Vatican portal presents an allocution of antipope John XXIII (27 January 1960) delivered at the third session of the Roman Synod, a programmatic discourse on the priesthood, pastoral ministry in Rome, and the example of the “Good Shepherd,” framed as exhortation to the clergy and praise of “pastoral” service both direct (parochial) and indirect (curial and institutional). It exalts the dignity of the priesthood, honors administrative and institutional roles as true apostolate, invokes St Pius X and St Gregory the Great to legitimize this vision, and links Roman central structures with universal pastoral care in view of the coming council. This text, though clothed in pious language, lays out the embryonic ideology of the conciliar revolution, subtly displacing the sacrificial and dogmatic essence of the priesthood with functionalist pastoralism, bureaucratic activism, and a horizontal vision of the Church.
Pastoral Rhetoric as the Mask of a Coming Revolution
Selective Praise of the Priesthood while Emptying the Sacrifice
On the surface, the allocution appears orthodox: frequent mention of Christ’s priesthood (Heb 5), the “Tu es sacerdos in aeternum,” the “Good Shepherd,” and calls to zeal for souls. Yet a precise reading, in light of integral Catholic doctrine prior to 1958, exposes its inner dynamic.
Key observations:
– John XXIII repeatedly underscores the priest as “for others,” stressing pastoral service, organization, institutional work, and “indirect apostolate,” while effectively relegating the essence of the priesthood as *sacerdos Dei altaris* (priest of the altar of God) to the background.
– The Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is mentioned only tangentially and instrumentally; the heart of the discourse is managerial: distribution of clergy, curial posts, functional contributions, “apostolic” administration.
– The text anticipates and justifies the swelling of non-parochial structures in Rome, accrediting office work as equivalent to direct care of souls, without simultaneously warning against the mortal danger of activism detached from the altar and from doctrinal guarding of the flock.
From the perspective of the constant Magisterium, this is already an inversion.
– The Council of Trent teaches that the priest is principally ordained to offer the propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead and to absolve sins, not to be an ecclesiastical social worker or administrator (cf. Trent, Sess. XXII, ch. 1–2; can. 1–3 on the Sacrifice).
– Pius XI in *Quas Primas* teaches that the whole social and ecclesial order must be built under the kingship of Christ, with the priest as herald and minister of this kingship, above all through the Sacrifice and the preaching of the integral faith, not via adaptation to secular bureaucratic structures.
The allocution never once confronts:
– the advance of laicism, indifferentism, and condemned “religious liberty” (cf. Syllabus of Errors, 15–18, 55, 77–80),
– the infiltration of Modernism condemned by St Pius X in *Lamentabili sane exitu* and *Pascendi Dominici gregis*,
– the Masonic and secularist assault on the Church highlighted by Pius IX and Leo XIII.
Instead, Rome is described as the center of world coordination, whose many offices legitimately “abstract” priests from direct pastoral care, and this is baptized as apostolate. The sacrificial, dogmatic, and militant identity of the priesthood is diluted into a flexible, “pastoral” workforce.
This silence on the real doctrinal and spiritual battle constitutes the first grave accusation: the allocution evacuates the priesthood of its primary relation to the Sacrifice and to the guarding of revealed truth, in favor of an immanent, organizational pastoralism.
Linguistic Softening: Piety without Militant Doctrine
The rhetoric of the allocution is revealing.
1. Excessive affective language:
– Constant vocatives: “Venerabiles Fratres ac dilecti filii,” emotive recollections, sentimental anecdotes.
– Long contemplative passages on the image of Christ the Good Shepherd, Pius X’s coronation, Ars, Gregory the Great.
– These are objectively edifying figures or dogmatically safe images, yet here they serve as a sentimental aura masking the absence of doctrinal clarity against the modern errors erupting in the 20th century.
2. Strategic omissions:
– No explicit mention of the scourge of Modernism as “synthesis of all heresies” (St Pius X).
– No reminder of the duty to reject condemned theses: evolution of dogma, democratization of authority, separation of Church and State, religious indifferentism, false ecumenism (all solemnly rejected by Pius IX in the Syllabus and by previous Popes).
