Venerable Brothers and beloved children of the Philippine Islands are congratulated by John XXIII on the inauguration in Rome of the Pontifical Philippine College, praised for its beauty, generosity of benefactors, and its role in forming seminarians “near the See of Peter” so that they may return as chosen heralds of truth to their homeland; he exhorts perseverance in the received faith, fervent prayers and support for priestly vocations, insisting that the people’s salvation depends especially on the sacred clergy. This seemingly pious allocution, however, is a distilled manifesto of the conciliar sect’s program: transferring the center of gravity from the divine, immutable Church to a neo-church around a manifest heretic, instrumentalizing the Philippines for the coming revolution, and replacing the supernatural priesthood with a Romanized apparatus of future collaborators of apostasy.

---

Subtle Construction of a Neo-Church Transmission Belt

From the True Romanitas to the Cult of a Usurped See

Already in the opening lines John XXIII exalts the new Pontifical Philippine College in Rome as a privileged place where seminarians, “near the See of Peter and the pillar of the Church,” will draw from a “pure and rich source” and return as “chosen heralds of truth” to their people.

Translated key sentence:
“Here, near the See of Peter and the column of the Church, your young men… will draw from the pure and rich source faith and knowledge, with which they, fully imbued, may return to their people as chosen heralds of truth.”

Latin original:

hic nempe, apud Petri Sedem et Ecclesiae columen, adulescentes vestri… e germano et uberi fonte fidem et scientiam haurient, quibus penitus imbuti ad populum suum revertantur quasi delecti veritatis praecones.

At first glance this appears orthodox. Yet in 1961 the one occupying the Roman See is John XXIII, inaugurator of the conciliar revolution, promoter of the very aggiornamento condemned in substance by St. Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi. To channel seminarians “ad Petri Sedem” under a manifestly modernist program is not to bring them to the fons purissimus (purest source), but to a contaminated well.

Measured against binding pre-1958 doctrine:

– Ecclesia est societas perfecta (the Church is a perfect society) with a divinely instituted hierarchical constitution, whose authentic Magisterium is strictly bound to transmit, not innovate, the deposit of faith (cf. Vatican I, Pastor aeternus).
– St. Pius X condemns as modernist the notion that dogma evolves and that ecclesiastical institutions must be refashioned to accommodate modern thought (cf. Lamentabili 58–65; Pascendi passim).
– Pius IX in the Syllabus rejects the idea that the Roman Pontiff “can and ought to reconcile and adapt himself to progress, liberalism, and modern civilization” (prop. 80).

John XXIII’s entire pontificate is precisely identified—by facts, documents, and historical development—as the launching pad of what would become religious liberty, false ecumenism, and the cult of man. Thus, the insistence that Filipino seminarians must be more tightly tied to this Rome is programmatic: it forges a conduit for exporting the coming revolution into a once docile Catholic nation.

Instead of pointing to the immemorial Roman Tradition, he points to his own person and to the conciliar agenda clothed as continuity. This is the first fundamental perversion: substitution of the usurper and his future council for the unchanging Roman Faith.

Instrumentalization of the Philippines for the Conciliar Project

John XXIII describes the College:

“This house for your seminarians will be as a channel by which Catholic life will flow to you, and a bond by which the illustrious and dearly beloved Nation of the Philippines will be more closely united with the supreme Magisterium of the Church.”

Latin:

haec aedes sacrorum alumnis vestris instituendis velut canalis erunt, quo vita catholica ad vos pervadat, et vinculum, quo inclita Nobisque carissima Natio Philippina cum supremo Ecclesiae magisterio arctius coniungatur.

The imagery is revealing:

– The “channel” of Catholic life is no longer above all the diocesan seminary rooted in the local tradition in organic communion with the perennial Roman Magisterium; it becomes a centralized Roman institution under direct control of the conciliar machine.
– The “bond” with the “supreme Magisterium” is strategically emphasized in 1961, on the eve of the council that will redefine, in practice, that Magisterium according to condemned liberal parameters.

Contrasted with integral doctrine:

– The true Magisterium is the same before and after every council; its measure is the deposit of faith. Any structure that functionally subjects seminarians to experimental theology, liturgical deconstruction, and humanistic ideologies ceases to be a canalis vitae catholicae and becomes an instrument of subversion.
– Pius XI in Quas primas teaches that the Church must assert the social kingship of Christ and resist laicism; yet the conciliar environment fostered from John XXIII onward would enthrone religious liberty (Dignitatis humanae), condemned in the Syllabus (15–18, 77–80).

The radiophonic message thus prepares psychologically: it habituates bishops and laity to see submission to the conciliar center as the litmus test of Catholicity. The Philippines—firmly Catholic yet geopolitically strategic—is to be integrated as a docile daughter of the Church of the New Advent.

