Venerable John XXIII’s January 23, 1962 allocution to the Central Preparatory Commission for Vatican II is a congratulatory speech in which he praises the bishops and experts for their work, rejoices in their unity, presents the immense volume of preparatory material as a sign of hope, exhorts serenity and concord, announces two upcoming documents (on unified priestly prayer for the Council and on strengthening the use of Latin, especially in seminaries), and implores prayers for the “great event” of the upcoming Council.

---

A Programmatic Hymn to Conciliar Optimism and the Eclipse of Catholic Gravity

From Sacred Council to Pastoral Experiment: The Foundational Ambiguity

From the first lines, John XXIII recasts an ecumenical council—supreme and terrible instrument of the Church’s judicial and doctrinal authority—as an essentially affective, congratulatory, almost therapeutic gathering.

He exults in the labors and harmony of the preparatory commissions, speaking of “magnifica exsurgentia moles” of contributions and the “eximius fidei caritatisque spiritus” animating them, but without once recalling the primary ratio of a true Oecumenicum Concilium as understood by the Church before 1958: to define revealed truth, to condemn errors, and to legislate for the protection of souls.

Instead of invoking the perennial standard—*fides catholica integra, inviolata, definita, contra errores munita* (the Catholic faith integral, inviolate, defined, defended against errors)—the allocution reduces the purpose of the Council to the vague pursuit of “meliora usque efficienda,” “necessitates temporum,” and “profectus.”

This shift is not accidental. It is the programmatic ambiguity out of which the conciliar revolution was born:

– Classical councils (Nicaea, Ephesus, Trent, Vatican I) confronted concrete heresies and schisms with doctrinal precision and anathemas, because the first duty of pastors is to guard the deposit: “depositum custodi” (“guard the deposit,” 1 Tim 6:20).
– John XXIII’s speech, on the eve of Vatican II, avoids any clear naming of contemporary doctrinal poisons: Modernism, liberalism, socialism, naturalism, the cult of man, religious indifferentism—all already solemnly condemned by the Magisterium (cf. Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos; Pius IX, Quanta Cura and the attached Syllabus; Leo XIII’s series of social encyclicals; St. Pius X, Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi; Pius XI, Mortalium Animos; Pius XII, Humani Generis).

Instead, we find a serene self-satisfaction and an irenic tone that collides directly with the pre-existing doctrinal landscape.

The thesis is evident: this allocution is not a neutral preface; it is the spiritual and ideological softening that made possible the conciliar subversion—substituting doctrinal militancy with bureaucratic optimism, supernatural clarity with horizontal consensus.

Factual Inversion: Silence on Modernism, Praise for the Machinery

On the factual and structural level, several points stand out.

1. John XXIII stresses the vastness of preparatory material: sixteen volumes of episcopal input, numerous provincial synods, diocesan initiatives, and writings from clergy and laity. He welcomes even texts “from outside the Church” that await this “great event,” and he praises their general understanding of what a council is.

This is presented as proof of seriousness. In truth, it exposes a grave disorientation:

– The Magisterium had already, repeatedly, defined and defended the nature of revelation, dogma, Church, State, religious liberty, and condemned contrary systems—including the very “modern civilization” whose expectations he treats gently.
– St. Pius X’s Lamentabili sane exitu (provided above) explicitly condemns the notion that dogma evolves, that revelation is simply religious experience, that the Magisterium cannot determine the meaning of Scripture, that historical criticism may relativize dogma, that the Church must adapt doctrine to the “needs” of the age. Yet the allocution never recalls this as the obligatory framework.
– Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors (above) anathematizes precisely those liberal and naturalistic premises that the conciliar orientation would later accept under the guise of “development” and “dialogue.”

The allocution’s factual blindness is that it treats the Council as if starting from a neutral field of pious goodwill, instead of a battlefield already defined by solemn condemnations. This is not oversight; it is method.

2. When John XXIII refers to writings by private authors (including those “extra Ecclesiae saepta”), he only mildly exhorts that they be marked by prudence and truth to avoid “perturbationem ac sollicitudinem.” No warning against Modernist theses. No reminder that many of these trends had already been branded as heretical. The danger he fears is not heresy, but disturbance.

