Pope John XXIII’s allocution of June 12, 1961, addresses the newly formed Central Commission preparing the so‑called Second Vatican Council. He recalls his 1959 announcement of a council and code revision, rejoices in global expectations (including from those outside the Church), praises preparatory work and commissions, invokes past councils as precedent, and attempts to set a serene, optimistic, and “pastoral” tone. Beneath this exuberant surface stands the programmatic displacement of the immutable Catholic order by an anthropocentric, conciliatory, and politically attuned neo-structure, whose seeds of doctrinal subversion are already visible and which this speech spiritually legitimizes.
Programmed Self-Dissolution: John XXIII’s Allocution as Manifesto of Conciliar Revolution
From Apostolic Solidity to Pastoral Vagueness: Factual Premises of a New Project
On the factual level this allocution appears, at first sight, as a technical, devotional, almost benign opening address. John XXIII:
– Hails the gathered “Cardinals,” bishops, religious superiors, and experts as a “select crown”.
– Connects the June 12 assembly to his January 25, 1959, announcement (Synod of Rome, “ecumenical council,” adaptation of Canon Law).
– Emphasizes the rapid growth of the preparatory work, mentioning:
– Diocesan and curial vota collected in fifteen volumes.
– The creation of multiple commissions and secretariats.
– The unique role of the Central Commission to synthesize and direct.
– Expresses joy that there is a “great expectation” of the Council, not only from “our beloved sons,” but also from those “outside the enclosure of the Church”.
– Presents previous councils as “twenty stars” whose “indelible marks” on doctrine, discipline, and mission justify high hopes that this new council will likewise be fruitful.
– Frames everything in optimism: invocations of the Holy Ghost, peace, serenity, quotations of “Nolite timere, pusillus grex,” and references to saints to clothe the enterprise with apparent continuity.
These facts, taken in themselves, might seem neutral. Yet when read in light of pre‑1958 doctrine and the subsequent conciliar catastrophe, they reveal a deliberate reorientation:
– No precise doctrinal crisis is named (Modernism, Communism, laicism, false ecumenism).
– No enemy is identified.
– No clear dogmatic end is articulated.
– Instead, procedural, sentimental, and diplomatic categories dominate.
The allocution is not innocent; it is architectonic. It establishes the pastoral, irenic, humanly reassuring framework that will be used to neutralize dogmatic clarity and to open the way to the conciliarist, liberal, and naturalistic texts later imposed by the conciliar sect.
Sweetness as Solvent: Linguistic Symptoms of Doctrinal Evacuation
The rhetoric of this address is revealing. Its vocabulary and tone are not accidental; they function as theological camouflage.
1. Perpetual optimism and serenity
John XXIII speaks of the “comis et serena” expectation of the council, of “laetissimus animus,” of universal peace and trust. The atmosphere is deliberately untragic, almost bourgeois. There is:
– No echo of St. Pius X’s grave language in Pascendi and Lamentabili sane exitu, where Modernism is condemned as the “synthesis of all heresies”.
– No echo of Pius XI’s thunder in Quas Primas: that states and societies rejecting the Kingship of Christ are the source of world disorder.
– No echo of Pius IX’s uncompromising Syllabus against liberalism, religious indifferentism, and the masonic assault on the Church.
Instead, the allocution suavely welcomes the “expectation” even of those outside the Church as a reassuring sign. The shift from supernatural combat to horizontal expectation is already the betrayal.
2. Ambiguous celebration of external goodwill
A central phrase, paraphrased, is: the council is awaited “not only by our dearly beloved sons, but also by those who live outside the enclosure of the Church,” and this produces “tranquillity of soul” and encourages work.
This is a linguistic capitulation:
– Those “outside” (heretics, schismatics, infidels) are portrayed not as souls to be converted to the one ark of salvation (cf. Pius IX, Syllabus 15–18, and the doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church), but as positive stakeholders whose favourable outlook legitimizes conciliar plans.
– The criterion of comfort becomes the world’s “expectation,” not the mandate of Christ: “Teach all nations… he that believeth not shall be condemned.”
3. Cult of procedure over content
Much of the text is bureaucratic: commissions, schemata, reports, moderation of debates. There is a studied refusal to say what must be defended:
– No explicit defense of the integral deposit of faith.
– No precise restatement of condemned errors.
