In this secret consistory of 16 January 1961, John XXIII addresses the assembled cardinals at the opening of the new year, laments persecutions and moral dangers in the world, expresses hope for peace and human concord, presents the coming ecumenical council as the privileged instrument for renewal and unity, praises the Curia, commemorates deceased cardinals, and concludes by creating four new cardinals from various nations as a sign of the universal character of the Church. In one word: the text ideologically discloses the emerging religion of the conciliar revolution – a humanitarian optimism which veils, rather than denounces, the apostasy that John XXIII himself was engineering.
The Conciliar Program Unveiled: Humanitarian Optimism Against Catholic Tradition
Foundations of a New Religion: From Supernatural Kingship to Horizontal Fraternity
Already the overall architecture of this allocution reveals its essence: not the proclamation of the social Kingship of Christ and the primacy of divine law, but the gradual centering of a horizontal, naturalistic, diplomatic “Christianity” whose real dogma is world peace through human collaboration.
Key elements:
– John XXIII interprets his role primarily as emotionally resonating with “the various movements of souls” of all his “children,” citing gaudere cum gaudentibus, flere cum flentibus (Rom 12:15), but empties it of the traditional note of doctrinal vigilance and judicial severity against error and heresy.
– Persecutions of Catholics are mentioned, but he refuses to name the ideological core – atheistic communism, organized Freemasonry, modernism – with the doctrinal clarity of Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X or Pius XI; instead, he presents a sentimental lament detached from doctrinal combat.
– The heart of the speech is the exaltation of the forthcoming ecumenical council (Vatican II) as an instrument of “peace,” “fraternal unity,” and “adaptation,” not as a defensive dogmatic bulwark against condemned errors.
The result is a subtle but decisive displacement: instead of the integral confession of Christ the King, as taught by Pius XI in Quas primas (“peace is only possible in the Kingdom of Christ”), we receive an embryonic manifesto of the cultus hominis (cult of man), later made explicit by Paul VI. This allocution must be read as a programmatic text of the emerging neo-church, the “Church of the New Advent,” opposed in spirit and method to the pre-1958 Magisterium.
Factual Level: Fabricated Harmony and Concealed Causes
1. Vague persecution without doctrinal diagnosis
John XXIII briefly acknowledges that in “very wide regions” Catholics suffer harassment, that true liberty is denied, that many of his “children” endure sorrow. But:
– He carefully avoids naming communism as a militantly anti-Christian, intrinsically unjust system whose principles (dialectical materialism, class war, atheism) are incompatible with divine and natural law. Pre-1958 popes condemned it explicitly (Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris).
– He omits Freemasonry, despite Pius IX and Leo XIII identifying it as a principal architect of the war on the Church and Christian order (see Pius IX, Syllabus; Leo XIII, Humanum genus).
– He does not present persecution as a fruit of doctrinal hatred against Christ’s unique Church, but as part of a general landscape of sorrow, dissolving the theological dimension into psychological compassion.
This is not accidental rhetoric; it is a method: remove the doctrinal names of the enemies so that those enemies can later become “dialogue partners” of the conciliar sect.
2. Moral decay treated as sociological phenomenon
He mentions materialism, pursuit of pleasures, threats to families and youth. Yet:
– No word about the necessity of the state of grace, the four last things, mortal sin, the need for public and private penance.
– No concrete denunciation of errors already anathematized: liberalism, indifferentism, licentious press, obscene entertainment, contraception, etc.
– No mention that civil laws must conform to the law of Christ the King, contrary to the clear teaching of Quas primas and the Syllabus, which reject the separation of Church and state and doctrinally condemn religious indifferentism and the myth of neutral public order.
Silence concerning the moral and doctrinal roots is not neutral; it is complicity. Silentium de veritate, cum tempus est praedicandi, est odium animarum (silence about truth, when it is time to preach, is hatred of souls).
