Pietro Roncalli, styling himself John XXIII, announces by this brief chirograph the convocation of the “First Synod” of the Diocese of Rome, to be held in the Lateran Basilica on January 24, 1960, declaring its aims to be the revival of “Catholic faith,” the improvement of “Christian morals,” and the adaptation and strengthening of clerical and lay “discipline” to the “necessities” of the contemporary age, under the patronage of the Blessed Virgin Mary “Salus Populi Romani,” St John the Baptist, St John the Evangelist, the Apostles Peter and Paul, and the Roman patrons. Behind this seemingly pious and concise note stands the programmatic self-exposure of the conciliar revolution: an operation that usurps Catholic language in order to inaugurate the demolition of the very Faith it pretends to promote.
Chirograph as Manifesto of the Conciliar Usurpation
The False Premise: A “First” Roman Synod Against an Immutable Tradition
At the factual level, the text is disarmingly short:
“We have invoked the light and grace of the Holy Spirit with humble prayers; we have decided upon the celebration of a Roman Synod, so that in this beloved City, the See of Our Diocese, the Catholic faith may flourish more and more as an example to others, that Christian morals may gain salutary growth, and that the discipline of clergy and people may more suitably respond to the necessities of our age and be firmly strengthened.”
He then convokes:
“Our First Synod of the Roman Diocese … to be held in the Patriarchal Lateran Archbasilica… by Our authority.”
At first glance, this appears as a conventional episcopal, or papal, convocation of a diocesan synod. Yet three elements unmask the deeper program:
– The self-presentation of Roncalli, an elected modernist, as Roman Pontiff, while his doctrinal record and subsequent council betray him as a manifest heretic, thus falling under the principles articulated by St Robert Bellarmine and canon 188 §4 of the 1917 Code: a public defector cannot hold authority in the Church of Christ.
– The emphasis on “First Synod” of Rome, as if the See of Peter had awaited the 1960s to discover synodal self-regulation, betrays a rhetorical rupture with the continuous life of the Roman Church, creating a symbolic “Year Zero” in liturgy, discipline, and doctrine.
– The key phrase: “discipline… more suitably respond to the necessities of our age”, a programmatic seed of aggiornamento, soon to mutate into the full-blown cult of modernity, condemned by the pre-1958 Magisterium as the essence of liberalism and Modernism.
In other words, under a thin varnish of tradition, this chirograph functions as a juridical and symbolic prelude to the conciliar sect’s revolt against the immutable order of the Church.
Abusive Invocation of the Holy Spirit as Cover for Innovation
Roncalli opens:
“Postquam Sancti Spiritus lumen et gratiam supplicibus invocavimus precibus, consilium inivimus Romanae celebrandae Synodi…”
(“After we have invoked with humble prayers the light and grace of the Holy Spirit, we have decided on the celebration of a Roman Synod…”)
This formula would be legitimate in the mouth of a true Pontiff acting within Tradition. Here, however, it is theologically poisonous, because:
– It presumes divine approval for a project historically and doctrinally linked to the preparation of the so-called Second Vatican Council, whose texts enthrone condemned principles: religious liberty in the liberal sense, false ecumenism, collegial democratization of authority, and the practical dethronement of Christ the King in the temporal order.
– It places the Holy Spirit in apparent complicity with a trajectory explicitly rejected by the integral, pre-1958 Magisterium: *Syllabus Errorum* of Pius IX (esp. 15–18, 55, 77–80), *Quas Primas* of Pius XI, *Pascendi* and *Lamentabili* of St Pius X.
To attribute to the Holy Spirit the inspiration of a structure and an agenda that soon produced universal doctrinal confusion is to risk formal blasphemy. The true Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself; *Spiritus Sanctus non est auctor contradictionis* (the Holy Spirit is not the author of contradiction). He who uses the divine Name to bless what the perennial Magisterium solemnly condemns reveals himself, at minimum, as a false prophet.