This contradicts the pre-1958 line:

– St. Pius X: Modernism is “the synthesis of all heresies,” and its authors must be opposed, silenced, and removed from teaching, not politely integrated into preparatory discourse.
– Pius XII in Humani Generis warns sharply against the very theological tendencies that the conciliar milieu would rehabilitate.

By its omissions, the allocution communicates a factual inversion: the real menace (Modernism) is ignored; the machinery of consultation is glorified.

Linguistic Honey as Solvent of Dogma

The rhetoric of the allocution is revealing. It is saturated with:

– Sentimental gratitude.
– Emphasis on “gaudium,” “iucundum,” “profectus”.
– Repeated appropriation of a single Chrysostom text: “Ego servus sum vestrae caritatis” (“I am the servant of your charity”), applied to himself as “Vicarius Christi” toward the commission members.

This language is not benign. It signals a subtle, destructive reorientation:

1. The adoption of “service” as the dominant self-definition of papal office, detached from its juridical and dogmatic substance:
– The Pope is, in Catholic doctrine, *servus servorum Dei* precisely as the supreme teacher and legislator, endowed with real authority to bind consciences, define dogma, and anathematize error.
– Here, “service” is emotive, horizontal, almost deferential to collective work. The papal voice mingles with the committee as a partner in “joy,” not as the divinely constituted judge and guardian of *depositum fidei*.

2. The tone is bureaucratic-pastoral rather than supernatural-prophetic. It is the idiom of conference culture:
– “labores tam magni utilisque momenti”
– “moles peracti laboris”
– “ad rerum summam conficiendam”
– “necessitates hodierni temporis”

What is absent: fear of God; judgment; hell; danger of damnation; the gravity of heresy; the urgency of conversion of nations to the Kingship of Christ; the menace of Freemasonry and naturalism, condemned repeatedly by prior popes and recalled in the Syllabus text above.

3. The use of Chrysostom’s affective lines outside their context:
– The speech borrows fragments about joy and mutual love, but severs them from Chrysostom’s own ferocious insistence on doctrinal purity, moral rigor, and fearless preaching against imperial and ecclesiastical corruption.
– This selective quoting becomes a linguistic anesthetic: Patristic authority is invoked for atmosphere, not for its doctrinal edge.

This rhetoric is the seed of the later “pastoral” revolution: sweetness without sword, affirmation without anathema, council as celebration instead of tribunal.

Theological Hollowing-Out: Deposit of Faith Subordinated to Time

Although the allocution briefly mentions “fidei depositum integre fideliterque custodiendum,” this phrase is neutralized by its context.

Key theological distortions:

1. The Council’s agenda is framed in terms of adapting doctrine, discipline, and apostolate to “hodierni temporis necessitates.” The underlying principle becomes:
– Time and the world set the questions.
– The Church’s role: to reconfigure expression, discipline, and “pastoral” approaches to match them.

This directly approaches propositions condemned in Lamentabili and Pascendi:

– That dogma must be adjusted to the demands of progress.
– That revelation continues in the religious experience of the community.
– That truth develops with man (*veritas mutatur cum homine*), a concept anathematized as Modernist poison.

2. There is no mention of the Council’s duty to condemn contemporary errors publicly.

Contrast:
– Pius XI in Quas Primas insists that peace and social order are only possible under the public reign of Christ the King, and he condemns laicism and the exclusion of Christ from public life as the root of modern disasters.
– Pius IX, in the Syllabus (above), rejects religious indifferentism, separation of Church and State, “freedom of worship” as understood by liberalism, and reconciliation with “modern civilization” in its revolutionary sense.

John XXIII’s allocution, however, carefully avoids any doctrinally precise reassertion of these teachings. The omission is theological: it creates space for Vatican II’s later betrayal (e.g., Dignitatis Humanae, Nostra Aetate), which the conciliar sect then falsely cloaks under the phrase “hermeneutic of continuity.”