3. Peace rhetoric emptied of Catholic content
John XXIII dedicates a large passage to peace:
– He laments that the universal desire for peace is threatened by fears of conflicts.
– He calls for richer nations to help poorer ones, the strong to support the weak, all to recognise one another as children of the same Father in heaven.
– He deplores that the word “peace” is sometimes twisted to fuel conflict.
But:
– He nowhere states that true peace is the tranquillity of order under the law of Christ; that peace without submission to Christ is illusion (Quas primas).
– He does not recall that states and rulers sin gravely by failing to recognize the true religion (condemned propositions 77–80 in Pius IX’s Syllabus).
– He replaces the imperative of Christ’s kingship with the language of humanitarian solidarity and development – the vocabulary that will dominate the conciliar sect’s documents and subsequent “social teaching,” stripped of its doctrinal teeth.
This horizontalization betrays a naturalistic mindset: “peace” becomes a negotiation among equals, not the fruit of nations submitting to the sweet and sovereign yoke of Christ King.
Linguistic Level: Sentimentalism, Ambiguity, and Political Vagueness
The rhetoric itself is an x-ray of the underlying apostasy.
1. Emotional paternalism without paternal authority
The repeated stress on “paternal affection,” “sweet thoughts,” “joys and sorrows” cultivates affective attachment while:
– Avoiding authoritative doctrinal warnings.
– Diluting the role of the Roman Pontiff from vigilant guardian and supreme judge into a consoling grandfather.
– Creating a pseudo-familial, psychological climate where error is caressed, not condemned.
This stands in stark contrast to Pius X’s Pascendi, which exercises sharp doctrinal judgment, identifies modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies,” and imposes concrete disciplinary measures.
2. Systematic use of equivocal terms
– “Liberty” is invoked regarding persecuted Catholics, but there is no precise reaffirmation of the Catholic doctrine on liberty (against liberal “freedom of cults”). No distinction between libertas Ecclesiae (freedom of the Church to fulfil her divine mandate) and liberal freedom of error.
– “Peace,” “fraternity,” “mutual help,” “humanity’s goods” appear as quasi-theological absolutes, detached from explicit submission to the Catholic Church.
– “Ecumenical Council” is mentioned as an event that will serve “truth,” “charity,” “fraternal peace,” but with no explicit warning that its sole purpose must be to reaffirm dogma and condemn errors. The lexical field anticipates precisely the conciliar inversion: from anathema to dialogue.
Language is not innocent: the soft bureaucratic and sentimental style is designed to anesthetize resistance to the forthcoming revolution.
3. Absence of polemical clarity against condemned errors
The Syllabus of Pius IX and Lamentabili sane exitu of Pius X exemplify precise, juridical, dogmatic language: numbered errors, clear condemnations, objective definitions. Here, John XXIII:
– Names no concrete dogma.
– Condemns no precise thesis.
– Proposes no canonical measure against those sabotaging Catholic education or morals.
– Reduces grave doctrinal battles to vague concerns.
This linguistic softening is the matrix of the conciliar ideology: the Church of non-judgment, which by refusing to condemn error, in practice canonizes it.
Theological Level: Opposition to the Pre-1958 Magisterium
Under the appearance of continuity, the allocution undermines several central points of unchanging Catholic doctrine (which remain normative de iure, regardless of subsequent usurpers).
1. Implicit denial of the absolute necessity of the Catholic Church
By presenting all men as “joined by a fraternal bond because they are children of the same most loving Father,” John XXIII:
– Slides from the supernatural adoptive filiation in Christ (which belongs only to those in grace and in the true Church) to a vague universal brotherhood of mankind.
– Echoes condemned propositions of indifferentism (Syllabus 15–18), which deny the exclusive salvific necessity of the Catholic Church.
– Prepares the false ecumenism of Vatican II’s Unitatis redintegratio and the naturalistic “universal brotherhood” of later antipopes.