– No warning against the encroaching cult of man and naturalistic human rights ideology that was already shaping public life, precisely what *Quas Primas* diagnosed as the refusal of Christ’s social reign.
3. Semantic shift of “pastoral”:
– “Pastoral” is employed as an elastic term covering everything: direct care, indirect curial works, and generalized “service,” without anchoring it in *cura animarum* subordinated to doctrine and Sacrifice.
– This anticipates the post-1958 abuse where “pastoral” becomes a code-word for suspending dogma, relativizing discipline, and making concessions to the world.
Thus, beneath devout vocabulary, the text cultivates a new mentality: aggiornamento without the word yet spoken — accommodation to modern structures, feelings, and expectations, without the hard edge of pre-1958 teaching. This is typical of Modernist method condemned by St Pius X: maintain traditional language but pour new meaning into it.
Instrumental Use of St Pius X and St Gregory the Great
One of the most insidious elements is the appropriation of unimpeachable pre-conciliar authorities to legitimize the emerging conciliar spirit.
– John XXIII calls attention to Gregory the Great’s *Regula pastoralis*, rightly praised by St Pius X in “Iucunda sane,” but uses it to gild his own program, which in practice diverges from Gregory’s severity towards error and his understanding of *ars artium regimen animarum* (“the art of arts is the government of souls”).
– St Gregory’s doctrine is crystal clear: the pastor must be:
– vigilant against heresy,
– detached from worldly business,
– unyielding in discipline,
– entirely ordered to saving souls from sin and error.
– The allocution, while mentioning Gregory, does not echo his intransigence. It omits any explicit denunciation of contemporary false doctrines, and instead dignifies administrative, diplomatic, and bureaucratic tasks as apostolate on par with direct *cura animarum*.
Similarly with St Pius X:
– The speech evokes Pius X’s coronation and humility, but remains silent on his central work: the ruthless condemnation of Modernism and the imposition of the Anti-Modernist Oath.
– To invoke Pius X while preparing the very council that would dismantle his anti-modernist defenses is a rhetorical exploitation, not continuity.
This is a paradigmatic example of what later would be called “hermeneutic of continuity”: traditional symbols are paraded while their doctrinal content is neutralized. This is not reverent citation, but tactical co-option.
Doctrinal Dilution: No Mention of Condemned Errors
From the standard of immutable pre-1958 doctrine:
– Pius IX, in the Syllabus, condemns:
– religious indifferentism and the idea that “every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by reason, he shall consider true” (prop. 15),
– the myth that civil liberty of all cults and unconstrained expression of opinions is harmless (79),
– reconciliation of the Papacy with liberalism and “modern civilization” (80).
– St Pius X in *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi* condemns:
– reduction of revelation to religious experience,
– evolution of dogma,
– the attempt to subordinate the Magisterium to the “sense of the faithful,”
– historicist relativization of Scripture and dogma.
– Pius XI in *Quas Primas* demands:
– the public, social reign of Christ,
– subordination of states to Christ’s laws,
– rejection of laicism.
The allocution:
– Does not even hint at these precise condemnations.
– Does not recall the existence of the Syllabus, *Pascendi*, *Lamentabili*, or *Quas Primas*, despite speaking about mission, society, and global structures.
– Speaks of the “great Synod” and anticipates an ecumenical council with language of expectation and universal opening, but without defining its purpose as reaffirmation of condemned truths or combat against concrete errors.
This silence is decisive.
A Roman address to clergy in 1960 — at the very heart of the Church, on the eve of the announced council — fails to arm priests doctrinally against Modernism, liberalism, socialism, Freemasonry, and the cult of man, which Pius IX and Pius X explicitly tied to the “synagogue of Satan.” Instead, it soothes with pastoral images and administrative flattery.
Such silence is not neutral; it is complicity.
Priestly Identity Recast in Functional and Horizontal Terms
The allocution repeatedly:
– Admires the number and variety of roles in Rome: curial offices, institutions, religious congregations, “indirect apostolate.”