– No mention of the reign of Christ over states, the unique truth of the Catholic religion, the horror of socialism, liberalism, or naturalism – all emphatically treated in the pre‑1958 magisterium.
Theologically, this proceduralism acts as via negativa fidei – a negative way of faith – silently evacuating substance under cover of organizational zeal.
4. Psychologizing encouragement
The constant “Nolite timere, pusillus grex” is deployed not as a call to endure persecution for the integral faith, but as rhetorical flattery of the conciliar project itself. The words of Our Lord are instrumentalized to bless an experiment whose fruits (religious liberty, ecumenical indifferentism, liturgical demolition) were specifically rejected by Pius IX and Pius X. This is blasphemous co‑option: using Scripture to soothe resistance to an impending revolt.
Against the Deposit: Theological Dissection of Key Implicit Errors
Measured against pre‑1958 doctrine, this allocution’s core assumptions are theologically corrupt. The deviations lie not just in what is said, but in what is studiously unsaid.
1. Silence on Modernism and the Condemned Errors
At the very moment when the “synthesis of all heresies” had infiltrated seminaries, universities, and episcopates, John XXIII speaks expansively yet omits:
– Any reaffirmation of Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi, which solemnly condemn:
– The “evolution of dogma” (e.g. props. 21–22, 54, 58–60).
– The reduction of revelation to religious experience.
– The subjection of dogma to history and modern criticism.
– Any mention of the requirement that Catholic exegesis and theology submit to the authentic Magisterium, not vice versa.
– Any condemnation of the very trends that, in the following years, will be enthroned in conciliar and post‑conciliar texts: historicism, immanentism, democratization of doctrine.
This silence is not neutral. In the face of a condemned heresy, silence at the summit is complicity. Lex non praedicata languet (a law not preached grows weak). By refusing to present the council as a weapon against Modernism, John XXIII tacitly converted it into an instrument for Modernist advance.
2. World Approval as Hermeneutic Criterion
John XXIII explicitly draws comfort from the favourable expectations of those “outside the Church”. This directly contradicts the pre‑conciliar Popes who:
– Saw in the applause of the world a suspicious sign of compromise with the “spirit of the age”.
– Condemned “progress,” “liberalism,” and “modern civilization” when these meant precisely what they mean in Masonic and secular usage: emancipation from the social Kingship of Christ (cf. Syllabus 77–80).
Pius XI in Quas Primas teaches that peace and renewal come only by restoring the public reign of Christ the King; he expressly denounces laicism and equality of religions as a plague. This allocution, in contrast:
– Does not dare to demand from nations public submission to Christ.
– Speaks of the council as a general occasion of joy, even for non‑Catholics, as if its function were to be acceptable to those who reject the one true Church.
This inversion entices the Church of Christ to conform to the expectations of the world – the precise temptation Our Lord resisted when the crowds wanted to make Him a king according to their measure.
3. Deformation of the Nature and Purpose of a Council
Historically and doctrinally, an ecumenical council is convoked:
– To define and defend dogma against specific errors (Nicaea against Arianism, Trent against Protestantism).
– To legislate for discipline and reform in view of sanctity.
– To safeguard and articulate the one faith.
John XXIII’s allocution misaligns this notion by:
– Presenting past councils primarily as sources of general “renewal,” “missionary impulse,” and “discipline,” without naming the heresies they crushed.
– Referring to Vatican II as destined to leave “indelible marks” and to produce abundant fruits, but refusing to identify:
– Which precise doctrines will be defended.
– Which errors will be condemned.
This is not minor. To abstract the council from doctrinal combat is to refashion its essence. One moves from concilium fidei (council of faith) to an ecclesial parliament of updating. This is the conceptual matrix for the later refusal of Vatican II to anathematize errors, its flirtation with religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality – all in defiance of prior magisterial teaching.
4. Cult of Adaptation and the Code of Canon Law
He announces that “soon” will come the time to renew the Code of Canon Law, “adapted to the needs of our time”. This language is already poisoned:
– The pre‑1917 and 1917 canonical tradition is ordered to the protection of the sacraments, the doctrine, the rights of God and of the Church (cf. Pius IX and Leo XIII).
– “Adapting to the times” is the constant slogan of Modernist and liberal theology; the condemned propositions identify precisely this: dogma and ecclesial structure reshaped by historical consciousness.