Authentic doctrine: all men are God’s creatures; only the baptized in the true faith are His children in the strict supernatural sense. To speak of universal “children of the same Father” in a theological-ecclesial context without this distinction is to erode dogma in favor of modernist imprecision.
2. Betrayal of the social Kingship of Christ
The allocution never invokes:
– Christ’s right to reign over societies, laws, institutions (taught in Quas primas).
– The duty of states to recognize and protect the true religion (Syllabus 77–80).
– The condemnation of laicism and religious indifferentism.
Instead, it operates within the mental universe of post-war liberal democracies and international organizations, essentially accepting:
– Religious pluralism as a given not to be challenged.
– A purely humanitarian program: aid to poor nations, solidarity, dialogue.
This anticipates the later conciliar teaching on “religious freedom” and the renunciation of confessional states: a direct contradiction of Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius XI, and an implicit acceptance of propositions condemned as errors. Lex orandi, lex credendi: once the language of kingship disappears, the doctrine is practically denied.
3. Idolization of the coming Council as pacifist spectacle
John XXIII describes the planned council as:
– A service to “truth,” “charity,” and “fraternal peace.”
– An “example” of concord issuing from the “ark of Catholic unity.”
But he omits:
– That the essence of ecumenical councils is to define dogma and condemn error.
– That councils which refuse to issue anathemas thereby fail their traditional function and become occasions for confusion.
He presents the council as a conciliatory, irenic, almost parliamentary event, shaped by expectations and “voices” from all over the world, which he says are convergent in respectful anticipation. This democratized conception aligns with modernist demands condemned by St. Pius X: evolution of dogma, subordination of magisterium to the sense of the “Church-listening.”
The later fruits of that council – doctrinal ambiguity, religious liberty, false ecumenism, liturgical devastation – confirm that this allocution was the launching manifesto of a new ecclesial paradigm incompatible with the pre-1958 Magisterium.
4. Silence on Modernism as “synthesis of all heresies”
Given that Pius X, in Lamentabili and Pascendi, exposed modernism as the internal cancer dissolving faith, it is the first duty of any true successor to continue that uncompromising struggle.
Instead:
– John XXIII does not mention modernism at all.
– He praises, without qualification, the Curia officials, ignoring the infiltration of modernist ideas which Pius XII himself had begun to resist.
– He reframes the Church’s mission in terms entirely compatible with the modernist vision of “vital evolution” and relational adaptation.
This silence is not neutral. When a condemned error resurfaces, and the one who claims Peter’s chair refuses to wield the previous condemnations, he objectively betrays the office. St. Pius X explicitly renewed and confirmed the anti-modernist decrees, attaching excommunication to those who reject them. To inaugurate a council in a climate of doctrinal détente toward condemned theses manifests rupture, not continuity.
Symptomatic Level: A Text as Symptom of the Conciliar Sect
This allocution is not an isolated rhetorical exercise; it is symptomatic of a deeper, structural deformation that would crystallize into the conciliar sect – the occupying neo-church.
1. From dogmatic militancy to diplomatic pacifism
– Before 1958, papal documents fought pantheism, rationalism, socialism, liberalism, modernism, laicism, Freemasonry, and explicitly defended the rights of the Church against the state (see Syllabus; Leo XIII’s encyclicals; Pius X; Pius XI).
– John XXIII’s discourse is cast in the register of diplomatic balancing: fears and hopes, sorrows and joys, rich and poor, strong and weak, all placed on the same horizontal plane.
The Church ceases to appear as societas perfecta, teaching and judging with divine authority, and begins to present herself as a moral NGO seeking global reconciliation.
2. Anthropocentric inversion
Note the axis:
– Central: human sufferings, human fears, human longings for peace, human cooperation.
– Marginal: Christ, grace, sacraments, sin, judgment, hell, the Kingship of Christ.