3. The insistence on harmony, absence of polemics, and the “tranquilla conscientia” about preparatory work signal a refusal to acknowledge internal doctrinal corruption.

Yet St. Pius X, in Pascendi, had already exposed that bishops, priests, and professors infected by Modernism were active inside ecclesiastical structures, perverting dogma, exegesis, and catechesis. The allocution’s blissful silence about this is not neutrality; it is complicity.

The integral Catholic position prior to 1958 recognized:

– “Ecclesia contra errores pugnat.” The Church fights errors, especially when they penetrate her own visible members.
– To speak of a Council without denouncing the Modernist infiltration condemned only decades earlier is an abdication of office.

Thus the theological content of the allocution is less in what it states than in what it strategically refuses to state: it exchanges the supernatural militancy of the Church for pastoral irenicism.

Symptom of the Conciliar Disease: Collegial Flattery and Democratizing Instinct

A core symptom of the conciliar revolution appears in John XXIII’s insistent glorification of the collective:

– He insists that each council “initium sumere e communibus optatis,” the common desires of bishops, who represent “necessitates, exspectationes, vota” of clergy and people.
– The preparatory process is presented almost as a democratic consultation of aspirations, not as the hierarchical discernment and authoritative reaffirmation of defined doctrine.

Integral Catholic doctrine (cf. Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus) teaches:

– The Pope does not receive his authority from episcopal consensus or the “people of God,” but directly from Christ.
– Councils do not legislate by plebiscite; they are instruments of the Magisterium’s infallible judgment, under and with the Pope, to define truths and anathematize errors.

The allocution’s emphasis is inverted:

– The People and bishops present expectations; the Council becomes the answer to a horizontal demand.
– This lays the psychological foundation for the later pseudo-doctrine of “collegiality” and for the democratization of doctrine, wherein “the signs of the times” and “the sense of the faithful” are invoked to relativize defined truths.

This mentality straightforwardly conflicts with the principles reaffirmed by Pius IX in Tuas Libenter (cited in the Syllabus): Catholics are bound not only to solemn definitions but also to ordinary universal teaching; they may not place private theological or historical opinions above the Magisterium.

John XXIII’s language does precisely that: it exalts processes, opinions, and expectations, weakening the sense of binding, unmodifiable doctrine.

The Latin Question: A Conservative Cosmetic Covering Structural Subversion

John XXIII announces two documents:

1. An exhortation to priests worldwide to unite in prayer for the Council, especially through the Divine Office.
2. A document to strengthen the teaching and use of Latin in seminaries, as the language proper to the Roman Church.

At first glance, this sounds like Catholic continuity. In reality, it is a strategic conservative veneer masking an imminent demolition.

– Within a few years, the conciliar sect will:

– Dismantle the centrality of Latin in the liturgy.
– Introduce vulgar tongues everywhere.
– Replace the Roman Rite’s venerable structure with an engineered rite (the 1969 “Novus Ordo”) devised by committees, heavily influenced by Protestant and modernist consultants.
– Create a praxis where even if Latin is “theoretically” retained, it is practically abandoned.

– Thus this allocution’s pro-Latin gesture is part of a double game: using traditional symbols while preparing a revolution in substance. It allowed naïve observers and those pretending to be traditional Catholics to believe in continuity, while the doctrinal and liturgical foundations were being hollowed out.

From the perspective of pre-1958 doctrine:

– The praise of Latin would have meaning only if tied to the immutable Roman Rite, to dogmatic clarity, and to the condemnation of novelty, as Pius XII maintained in Mediator Dei.
– Here, Latin is affirmed abstractly, while the Council prepared under this allocution becomes the instrument by which the very heart of the Most Holy Sacrifice—its propitiatory nature, sacrificial expression, priestly character—is obscured in practice where the conciliar sect’s rites prevail.

Therefore, the Latin passage is not a safeguard; it is a symptom of the duplicity that characterizes the conciliar operation.

Erasure of the Kingship of Christ and Surrender to Liberal Civilization

A further, graver omission marks this allocution.