Instead of affirming that law must always concretize the same supernatural ends, John XXIII places law under the vague category of “needs of our time,” which, left undefined, will quickly be interpreted in favour of democratization, laxity, and compromise – exactly as happened in the 1983 code of the conciliar sect, which dilutes penalties, religious obligations, and the exclusive rights of the Catholic religion.
5. Misuse of the Communion of Saints
In the second part, John XXIII adorns the meeting with references to saints:
– St Barnabas, “son of consolation”.
– St Leo III, idealized as a gentle, prudent ruler linked with Charlemagne.
– St John of St Facundus, peacemaker.
– St Anthony of Padua, popular wonderworker.
He strings them together to suggest an atmosphere of encouragement and pacific reassurance. Notably absent is any evocation of saints as zealous defenders of doctrine against heresy, champions of penance, enemies of error. The saints are reduced to mascots of “consolation,” “peace,” “harmony,” a misuse that:
– Softens spiritual militancy.
– Masks the novelty of his project under borrowed credibility.
– Reduces sanctity to a mood that endorses conciliar optimism.
The communion of saints cannot be legitimately invoked to sanction a program that objectively collides with what previous Popes and councils consistently taught about religious liberty, ecumenism, and the immutable nature of dogma. To do so is to falsify their testimony.
Structural Fruit: This Allocution as Seed of Systemic Apostasy
The symptomatic reading, in light of subsequent events and pre‑1958 magisterium, shows this allocution for what it is: a programmatic text of the conciliar revolution. Several systemic features stand out.
Conciliarization: From Monarchical Magisterium to Collegial Technocracy
The repeated exaltation of commissions, secretariats, and the Central Commission introduces a new ethos:
– Authority appears dispersed into technocratic bodies.
– Actual doctrinal content is subordinated to “schemata” produced by mixed commissions.
– The “Pope” presents himself as a moderator of processes rather than as the sovereign bearer of a determined, inherited mandate.
This prefigures the collegialist deformation later expressed in the neo‑church: synods, commissions, conferences supplanting clear papal and episcopal responsibility, all of it foreign to the monarchical constitution defined by Vatican I and the immemorial tradition.
Ecclesial Democratization: Implicit Flattery of Human Expectations
By rejoicing that even those outside the Church have high hopes, this address:
– Treats public opinion as quasi‑magisterial.
– Initiates the pattern whereby the conciliar sect constantly justifies its novelties (vernacular liturgy, interreligious ceremonies, synodal experiments) by appeal to “the people of God,” dialogue partners, and the modern world.
Pre‑1958 Popes, particularly Pius IX and Pius X, condemned the idea that authority derives from the people or that doctrine can be shaped by “the Church listening” over against “the Church teaching” – a proposition explicitly rejected in Lamentabili (prop. 6–7). John XXIII’s language, while more veiled, moves in that direction: he presents himself and his collaborators as reading and responding to such expectations, subtly inverting the proper order.
Humanitarian Pastoralism: Naturalism in Pious Vestments
The absence of central supernatural themes is damning:
– No insistence on the Four Last Things (death, judgment, heaven, hell).
– No call to penance, reparation, expiation for sin.
– No warnings of heresy or schism.
– No dread of divine judgment on unfaithful shepherds.
Instead, we have:
– Confidence, optimism, procedural order.
– Vague appeals for the Holy Spirit to “bless this great work” without defining its objective content in continuity with solemn condemnations of liberalism and Modernism.
This is the same “pastoral” naturalism that will issue in documents which enthrone “human dignity,” “religious freedom,” and “dialogue” in practical supremacy over the rights of God and the obligation of states to profess the Catholic faith. It is the spiritualized humanitarianism denounced in substance by Pius XI in Quas Primas and by Pius IX in the Syllabus.
Abdication of the Social Kingship of Christ
Perhaps the most catastrophic omission, judged by integral Catholic teaching, is the total absence of the doctrine solemnly expounded by Pius XI in Quas Primas:
– That Christ must reign not only over individuals, but over families and states.
– That public life must submit to His law and to the authority of His Church.
– That secularism and religious neutrality are grave evils.
In 1961, the world is gripped by atheistic communism, masonic liberalism, and militant secularization. Yet John XXIII’s allocution, at the threshold of a council, says nothing of the duty of nations to return to the Kingship of Christ. Instead he exults in universal goodwill and expectations.