The Subversive Use of “Example” and “Pastoral” Language
Roncalli claims that the Synod is to make Roman faith an “example”:
“…ut in hac alma Urbe… catholica fides in aliorum etiam exemplum magis magisque revirescat…”
(“so that in this dear City… the Catholic faith may flourish more and more as an example also for others…”)
From an integral Catholic standpoint prior to 1958:
– Rome already is the normative exemplar of faith and discipline because of the Primacy of Peter, not by self-constituted “synodal” reinvention.
– The authentic model is the unwavering guardianship of dogma, sacraments, and discipline, not experimental adaptation to Zeitgeist.
But in the modernist code, “example” now means:
– Rome will become the laboratory of aggiornamento.
– The diocesan synod, and soon the ecumenical pseudo-council, will fabricate a new praxis that other dioceses will imitate: anthropocentric liturgy, democratized structures, doctrinal ambiguity.
Thus, the word “example” is weaponized: instead of exemplifying *immutabilitas fidei* (the unchangeableness of faith), Rome is turned into the showcase of “renewal” against which all prior tradition is silently judged as deficient.
“Necessities of Our Age”: The Trojan Horse of Liberal Modernism
The text’s most revealing phrase:
“…utque cleri populique disciplina aptius nostrae huius aetatis necessitatibus respondeat…”
(“…and that the discipline of clergy and people may more suitably respond to the necessities of our age…”)
This is the fulcrum of the entire operation. Examined by the standard of pre-1958 doctrine:
– The Church indeed applies unchanging principles prudently to contingent circumstances. But this is a matter of *prudentia christiana*, never of bending divine law to modern demands.
– Pius IX, in the *Syllabus*, condemns the thesis that Church discipline depends on civil progress or liberal ideology (e.g., 39, 55, 77–80).
– St Pius X, in *Pascendi* and *Lamentabili*, unmasks the modernist strategy: reinterpret dogma and discipline to adapt to “the needs of contemporary man,” precisely the formula now echoed by Roncalli.
Thus, this line is not neutral:
– It encodes the principle that the measure of ecclesiastical discipline is no longer primarily divine Revelation and the objective reign of Christ, but the supposed “needs” of the contemporary world.
– Those “needs” are never specified as conversion, repentance, restoration of the Most Holy Sacrifice, suppression of heresy, or the defeat of Freemasonry and socialism; instead, they are left open for later exploitation by progressivist theology, ecumenism, and human-rights ideology.
This silence is itself a doctrinal accusation. There is no mention of:
– The reign of Christ the King over states, so powerfully reaffirmed in *Quas Primas*.
– The condemnation of laicism and liberalism.
– The necessity of rejecting modernist scriptures, false philosophy, and condemned “biblical” criticism.
– The mortal danger of Freemasonry and secret societies, denounced repeatedly by pre-1958 pontiffs and explicitly connected in the Syllabus excerpt you have provided.
Instead, the phrase *“necessities of our age”* becomes the solvent that will corrode every barrier erected by the authentic Magisterium against the world.
Linguistic Symptoms: Pious Ornament as Camouflage
The language of the chirograph is carefully chosen:
– Frequent invocations of sacred patrons: the Blessed Virgin Mary as “Salus populi Romani,” Saints John the Baptist and the Evangelist, the Apostles Peter and Paul, “Protectors” of Rome.
– Noble liturgical setting: the Lateran Archbasilica, “our Cathedral.”
– Formal Latin, juridical brevity, an appearance of continuity with prior Roman acts.
However, precisely this stylistic archaism serves here as a mask. The key symptoms:
1. Absence of doctrinal density:
– No reaffirmation of dogmatic truths under attack (Real Presence, propitiatory nature of the Most Holy Sacrifice, necessity of the Church for salvation, condemnation of indifferentism and socialism).
– No explicit denunciation of modernist currents, despite their already well-known penetration into seminaries and faculties.
2. Pastoral vagueness:
– “Revive faith,” “grow in morals,” “strengthen discipline” — all terms left undefined, ready to be reinterpreted by committees and experts.
3. Programmatic openness:
– The phrase “aptior… respondeat necessitatibus” is deliberately elastic. It is bureaucratic-modernist code for structural change.