Silencing of Supernatural Combat and the Coming Doctrinal War

Note the striking omissions in this “spiritual” message:

– No mention of the Most Holy Sacrifice as propitiatory.
– No word about the danger of heresy, Modernism, or the assaults of secret societies, despite Pius IX’s and Leo XIII’s explicit warnings, including against masonic networks corrupting clergy and education.
– No emphasis on the four last things—death, judgment, heaven, hell—nor the grave obligation of preaching them.
– No defense of the integral Catholic social order or insistence on the public kingship of Christ over the Philippine nation, contrary to Quas primas which solemnly teaches that states must recognize and obey Christ the King.

Instead, John XXIII limits himself to praiseworthy but generic exhortations:

“Persevere intrepidly in the faith handed down by your ancestors, faith which is exercised by works.”

Latin:

ut in fide a maioribus tradita intrepide persistatis, fidem dicimus, quae operibus exercetur.

This sentence is ambiguous in context:

– “Faith of the ancestors” is invoked, but he is on the threshold of convoking a council that will in practice relativize that very faith in liturgy, catechesis, and ecumenism.
– “Faith which is exercised by works” is correct as far as it goes (cf. James 2:17), but “works” are not specified as adherence to the full supernatural order, sacramental life, rejection of error, and social subordination of the state to Christ.

The deliberate quietism regarding the looming doctrinal crisis exposes the naturalistic and irenic subtext. St. Pius X condemned the modernists’ tactic of cloaking their revolutionary intentions in pious language while hollowing out the supernatural content. Here we see the same method: sentimental encouragement without doctrinal precision where it is most needed.

Vocational Rhetoric Detached from True Priesthood

John XXIII emphasizes vocations:

“We ask you to direct your principal concerns to recruiting and rightly educating as many young men as possible whom God has called to the priesthood. For the salvation of the people depends especially on the sacred clergy.”

Latin:

Item vos rogamus, ut praecipuas curas intendatis ad asciscendos recteque educandos quam plurimos iuvenes, quos ad sacerdotium Deus vocavit. Salus enim populi e sacro clero maxime pendet.

This is an undisputed principle in Catholic doctrine. Yet in this context it is perversely instrumentalized. To call for more priests while simultaneously steering their formation into a system that will shortly mutilate the rite of Holy Orders (1968), devastate the liturgy (1969), and propagate doctrinal errors is to prepare an army for the conciliar sect, not for Christ.

From the perspective of pre-1958 teaching:

– A priest is configured to Christ the High Priest to offer the propitiatory Sacrifice and guard the deposit of faith. Any training that orients him toward ecumenism, democratization of the Church, experimental pastoral methods, and a protestantized “liturgy” deforms his identity.
– Pius XII, in his authentic magisterium, upheld the necessity of scholastic theology and warned against new theologies that relativize dogma. John XXIII and his collaborators openly rehabilitated those very currents.

Thus, the exhortation that “the people’s salvation depends especially on the sacred clergy” becomes tragically true in the inverse sense: once the clergy are malformed in Roman centers of conciliar ideology, the people’s ruin will depend especially on them. The Philippine College, under such an usurper, is structurally ordered to produce functionaries of the neo-church.

Absence of the Kingship of Christ and Acceptance of Liberal Order

Given the Philippines’ status as a predominantly Catholic nation, a truly Catholic message would:

– Recall the obligation of the civil power to recognize the true religion (cf. Quas primas, Pius XI; Syllabus 77–80).
– Warn against indifferentism, masonic influence, communism, and the seductive errors of liberal democracy severed from the moral law.
– Call for public veneration and obedience to Christ the King in legislation, education, and national life.

Instead, we find only a mild reference to the “sanctity of families” and a generic praise of religious practice. This silence is damning. By 1961 the doctrinal foundation for the later “religious freedom” of Vatican II is already being staged: the social kingship of Christ is not denied explicitly, but it is practically omitted, neutralized, postponed, and replaced by pastoral humanism.

Such omission stands in stark tension with Pius XI:

– He teaches that true peace and order cannot exist where Christ does not reign socially.
– He condemns laicism and insists that rulers and states have the duty to publicly honor and obey Christ.

John XXIII’s radiophonic message does not place Christ’s public reign at the center; it places closer alignment with his own conciliar project there. This inversion is a symptom of the paramasonic structure that would soon enthrone the cult of man in the conciliar basilica.

Linguistic Cosmetics as Cover for Structural Revolution

The rhetoric of the message is:

– Gentle, paternal, sentimental.
– Emphatically laudatory of Filipino generosity and docility.
– Vaguely supernatural, yet strikingly non-combative in doctrine.

