John XXIII’s allocution closes the work of the Central Preparatory Commission for the so‑called “Second Vatican Council,” congratulating the members for their efforts, praising the harmony with the press, insisting on a controlled “discipline of silence,” and clothing the entire revolutionary project in a rhetoric of joy, confidence, and ecclesial song, as if the conciliar enterprise were a pure work of the Holy Ghost guaranteeing “prosperous and happy” results. The whole speech is a polished prelude to catastrophe: a sentimental hymn to a council that would enthrone Modernist principles under the deceptive cadence of pious commonplaces.
The Hymn of Deception: John XXIII’s Preparatory Allocution as Prologue to Revolt
Systematic Exaltation of a Human Project as Guaranteed by Heaven
Already at the outset, John XXIII frames the preparatory labours as sealed by divine favor and as harbingers of assured success. He thanks God who allegedly enlightened their minds, speaks of “fruits of hope” maturing from their activity, and concludes that these are a pledge that “heavenly aids will never fail” their common work.
He states, in substance:
We are filled with gratitude to God who has enlightened your minds; the fruits of your zeal promise that heavenly help will never fail this work.
The structure is deliberate:
– Human planning and commissions.
– Automatic association of these plans with divine illumination.
– From that, a presumption of persevering heavenly ratification.
This is the central sophism of conciliar revolution: to transfer to a novel, pastorally ambiguous, and doctrinally perilous enterprise the notes of indefectibility and divine assistance promised only to the *Magisterium authenticum Ecclesiae* understood in its traditional, defined sense—not to experimental assemblies orchestrated by Modernist infiltrators.
Before 1958, the Magisterium spoke with supernatural sobriety and precise limits:
– The Church is assisted by Christ in guarding and expounding the deposit of faith, not in fabricating new orientations that relativize it.
– Pius IX in the *Syllabus* condemns the idea that dogma evolves with history and that the Church must reconcile herself with liberal modern civilization (propositions 5, 58, 80).
– St. Pius X in *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi* brands as heretical the notion that dogma is a product of religious consciousness and subject to “adaptation” demanded by the times.
Here, in contrast, the paramasonic architect of the “Council of the New Advent” treats his own initiative as quasi-prophetic, a work begun “by a kind of secret impulse,” and wraps this subjectivism in a Psalm verse: Benedicam Dominum in omni tempore. This is precisely the Modernist tactic unmasked by St. Pius X: to baptize their own interior inspirations as motions of the Holy Ghost and then demand docility to the “signs of the times” they themselves manufacture.
The allocution therefore exposes a decisive inversion:
– Not the immutable deposit judging pastoral enterprises,
– but a pastoral enterprise presented as intrinsically Spirit-led, before its content is even doctrinally tested.
This stance is the seed of the later “hermeneutic of continuity” myth: presuming divine sanction for what in reality dissolves the very foundations previously defended by the Magisterium.
Manipulated Language: Pious Ornament as Veil for Revolution
The rhetoric is carefully crafted. John XXIII:
– Continually uses warm, paternal phrases: “humble joy,” “paternal congratulations,” “dear sons,” “carmen nostrum.”
– Employs liturgical and patristic citations—Psalm 149, Psalm 33(34), an Augustine quote—torn from their doctrinal and ascetical context and repurposed as a soundtrack for bureaucratic committees.
– Speaks of the Church’s “song” as “the melodious confession of faith, the devotion of authority, the joy of freedom” (fidei canora confessio, auctoritatis plena devotio, libertatis laetitia), but empties these terms of their traditional content.
Note the subtext:
– “Freedom” is highlighted without any reminder that true liberty is the liberty of the Church and of souls subject to Christ the King, not liberal autonomy from dogma and law.
– “Joy” and “serene confidence” are urged precisely in the face of “anxieties of the time,” but there is absolute silence about sin, error, heresy, Freemasonry, Socialism, naturalism—the very enemies denounced relentlessly by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII.
– “Authority” is invoked as devotion, but the speech itself is the prologue to a process that would relativize papal and episcopal authority into an administrative manager of plural theological opinions.