Even when divine providence is mentioned, it is immediately subordinated to a discourse about humanity’s brotherhood and development. This is the larval form of the “cult of man” solemnly proclaimed later, a radical inversion of the Catholic order in which all things are ordered to God’s glory, not to man’s self-fulfilment.
3. Sacralization of structural revolution: new cardinals as pillars of the new order
The same consistory creates new “cardinals” – notably figures such as Joseph Ritter and others – presented as expressions of geographic universality and pastoral merit.
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith:
– These appointments serve to strengthen the voting body that would elect and consolidate the conciliar usurpers and ratify the post-1960s revolution.
– The emphasis on the College as “living image of the Church extended to all peoples” is weaponized to dissolve the note of doctrinal unity into a sociology of diversity.
– The sacramental language (“by the authority of Almighty God, of the Apostles Peter and Paul and Our own”) is formally invoked in the very process of subverting their doctrine – a sacrilegious appropriation, intensifying the objective gravity of the acts.
4. Omission of the central battle: internal apostasy
Most revealing is what is absent:
– No recognition that the gravest danger is not external persecution but internal treason: modernist theology, relativization of dogma, destruction of the Most Holy Sacrifice, erosion of confession, and poisoning of seminaries.
– No continuation of Pius X’s command to expose and expel modernist infiltrators.
– No reminder that those who teach heresy or publicly defect from the faith lose office and jurisdiction ipso facto, as taught by classical theology and codified discipline (e.g. the doctrine summarized in the tradition preceding 1917 CIC).
Instead, the very men who will stage the doctrinal and liturgical revolution are confirmed, praised, promoted.
To remain silent in 1961 about the already advancing internal subversion, while preparing a council in collaboration with its carriers, is a practical denial of the Papal duty to guard the deposit of faith. It is the behaviour not of a successor of Pius X, but of an architect of the paramasonic structure that would emerge as post-conciliarism.
God’s Law Above Human Diplomacy: The Forgotten Sovereignty of Christ
Viewed in the light of authentic Catholic doctrine:
– The sovereignty of Christ the King, so forcefully reaffirmed by Pius XI in Quas primas, demands that all social, political, and international order be subjected to His law.
– The Syllabus of Pius IX condemns the notion that the state may be religiously neutral, that all cults may be equally protected, that the Church must reconcile herself with liberal progress.
– Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi anathematize the modernist program of evolving dogma, historicist relativization, and reduction of revelation to religious experience.
John XXIII’s allocution:
– Does not recall these binding condemnations.
– Speaks in a register perfectly compatible with the liberal and modernist worldview they anathematized.
– Elevates “peace,” “dialogue,” and “fraternity” as supreme values without their necessary subordination to the rights of God and the exclusive truth of the Catholic faith.
This is theological and spiritual bankruptcy: replacing the divine order with humanist diplomacy, the reign of Christ with a sentimentalized brotherhood, the clarity of anathema with the fog of “pastoral” ambiguity.
Conclusion: A Programmatic Step in the Great Usurpation
This secret consistory text is not a pious footnote; it is a key piece of evidence in the transformation from the Catholic Church of the ages into the conciliar sect that occupies her structures.
– By its silences (on modernism, Freemasonry, communism as such, the Kingship of Christ, the four last things).
– By its language (sentimental, diplomatic, ambiguous, horizontal).
– By its theology (implicit indifferentism, humanitarianism, ecclesial democratization, sacralization of the coming council).
– By its acts (creation of collaborators for the future revolution).
it stands doctrinally and spiritually incompatible with the unchanging pre-1958 Magisterium. Measured by integral Catholic faith, it is not an edifying papal allocution but an indictment: an early manifesto of the abomination of desolation that would publicly manifest itself at Vatican II and afterward.
Source:
Consistorium Secretum – Allocutio in aula superiore Palatii Apostolici Vaticani, Feria secunda, (die XVI mensis Ianuarii, A.D. MCMLXI) (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025