Given:

– Pius XI’s Quas Primas (above) solemnly teaches that:
– True peace and authentic order are only possible where Christ reigns publicly over individuals, families, and states.
– The laicization of society and exclusion of Our Lord from public life are the root of modern disasters.
– States and rulers must publicly recognize and honor Christ the King and submit their laws to His law.

– The Syllabus of Errors explicitly condemns:
– The separation of Church and State (55).
– That the Pope should reconcile with liberalism and modern civilization understood as independence from God (80).
– The notion that religious liberty in the liberal sense and indifferentist freedom of worship are benign (15–18, 77–79).

John XXIII’s allocution, while preparing the Council that would produce Dignitatis Humanae and Nostra Aetate, is utterly silent on:

– The duty of states to recognize the Catholic religion as the only true religion.
– The incompatibility of liberal laicism with Christ’s Kingship.
– The grave errors of religious indifferentism and false “human rights” absolutized against the rights of God.

The speech approaches the Council as if the Church’s relation to modern liberal regimes were open for “pastoral” re-negotiation, rather than doctrinally settled.

This silence is not accidental; it is preparatory. It opens the path for:

– The conciliar sect’s betrayal of Quas Primas via religious liberty indifferentism.
– The substitution of the public reign of Christ with the cult of man, later explicitly voiced in the self-applauding rhetoric of the “Church of the New Advent.”

Thus, the allocution is guilty not merely of optimism, but of systematically suppressing the integral doctrine of Christ’s social Kingship at the very moment it should have been trumpeted.

Rejection of the Modernist “Church of the New Advent” and Its Conciliar Genesis

From the perspective of unchanging Catholic theology before 1958, several definitive conclusions emerge regarding this allocution as a founding text of the conciliar project:

1. Substitution of Supernatural Combat with Horizontal Encouragement:
– No denunciation of modernist errors.
– No reaffirmation that the Council’s first work is to protect the deposit by condemning heresy.
– Instead: emotional praise, managerial satisfaction, and aversion to holy controversy.

2. Collegial and Democratic Drift:
– Overemphasis on “common desires” and input of all.
– Papacy presented as “servus vestrae caritatis” in a sentimental sense, attenuating its juridical supremacy.
– Prepares the later pseudo-doctrine of collegiality and synodalism that dissolve authority into process.

3. Naturalistic Adaptationism:
– Framing of council tasks as adjusting doctrine, discipline, apostolate to “the needs of the present time.”
– This contradicts the dogmatic principle that truth is immutable (*veritas immutabilis*), defined infallibly, not malleable to historical moods.

4. Instrumentalization of Tradition:
– Selective invocation of Chrysostom and Latin.
– Retention of traditional labels and aesthetics while hollowing out their doctrinal content.
– A classic modernist tactic: preserve the forms as shells while infusing them with contrary meaning.

5. Complicit Silence About the Enemies Within:
– St. Pius X, in the very document Lamentabili (above) and Pascendi, described internal traitors, “enemies concealed in the Church’s very bosom.”
– John XXIII’s allocution, instead of confronting this, envelops everything in a narrative of harmony and joy.

Such a speech, standing at the threshold of Vatican II, is not an innocuous ceremonial text. It is the smoking gun of orientation:

– It marks the transition from the Church that condemned Modernism as the synthesis of all heresies to the “neo-church” that enthroned Modernism under the names of aggiornamento, ecumenism, religious liberty, and dialogue.
– It manifests the mentality of the paramasonic structure which would soon fabricate a “pastoral Council” that refuses anathemas but unleashes doctrinal dissolution.

Therefore, judged exclusively by the standard of the pre-1958 Magisterium (which remains the only Catholic standard), this allocution is not an act of Catholic governance but an ideological keynote of apostasy: a smiling prelude to the abdication of the Church’s divine mandate in favor of the world’s expectations.

---

Source:
Allocutio E.mis Patribus Cardinalibus, Exc.mis Episcopis ceterisque Membris Commissionis Centralis Oecumenico Vaticano Secundo Concilio appurando habita, post tertium coetuum ordinem exactum (die XXII…   (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025