This linguistic profile is precisely what St. Pius X exposed: the modernist dresses subversion in the garments of devotion. Key traits:

– Frequent appeals to “dear Nation,” “beloved children,” and “joy.”
– Absence of sharp doctrinal demarcations, anathemas, or denunciation of contemporary errors.
– An idealized narrative of historical continuity: referencing Leo XIII and Pius XI as if the same line is being unbrokenly continued, even while preparations are underway to contradict their social teaching in practice.

This is the hermeneutica blanditiae—the hermeneutic of flattery—serving as a vehicle for the hermeneutic of rupture disguised as continuity. The message is short, but its tone is programmatic: it acclimates its hearers to a magisterium that never condemns concrete errors, only repeats benign moralism and pastoral platitudes.

Conciliar Sect Engineering of Seminaries: The Philippine Case

Seen in light of the post-1961 developments (which are verifiable historical facts):

– The same Roman centers that were extolled as sources of “pure faith and knowledge” became hubs of:
– Liturgical sabotage, introducing experimental rites prior to the Novus Ordo.
– “New theology” hostile to Thomism and dogmatic clarity.
– Formation of clergy who later welcomed religious pluralism, charismatic novelties, and political ideologies.

– The Philippines, specifically:
– Witnessed wide penetration of charismatic and pentecostalized movements, “renewal” groups, and social-activist clergy aligned with conciliar errors.
– Incorporated “renewed” liturgy and catechesis that diluted doctrine and promoted religious liberty and ecumenical gestures contrary to the integral faith.

The 1961 message functions, in retrospect, as a declaration of intent: the neo-church will bind the Philippine hierarchy more tightly to the occupiers of Rome through a Pontifical College which serves not primarily the Holy Sacrifice and scholastic wisdom, but the diffusion of a new religion.

Supernatural Faith versus the Conciliar Humanitarian Project

The most severe indictment of this message is not what it affirms but what it refuses to confess.

Measured against integral Catholic faith:

– A truly Catholic exhortation to seminarians places at its heart:
– The altar of the true Mass as renewal of Calvary.
– The necessity of transmitting tota et integra fides (the whole and integral faith) without compromise.
– The danger of modernist errors, rationalism, indifferentism, freemasonry, communism, etc.
– The reality of eternal damnation for those who corrupt doctrine or worship.

– John XXIII speaks instead in abstract terms of “formation,” “education,” and “Catholic life” without defining them according to the precise doctrinal parameters solemnly defended by his predecessors.

This silence aligns with the condemned proposition that “the Church, in condemning errors, has no right to require any internal assent from the faithful to the pronouncements issued by the Church” (Lamentabili 7) and with the modernist strategy of replacing dogmatic clarity with pastoral elasticity.

In short:

– The message proposes more priests, more formation, more Roman connection.
– Yet refuses to affirm, in a concrete and militant manner, the immutable doctrines that define Catholic formation.
– Thus, it promotes the form of Catholicism without its substance, a shell suited to be filled by the coming conciliar novelties.

Conclusion: A Pious Facade Masking an Engine of Apostasy

This radiophonic allocution is brief, but under the light of pre-1958 doctrine and subsequent history it reveals its true nature:

– It is not a neutral encouragement to vocations but an early node in a planned network to reshape seminaries into factories of conciliar clergy.
– It dissimulates rupture as continuity by invoking Leo XIII and Pius XI while preparing to contradict their key social and doctrinal teachings.
– It refuses to confront modern errors, omits the kingship of Christ, and idealizes closer adhesion to an authority that would soon promulgate a new religion under Catholic labels.

Where Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Pius XI wielded the sword of clear condemnation against rationalism, liberalism, masonic plots, and modernist exegesis, John XXIII offers a soft, diplomatic discourse that anesthetizes vigilance. Such discourse—precisely in its omissions, in its humanistic tone, and in its programmatic centralization around a modernist-controlled Rome—bears the marks not of the voice of the perennial Magisterium, but of the conciliar sect which would devastate the faith of nations, including the Philippines, through corrupted seminaries and mutilated rites.

The Pontifical Philippine College, hailed here as “canalis” of Catholic life, becomes in fact, under an usurping antipope, a conduit for the anti-doctrinal currents condemned by the true Church. The message thus stands as a small but telling piece in the architecture of the abomination that occupies the holy place.

---

Source:
Nuntius Radiophonicus Episcopis et christifidelibus Insularum Philippinarum datus ex exstructo Pontificio earumdem Insularum Seminario Collegio in Urbe, quo die rite inauguratum est, d. 7 m. Octobris …   (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025