This is not accidental. It is classic Modernist linguistic strategy:
– Replace doctrinal clarity with atmospheric spirituality.
– Replace denunciation of concrete errors with vague optimism.
– Use Scripture and Fathers as decorative citations to sanctify an agenda implicitly at war with their substance.
Where a true Roman Pontiff would—like Pius XI in *Quas Primas*—speak with burning clarity of the *regnum Christi* over individuals, families, nations, and denounce laicism as a “plague,” John XXIII here merely counsels not to lose heart over contemporary anxieties because the “carmen Ecclesiae” will not be extinguished. No word that:
– States must submit to Christ’s law.
– Liberal democracy and religious indifferentism are condemned.
– The conciliar preparation must defend defined dogma against Modernist subversion.
The silence is the message.
The “Discipline of Silence”: Controlled Narrative as Instrument of Subversion
One passage is especially revealing. John XXIII expresses satisfaction that journalists have followed the work “with attentive spirit and praiseworthy respect,” but:
“Non omnia, ut patet, vulgari oportuit, et adhuc deliberata silentii quadam disciplina saepiri fas est…”
English: “Not everything, as is clear, ought to be made public, and it is still right that deliberations be enclosed by a certain discipline of silence…”
He then notes that official bulletins inform the press, and that the favourable reception of these curated notices is a happy sign.
This is the architecture of propaganda:
– Secrecy regarding substantive internal debates.
– Officially controlled communications manufacturing consent.
– A “discipline of silence” around the true intentions, the radical schemata, the Modernist infiltrations.
Contrasted with the pre-1958 clarity:
– Popes publicly condemned specific errors, named the poisonous systems, and armed the faithful with principles to discern and resist (see *Syllabus*, *Pascendi*, *Humani generis*).
– Here, the method mirrors secular technocratic governance: the people are to receive filtered optimism, not truth. This is *ars dissimulationis*, unworthy of the Vicar of Christ, but fitting for an antichurch aiming to shift the entire orientation without alarming the faithful.
This pseudo-ecclesial “discipline of silence” foreshadows:
– The concealment and manipulation of the Third Secret of “Fatima” within the conciliar narrative machine.
– The orchestration of the council via controlled periti and media, presented as “Spirit-led,” while suppressing any unwavering Thomistic, anti-liberal, anti-Modernist line.
The fact that John XXIII rejoices in the positive reception of official communiqués by the world’s press—dominated by secular, Masonic, and anti-Catholic networks already condemned by Pius IX and Leo XIII—is itself symptomatic. The world applauding is taken as an “auspice.” Yet the Church’s perennial teaching warns that such favour is usually a sign of betrayal, not fidelity: *Vae cum benedixerint vobis homines* (“Woe when men shall bless you”).
Omission of the Supernatural Combat: The Loudest Accusation
Measured against integral Catholic teaching, the allocution is notable above all for what it does not say.
Total or near-total silence in this allocution on:
– The necessity of the *state of grace*.
– The horror of mortal sin and the danger of hell.
– The reality of heresy ravaging seminaries and universities—expressly diagnosed by St. Pius X as “the synthesis of all heresies.”
– The sworn enemies of the Church: *sectae massonicae*, Socialism, Communism, Liberalism, Religious Indifferentism—which had been repeatedly unmasked as instruments of Satan by the pre‑conciliar Magisterium and directly evoked in the Syllabus and numerous encyclicals.
– The obligation of states and societies to recognize the social kingship of Christ and to submit their laws to His law.
– The unique salvific necessity of the Catholic Church, without which there is no salvation.
Instead, the entire focus is on:
– Institutional success of preparatory commissions.
– Harmonious relations with the media.
– Emotional reassurance and poetic “song.”
This silence is not benign; it is structurally Modernist. By refusing to set the conciliar project within the horizon of dogmatic warfare against specific, named errors, John XXIII effectively disarms the faithful and legitimizes a new orientation:
– From supernatural combat to optimistic dialogue.
– From condemnation of error to irenic co-existence.
– From militantly confessional ecclesiology to the gestating concept of “opening to the world.”
Contrast:
– Pius XI in *Quas Primas* insists that ignoring Christ’s kingship over public life causes social ruin, and institutes a feast precisely to condemn public apostasy.