– Explicitly defends those in offices from any suspicion of lesser zeal, calling their work “true apostolate,” even when detached from direct *cura animarum*.
– Warns against merely “profane affairs,” yet immediately justifies a wide range of ecclesiastical occupations that in practice place priests inside power structures, diplomacy, and management, without tight doctrinal criteria.
The prior Magisterium, however, is unambiguous:
– The Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, De reform., c. 1) insists priests must live in accord with their sacred state, avoid secular business, and be wholly dedicated to Sacrifice and preaching.
– Repeated papal legislation (e.g., Pius IX, Leo XIII, St Pius X) denounces clergy involved in politics, liberal societies, secret sects, or naturalistic activism inconsistent with their state.
– St Pius X’s entire reform of the clergy aimed at restoring:
– doctrinal formation,
– liturgical reverence,
– separation from worldly concerns.
John XXIII’s allocution:
– Softens these lines by broadening what counts as “apostolate” to almost all church-related activity.
– Shifts emphasis from *sanctity and doctrinal vigilance* to *availability and pastoral presence* in a sentimental sense.
– Omits concrete warnings against modernist theology, condemned biblical criticism, or liberal “Catholic” movements, though these were precisely the central threats identified by his predecessors.
Thus, the priest is progressively reduced to a pastoral functionary integrated into a global religious administration, rather than a sacrificial, doctrinally armed soldier of Christ the King. This is the anthropocentric pivot that would soon produce a priesthood adapted to the world, to religious liberty, to ecumenism, to interreligious spectacle — and finally to the cult of man.
Preparation of the Conciliar and “Ecumenical” Turn
A pivotal sentence occurs where John XXIII links the “other sheep” (John 10:16) with:
“the first rays of light of the soon-to-be-celebrated Ecumenical Council, which with hidden and anxious expectation already strongly moves Christian souls throughout the whole world.”
From the lens of pre-1958 doctrine:
– The “unum ovile et unus pastor” (one fold and one shepherd) has an exact meaning: the Catholic Church under the Roman Pontiff as the only ark of salvation. Pius IX explicitly condemns the idea that non-Catholic communions are forms of the “same true Christian religion” (Syllabus, 18).
– Pius XI in *Mortalium Animos* (1928) condemns as treacherous the pan-Christian and dialogical ecumenism which suggests unity through federations, negotiations, or relativized doctrinal minima. True unity consists in return of dissidents to the one true Church.
The allocution:
– Hints that the council will be connected with this gathering of “other sheep,” but does not say: by calling them back to unconditional submission to the Catholic Church.
– Instead cultivates open expectations, a vague “missionary” optimism, devoid of the clear requirement of conversion and abjuration of errors.
We know from subsequent events (which can be historically verified):
– Vatican II’s documents on ecumenism and religious liberty effectively reversed the previous line, legitimizing dialogue without return and affirming a civil right to propagate error — positions irreconcilable with the Syllabus and *Quas Primas*.
– The conciliar sect then institutionalized precisely the pastoralist, horizontal, ecumenical paradigm semi-coded in this allocution.
Therefore this text is not an isolated exhortation; it is a deliberate prelude:
– to a council framed not as solemn condemnation of errors (like Trent or Vatican I),
– but as “pastoral” aggiornamento,
– thereby enshrining in practice the very ideas anathematized before: evolution of doctrine, religious liberty, false ecumenism, and the cult of human dignity detached from Christ the King.
Silence about the State of Grace, Judgment, and Hell
A criterion explicitly demanded: “Silence about supernatural matters (sacraments, state of grace, final judgment) is the gravest accusation.”
Despite numerous spiritual images, the allocution:
– Does not distinctly insist that the priest’s first duty is to lead souls from mortal sin to the state of grace through valid sacraments.
– Does not mention eternal damnation as a real outcome for neglect of pastoral duty or unrepented sin.
– Does not connect “Good Shepherd” imagery with the awful responsibility warned by Gregory the Great, that negligent pastors are guilty of the blood of their sheep.