In classical Catholic documents, when adaptation is mentioned, it is rigorously subordinated to immutable principles. Here, the asymmetry is reversed: sacred invocations become ornamental; the operational core is an undefined, principle-free aggiornamento.
Theological Verdict: Rupture Disguised as Synodal Renewal
Measured against integral Catholic doctrine, several theological defects emerge.
1. Illegitimate Authority:
– A manifest modernist cannot wield the authority of Peter. According to the doctrine restated by Bellarmine (as preserved in your sourced file) and applied via canon 188.4:
– “A manifest heretic cannot be Pope… a manifest heretic is not a Christian; therefore, he cannot be head of the Church.”
– Roncalli’s programmatic openness to condemned principles (ecumenism in the relativistic sense, sympathy for modern errors, the later council’s texts) confirms the practical application of this principle.
– Therefore the synod he convokes, and all subsequent conciliar structures, lack divine mandate; they are acts of an intruder.
2. Subordination of Discipline to the World:
– Authentic discipline is an expression of dogma. The chirograph hints at the reverse: dogmatically undefined “needs” of the age guide discipline.
– This inversion is formally incompatible with the constant teaching reaffirmed in *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*, which condemn the evolution of dogma and its reduction to historical conditioning.
3. Horizontalization of the Church:
– The appeal to clergy and people and the synodal mechanism foreshadow the democratizing tendency later exploding in post-conciliar “synods,” where authority is treated as emerging from consensus.
– This contradicts the hierarchical constitution of the Church, dogmatically secured by Christ and the Apostles, reaffirmed by Vatican I and consistently by pre-1958 popes.
4. Silence on Christ the King:
– For a document convoking a synod in the Diocese of Rome, in 1960, amid the global triumph of secularism, not to recall the solemn teaching of *Quas Primas* is itself revealing.
– Pius XI taught that peace and order depend upon public recognition of the social Kingship of Christ; he condemned laicism as a “plague.”
– Roncalli’s chirograph is entirely mute on the political and social reign of Christ, preparing the capitulation later enshrined in post-conciliar religious liberty theories directly opposed to the Syllabus and *Quas Primas*.
This silence confirms the symptomatic diagnosis: the document is an early cell of that paramasonic organism soon to overthrow the visible order of the Church.
Symptomatic Links: From Roman Synod to Global Conciliar Sect
Consider the chirograph not in isolation but as part of a continuum:
– 1958: Death of Pius XII, the last legitimate pre-conciliar Pontiff faithfully implementing condemnations of modern errors and defending doctrinal integrity.
– 1958–1962: Roncalli’s preparatory moves; the Roman Synod (1960) as a testing ground for pastoral and liturgical innovations that will later erupt universally.
– 1962–1965: The so-called Vatican II, promulgated by the same usurper line, institutionalizing:
– False ecumenism (contradicting the dogma *extra Ecclesiam nulla salus* rightly understood).
– Religious liberty in the liberal sense (condemned chiefly by Pius IX).
– Collegial diminution of the Papal primacy.
– Anthropocentric liturgical reform culminating in a rite that, by its theology and rubrics, obscures and opposes the propitiatory sacrifice.
Within this line, the Roman Synod chirograph becomes:
– An internal manifesto to the Roman clergy, signaling that their “discipline” must be adjusted to “our age.”
– A controlled experiment in softening resistance to change, using all the apparatus of traditional piety as anesthetic.
Thus, the text is structurally modernist: it does not attack dogma frontally; it cleans the terrain for practical innovations that, over time, will change belief. This gradualist method is precisely described and condemned in *Pascendi* as the modus operandi of Modernism: begin with “pastoral” and “disciplinary” changes, then let “life” reshape “doctrine.”
Contrast with Pre-1958 Papal Sensus: Quas Primas and the Syllabus
To expose the bankruptcy of the chirograph’s underlying mentality, compare it with authentic papal teaching cited in your provided documents.
1. Pius XI, *Quas Primas*:
– Teaches that all individuals and states are bound to recognize and submit to the social Kingship of Christ.