– Pius IX in the *Syllabus* rejects as grave errors the separation of Church and State, religious freedom understood as equal public rights for all cults, and reconciliation with liberalism.
– St. Pius X condemns “democratic” re-imagining of the Church wherein the “listening Church” crafts dogma.
John XXIII’s allocution, by its tone and omissions, aligns instead with:
– The principle that dogmatic condemnations are to be muted.
– Naturalistic optimism that the Church’s “song” alone, without explicit dogmatic militancy, suffices before a hostile world.
– A new pastoral vocabulary that will become the matrix for false ecumenism, religious liberty, and the cult of man in the later documents of the conciliar sect.
Silence where doctrine demands speech is complicity.
Transfiguring the Council into a Mystical “Song”: Pious Cover for Doctrinal Relativization
Near the end, John XXIII returns to his key motif:
“Carmen Nostrum omni tempore Deo cantabimus… hac firmissima voluntate pontificalis ministerii suscepimus onus, atque indicendi Concilii propositum arcano veluti instinctu inivimus.”
English: “Our song we will sing to God at all times… with this firm will we accepted the burden of the pontifical ministry, and by a sort of secret impulse we began the plan of convoking the Council.”
Here the usurper:
– Subjectivizes the supreme governance of the Church: the call of a council as the fruit of his personal “song” and “secret impulse.”
– Presents his own initiative as quasi-charismatic and beyond rational theological necessity.
Traditional doctrine:
– Ecumenical councils are extraordinary remedies in grave doctrinal or disciplinary crises; their convocation must serve to define, defend, or restore—not to experimentally “update” the Church in conformity with the modern world.
– The gravity of such an act demands clear motives aligned with Tradition, not vague inspirations and affective language.
By canonizing his interior “instinct” as divine and surrounding it with Scriptural praise, John XXIII immunizes the project, in rhetorical terms, against rigorous theological scrutiny. Any opposition can then be painted as resistance to the “song” of the Church and to supposed inspirations of the Holy Ghost.
This is precisely the Modernist mystification condemned by St. Pius X:
– The inner religious experience elevated as normative.
– Institutional decisions justified by subjective inspiration, then imposed as if they bore the same stamp as dogmatic definitions.
The fruits are known:
– A council deliberately refusing solemn dogmatic definitions while introducing ambiguous language on collegiality, religious liberty, ecumenism, and interreligious relations.
– A neo-church whose praxis directly contradicts the *Syllabus*, *Quas Primas*, *Lamentabili*, and yet appeals to “the Spirit of the Council” for legitimacy.
The allocution is thus not innocent rhetoric; it is an early act of sacralizing a humanly engineered revolution.
Conciliar Optimism against Pre-Conciliar Warnings: An Irreconcilable Opposition
To gauge the full bankruptcy of the allocution’s outlook, we must set it concretely against magisterial doctrine before 1958:
1. Pius IX’s *Syllabus* (1864) condemns:
– The equality of all religions before the law and the idea that states should be indifferent to the true religion (propositions 15–18, 77–80).
– The notion that the Roman Pontiff should reconcile with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization (prop. 80).
2. Leo XIII repeatedly:
– Condemns Freemasonry as the enemy of Christ and His Church.
– Reasserts that civil authority must recognize and favour the true religion (e.g. *Immortale Dei*).
3. St. Pius X in *Pascendi* and *Lamentabili*:
– Brands as heretical the reduction of dogma to changing religious experience.
– Condemns the project of adapting faith to modern philosophy and historical relativism.
4. Pius XI in *Quas Primas*:
– Teaches that peace is only possible under the public kingship of Christ:
Peace will not come until individuals and states recognize and obey the reign of our Savior.
– Explicitly castigates laicism and secular apostasy as the root of modern disorder.
5. Pius XII in *Humani generis*:
– Warns against “new theology” that relativizes dogma and yields to modern systems.
John XXIII’s allocution:
– Contains no reminder of these condemnations.
– Offers no program of doctrinal defense against already rampant Modernism.