– Uses the passage on the mercenary and wolves in only the mildest way, immediately softening, avoiding naming concrete wolves: Modernism, liberalism, Freemasonry, and moral corruption among clergy.
Authentic pre-1958 teaching is concrete and unsentimental:
– Pius IX, Leo XIII, St Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII all speak plainly of heresies, sects, Freemasonry, and eternal perdition.
– The “Good Shepherd” is not a therapist, but the one who lays down his life to defend the flock from definite, named errors and vices.
The absence of such gravity here, especially in a Roman Synod address, manifests a new pastoralism emptied of eschatological urgency. This is not pastoral charity; it is irresponsible softness.
Symptom of the Conciliar Sect: From Priest of God to Agent of an Ecclesial Corporation
What emerges from a complete reading?
1. The priest is praised:
– as collaborator of a massive central apparatus in Rome,
– as participant in “direct or indirect” ministries that all count as apostolate,
– as a flexible worker in a network whose horizon is an upcoming “ecumenical” event.
2. The sacrificial and dogmatic center is obscured:
– No clear reaffirmation of the Mass as propitiatory Sacrifice in the sense of Trent.
– No vigorous condemnation of heresy or Modernism.
– No militant exposition of Christ’s Kingship over nations as binding law.
3. The Church is implicitly re-framed:
– less as *societas perfecta* divinely constituted with juridical clarity (Pius IX, Syllabus 19, 21; Leo XIII),
– more as a global religious community coordinating multiple roles, with the priesthood serving its changing “pastoral” needs.
This is precisely the matrix from which:
– the New pseudo-rite of “mass” (fabricated by Bugnini and others) could emerge, the propitiatory Sacrifice replaced by communal meal theology,
– the false ecumenism of Assisi, interreligious prayer, and doctrinal relativism could be justified “pastorally,”
– the cult of man and human dignity, detached from Christ’s Kingship, could be enthroned in the conciliar sect.
From the perspective of immutable Catholic theology, the allocution is not a harmless devotional speech; it is a programmatic soft-launch of that paramasonic structure later manifest in the Church of the New Advent. Its method:
– avoid formal dogmatic contradiction at this stage,
– saturate in pious rhetoric,
– omit all hard condemnations,
– exalt “pastoral” breadth and bureaucratic apostolate,
– prepare the clergy psychologically to accept a non-dogmatic council and a new orientation.
In sum: this allocution exemplifies the theological and spiritual bankruptcy of post-1958 leadership — an episcopal and presbyteral ethos sentimentalized, functionalized, and disarmed before the world, no longer the virile guardian of the deposit of faith demanded by Pius IX and St Pius X.
True Remedy: Return to the Pre-1958 Standard and Authentic Pastoral Charity
Against this conciliar pastoralism, the only Catholic answer is:
– To reaffirm, without mitigation, that:
– *Veritas non mutatur* (truth does not change).
– The Syllabus of Pius IX, *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi* of St Pius X, *Quas Primas* of Pius XI, and the constant teaching of Trent and Vatican I remain binding norms, not museum pieces.
– Any “pastoral” orientation that contradicts or undermines these is objectively illegitimate.
– To restore:
– The priest as sacrificer and guardian of dogma, acting in persona Christi to offer the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary and to absolve sins.
– The understanding that administrative or institutional tasks are subordinate and acceptable only insofar as they directly serve this sacrificial and doctrinal mission.
– The militant proclamation of Christ’s social Kingship and the exclusive salvific character of the Catholic Church.
– To reject:
– The modernist and naturalist abuse of the image of the “Good Shepherd” as justification for doctrinal compromise and liturgical sacrilege.
– The sentimental veil that hides the wolves: ecumenism without conversion, religious liberty as a right to error, the cult of man.
Only in this light can one see the allocution of 27 January 1960 for what it is historically and theologically: not the voice of Gregory the Great nor of Pius X, but the courteous overture of the conciliar sect, preparing to enthrone man where Christ the King alone must reign.
Source:
Allocutio die XXVII Ianuarii A. D. MCMLX habita in tertia Synodi sessione (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025