This silence lays the track for the conciliar sect’s ideological pillar: the adaptation to “modern civilization,” the sacralization of religious liberty, and the pseudo‑theology of human rights disconnected from the rights of Christ the King. It is a practical repudiation of Quas Primas and of the Syllabus (esp. 55, 77–80).
Masonic Atmosphere: Concord with the Spirit of the Age
Pre‑1958 popes clearly identified the masonic, naturalistic, anti‑Christian program:
– Denial of the Church’s exclusive truth.
– Separation of Church and state.
– Exaltation of religious indifferentism and secular autonomy.
– Subversion through secret societies, political and cultural capture.
This allocution’s eagerness to appear gentle, open, and appreciated by those outside the Church, its refusal to condemn the errors already exposed by Pius IX and Leo XIII, and its orientation toward “modern needs,” functionally harmonize with the masonic agenda. While avoiding explicit statements, it prepares an ecclesial mentality that:
– No longer sees the world as dominated by organized enemies of Christ, but as a partner in “dialogue”.
– No longer positions the council as anti‑error, but as pro‑world.
Precisely such a mentality is necessary for a paramasonic structure to replace the visible Church in Roman buildings while emptying doctrine from within.
Responsibility of the Hierarchy: From Guardians to Facilitators of Apostasy
From the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine, the pre‑1968 valid hierarchy had the grave obligation:
– To defend the faith intact.
– To reject any program that, even implicitly, relativized previous solemn condemnations or opened the door to error.
Instead, this allocution shows:
– “Cardinals” and bishops courted as collaborators in a work whose content is deliberately undefined yet rhetorically exalted.
– An expectation that they take part in procedural “studies” rather than in the solemn defense of the deposit of faith.
Those among them who perceived the danger and did not resist publicly, decisively, and doctrinally bear objective responsibility. Those who enthusiastically supported the program became instruments by which the conciliar sect supplanted Catholic structures. Nonetheless, true authority remains inseparable from the integral Catholic faith; once manifest heresy or its programmatic facilitation is embraced, jurisdiction is forfeited ipso facto according to the classical doctrine (summarized by St. Robert Bellarmine and reflected in the principles of canon 188.4 of 1917).
“Nolite Timere”: Misappropriation of Christ’s Words for a Counter-Church
The allocution ends by repeating:
“Nolite timere, pusillus grex… Capilli capitis vestri omnes numerati sunt.”
But the “little flock” here invoked is not exhorted:
– To confess the faith before persecuting powers.
– To reject liberalism, indifferentism, and Modernism.
– To cling to the prior magisterium against the world.
Rather, this “little flock” is gently coaxed to trust in a council that will, in fact, dilute the papacy, invert the relationship of Church and world, and dismantle the Most Holy Sacrifice in favour of an assembly rite. This is inversion at the level of spiritual symbolism: the promises to the true flock are seized to legitimize the program leading to the abomination.
Conclusion: The Allocution as Overture to the Kingdom of Man
When stripped of its pious decoration and weighed against the unwavering teaching of the Church before 1958, this allocution stands revealed as:
– The rhetorical inauguration of a conciliar process severed from the authentic aims of ecumenical councils.
– A deliberate refusal to wield the Church’s authority against Modernism, liberalism, and secularism.
– An appeasing gesture toward the world’s expectations, contradicting the condemnations in the Syllabus and in Quas Primas.
– The introduction of proceduralism, collegial technocracy, and “pastoral” vagueness as instruments by which doctrine will be relativized.
The theological and spiritual bankruptcy of the attitude expressed lies precisely in its polished surface: eloquent optimism instead of contrition, general invocations instead of specific condemnations, admiration for external goodwill instead of zeal for conversion, bureaucratic self-confidence instead of trembling fidelity to the deposit.
Such language disarms shepherds, flatters enemies, and anesthetizes the faithful, preparing them to accept a neo‑church which exalts man, negotiates with error, and obscures the universal reign of Christ the King. In this sense, the allocution is not a neutral historical curiosity, but an early manifesto of the conciliar usurpation whose consequences have ravaged souls, profaned the sacraments, and enthroned the cult of man where the worship of the true God alone should reign.
Source:
A.D. MCMLXI) (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025