– Exudes a confidence that the conciliar process, as designed, is itself the channel of grace.
Thus, there is not continuity, but antithesis:
– The pre-1958 Magisterium warns with precision against exactly the currents that John XXIII chooses not to name and tacitly integrates through his optimism and consultation with the world.
– The allocution’s theology of history—serene, affirmative, reconciliatory—implicitly contradicts the solemn diagnosis that modern civilization, under Masonic and secularist domination, is waging war on the Church.
By praising the favourable attention of journalists and affirming that the Church’s song continues serenely despite “anxieties,” without denouncing those very hostilities as expressions of organized apostasy, John XXIII shifts the Church from vigilant militancy to complacent humanism.
Symptomatic Fruit: From This Rhetoric to the Conciliar Sect
When read with the knowledge of subsequent events, this speech appears not as a harmless ceremonial address, but as a succinct programmatic text whose essential elements matured into the conciliar sect:
– The allocution’s confidence that the preparatory work “will prosper happily” anticipates the refusal to interpret the devastation after the council (collapse of vocations, liturgical ruin, doctrinal confusion, moral dissolution) as a divine chastisement. Instead, the neo-church continues to sing its “carmen,” rebranding every disaster as “renewal.”
– The praised “discipline of silence” prefigures:
– The suppression of traditional schemata.
– The silencing and marginalization of uncompromising theologians.
– The manipulation of public perception to present the council as unanimously Spirit-driven while it systematically dismantled the barriers against liberalism and Modernism.
– The sentimentality and aesthetic of “joy, confidence, song” becomes the psychological matrix for:
– False ecumenism: repudiation in practice of the dogma that outside the Church there is no salvation.
– Religious liberty in the conciliar sense: the practical negation of Christ’s social kingship and of the Syllabus.
– The cult of man: culminating in later antichristic pronouncements of the conciliar usurpers, under whom human dignity and rights usurp the primacy of divine rights and dogma.
The allocution is an early chord in that “new song” which is not the *canticum novum* of salvation and repentance, but the hymn of a humanistic, horizontal religion.
Denunciation of the Allocution’s Core Principles
Measured against integral Catholic doctrine, the central tenets and tones of this address must be rejected as incompatible with the Faith:
– The implicit sacralization of a pastoral council project, as if its success and orthodoxy were guaranteed a priori by “heavenly help,” is a deformation of the doctrine of assistance, which applies to the Church’s authentic Magisterium faithfully guarding the deposit, not to novelties born of a “secret impulse.”
– The praise of media collaboration and the call for a “discipline of silence” regarding internal content, rather than open proclamation and defense of dogma, is an abuse of authority oriented to managing perception, not safeguarding truth.
– The systematic omission of concrete enemies of the Church—Freemasonry, liberalism, socialism, communism, modern philosophy, false religions—at a moment when they were objectively waging war upon the Mystical Body, signals not pastoral prudence but strategic disarming of Catholic militancy.
– The sentimental inflation of “joy, freedom, song” without doctrinal content becomes a preparatory catechism of Modernism: a religion of feelings and atmospheres, emptied of the Cross, judgment, and the absolute claims of Christ the King.
Pre‑1958 magisterial teaching, which remains the only reliable doctrinal norm, allows no space for such a program. Where earlier popes spoke with grave lucidity, John XXIII wraps a coming revolution in incense and music. The speech is therefore a witness against itself: a polished mask covering the face of apostasy.
The only Catholic response, grounded in the perennial doctrine defended in documents such as the *Syllabus*, *Quas Primas*, *Lamentabili* and the anti-Modernist encyclicals, is:
– To unmask this allocution as a rhetorical instrument of the conciliar revolt.
– To refuse the sentimental and naturalistic premises it advances.
– To return to the immutable teaching and sacramental life of the Church as it stood before the conciliar usurpers opened the floodgates.
In this light, the “song” invoked in the allocution is not the *canticum novum* of the Lamb, but a siren’s melody luring souls away from the fortress of unchanging Catholic truth into the shipwreck of post‑conciliarism.
Source:
ALLOCUTIO IOANNIS PP. XIII EM.MIS PATRIBUS CARDINAL (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025