongly by Pius IX and St. Pius X.
– The appeal is not: “Pray that we may crush heresy, reaffirm the Syllabus, uphold Christ’s kingship, and resist the world,” but rather a vague plea for a “happy outcome” acceptable to all.
This anticipates the “pastoral, not condemnatory” orientation that would characterize the anti-council which followed: an unprecedented refusal to anathematize contemporary errors, directly at odds with the perennial praxis of the Church recognized by the pre-1958 Magisterium as an essential exercise of her divine mandate.
By invoking Mary to obtain such a council, the message tacitly presents non-condemnatory, irenic “opening to the world” as somehow Marian. This is a theological fraud.
The true Magisterium had always defended:
– That the Church has the right and duty to condemn errors publicly and bind consciences (Syllabus, propositions 21–24, 40; *Lamentabili sane exitu* 3–4).
– That indifferentism and religious liberty are pernicious lies which destroy souls and nations (Syllabus, 15–18, 77–80).
– That the Roman Pontiff cannot “reconcile himself” with liberalism and modern civilization (Syllabus, 80).
This message stands at the threshold of a contrary path, without having the honesty to articulate its own divergence.
Marian Devotion Severed from the Kingship and Law of Christ
A key hallmark of the conciliar spirit already foreshadowed here is the quiet but effective separation of Marian devotion from the integral order of Christ’s kingship and divine law.
According to Pius XI in *Quas Primas*:
– The fundamental cause of modern calamities is the exclusion of Christ and His law from public and private life.
– Remedy: the solemn assertion of Christ’s social reign, reordering laws, education, and political structures according to His rights.
According to Pius IX’s Syllabus:
– The separation of Church and state, religious indifferentism, and liberal freedoms of cult and press are condemned as destructive.
The message of 1959:
– Speaks of “wicked plagues” and growing evils.
– Invokes Mary fervently.
– BUT entirely omits the central doctrinal diagnosis and remedy: the necessity of Christ’s social kingship and the rejection of liberalism and modernism.
Thus Marian piety is deployed in a vacuum, detached from Christ’s juridical, social, and doctrinal rights. This pastoral style habituates souls to a counterfeit Catholicism in which Mary becomes patroness of “inner” devotions, while public order, states, laws, and interreligious relations are surrendered to the principles previously condemned.
Such a Mary is not the Queen who crushes heresies and protects Christian civilization; she is sentimentalized and harnessed to legitimize a silent capitulation to the world.
Symptomatic Exposure: The Message as Proto-Manifesto of the Conciliar Sect
Seen in the light of the subsequent historical facts — the council’s texts, their ambiguous language, the post-conciliar liturgical destruction, the cult of “human rights,” syncretistic “ecumenism,” religious liberty, the demotion of Christ the King to a private spiritual symbol — this message appears as an initial spiritual-psychological maneuver.
Symptomatically, it reveals:
1. A will to surround a future rupture with sacramental and Marian imagery, disarming legitimate vigilance among the faithful.
2. A reluctance to speak the precise doctrinal language of the anti-modernist magisterium.
3. An appetite for large-scale “events” mobilizing the entire “people of God,” prefiguring a horizontal and populist ecclesial dynamic.
4. A nascent ecumenical optimism, hinted at by the council’s announced “universal” concern, without the traditional insistence on the absolute necessity of return to the one true Church and submission to its dogmas.
All of this stands in latent opposition to the integral pre-1958 teaching:
– *Lamentabili sane exitu* condemns the reduction of dogmas to evolving interpretations of religious experience.
– *Pascendi Dominici gregis* denounces the modernist tactic of cloaking heresy under traditional language while altering underlying meanings.
– The Syllabus rejects reconciliation with liberal modern civilization.
– *Quas Primas* demands public recognition of Christ’s social kingship as condition of peace and order.
In this light, this radiophonic appeal is not a harmless Marian exhortation; it is an early instrument in a broader paramasonic strategy: to divert righteous Catholic piety from combatting modernism toward supporting a “council” which would enthrone it.
Conclusion: Authentic Marian Devotion Against the Conciliar Betrayal
From the perspective of unchanging Catholic doctrine prior to 1958, several points must be affirmed with clarity:
– True Marian devotion is inseparable from unconditional adherence to the entire anti-liberal, anti-modernist Magisterium.
– The Blessed Virgin does not and cannot “sponsor” a council or program which in effect dissolves the condemnations of Pius IX, Leo XIII, and St. Pius X, relativizes dogma, dethrones Christ the King from public life, and embraces the pluralist, secularist order denounced by her true vicars.
– Invoking Mary to support such an orientation is an abuse of her name and a gravely misleading of the faithful.
Therefore, the faithful who desire to remain Catholic must:
– Reject the conciliar and post-conciliar exploitation of Marian devotion for modernist purposes.
– Return to the Marian spirit of Lepanto, of St. Pius V, of the Syllabus, of *Pascendi* — Mary as Queen of the militant Church, defender of the integral faith, enemy of liberalism, modernism, and masonry.
– Measure every purported “council,” message, and reform by the immutable doctrine taught consistently until 1958, not by sentimental rhetoric or collective enthusiasm.
Only within this integral fidelity does Mary truly lead to her Son, *Rex regum et Dominus dominantium*, and to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, untainted by the conciliar apostasy and its paramasonic structures that now occupy what was once the visible seat of Peter.
Source:
Nuntius Radiophonicus dato Quo Locorum Ordinarii et Universi Orbis Christifideles adhortantur ad impensas supplicationes habendas, per maium mensem, Ob Oecumenicum cogendum Concilium (die 27 m. Aprili… (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025