– States explicitly that secularism, laicism, and neutral states are a “plague” producing chaos; the remedy is the public, juridical reign of Christ.
– Wants liturgy and public feasts to form consciences in this uncompromising truth.
The chirograph:
– Mentions neither Christ the King nor His social reign.
– Speaks instead of fitting discipline to “the necessities of our age,” not of bending the age to Christ’s royal law.
– Prepares the path for that post-conciliar silence about the Kingship which *Quas Primas* had established liturgically and doctrinally.
2. Pius IX, *Syllabus Errorum*:
– Condemns religious indifferentism, the equality of all religions before the state, the separation of Church and state, the cult of liberal “progress.”
– Denounces Masonic and liberal encroachments as works of the “synagogue of Satan,” explicitly linking them to a plan to enslave and destroy the Church.
The chirograph:
– Does not warn the Roman clergy against liberalism, socialism, or Freemasonry.
– Does not reaffirm the Church’s rights against the state or the enemies infiltrating society.
– Replaces militancy against error with a vague “pastoral” update to modern conditions — the precise vacuum in which Masonic and liberal ideas triumph.
In sum, whereas true papal documents arm the faithful for a supernatural and doctrinal combat, this chirograph disarms them under courteous formulas.
The Abuse of Sacred Patrons: Invocation Without Obedience
Roncalli calls upon:
“Beatae Virginis Mariae, quae ‘Salus Populi Romani’ nuncupatur… Sancti Ioannis Baptistae et S. Ioannis Evangelistae… Ss. Apostolorum Petri et Pauli ceterorumque Almae huius Urbis Protectorum patrocinio…”
But invocations impose obligations:
– Mary as *Salus Populi Romani* (“Salvation of the Roman People”) has always defended Rome precisely by preserving it in the integral faith, in hatred of heresy and error.
– John the Baptist died for condemning public immorality; his patronage is incompatible with conciliatory softness toward the world.
– John the Evangelist defends the divinity of Christ and condemns those who “go ahead and abide not in the doctrine of Christ.”
– Peter and Paul, pillars of doctrinal intransigence and missionary exclusivity, anathematize other gospels and warn against wolves in sheep’s clothing.
To invoke these patrons while embarking upon a program that will, historically and doctrinally, culminate in:
– Liturgical disfigurement,
– Ecumenical relativization,
– Public veneration of false cults,
– Progressive moral disintegration,
is an abuse of their names. It dresses a nascent apostasy in the garments of saints who would have denounced it.
Judgment: A Foundational Text of the Neo-Church’s Self-Construction
From the perspective of the integral Catholic faith grounded in pre-1958 doctrine, the chirograph:
– Is not a benign administrative note, but an ideological artifact of the conciliar sect.
– Exhibits the characteristic traits of Modernism condemned by St Pius X:
– adaptation of discipline and implicitly of doctrine to “modern needs”;
– reliance on pastoral and experiential language instead of precise doctrinal reaffirmation;
– gradual, synodal structures that erode the monarchical, dogmatic character of the Church.
– Stands in moral continuity with later acts of the same line of usurpers: constructing the “Church of the New Advent,” a paramasonic structure that occupies Catholic buildings and uses Catholic words while subverting their meaning.
Therefore, this chirograph deserves not pious reverence but clear denunciation:
– It misuses the Holy Spirit as a cover for changes condemned by prior Magisterium.
– It signals the deliberate beginning of a parallel “magisterium” whose norm is history and “our age,” not Revelation.
– It is a juridical gesture of an antipope, and as such, possesses no binding force on the true faithful and no authority over the true Most Holy Sacrifice and sacraments, which remain the patrimony of those who adhere to the unaltered doctrine, worship, and morals of the perennial Roman Church.
The faithful must read such documents not as expressions of the Bride of Christ, but as warnings—signs of the *abominatio desolationis* emerging in the holy place—against which they are called to hold fast to what the Church infallibly taught and practiced before the conciliar usurpation.
Source:
Chirographum quo prima Romanae Dioecesis Synodus celebranda indicitur (die XXIV m. Ianuarii A. D. MCMLX) (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025