The text is the first official allocution by Angelo Roncalli as “John XXIII” upon his election, delivered in Latin in St. Peter’s Basilica on 28 October 1958. He theatrically presents himself as trembling before the “chalice of bitterness” of the supreme office, interprets the vote of the conclave as a clear sign of God’s will, explains his choice of the name Ioannes by a sentimental chain of associations (his father, his baptismal parish, the Lateran, Mark the Evangelist, John the Baptist, John the Evangelist), and concludes by invoking these two Johns as exemplars and protectors of his ministry, aspiring—even “unto the shedding of blood”—to their holiness and fortitude.
This apparently pious and modest declaration already reveals the nucleus of the new religion: human-centred sentimentality masquerading as Catholic piety, the presumption that a conclave of modernists is automatically the voice of God, and the appropriation of apostolic symbols to crown the coming revolution.
Sentimental Self-Canonization as the Inaugural Lie
On the factual level, the speech is brief; its weight lies in what it assumes and what it silently abolishes.
Roncalli states that in the votes of the “Eminent Brothers” he sees a “sign of the will of God” and therefore accepts the election, bowing his head and back to the chalice and Cross. This is presented as humble obedience. In reality, from the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine, several grave problems emerge:
– He presupposes without argument that a conclave formed by men already imbued with condemned novelties (ecumenism, religious liberty tendencies, historical relativism) cannot err in such a way as to present to the Church a public heretic, Freemason-compromised diplomat, and modernist sympathizer as head of the universal Church. This contradicts the clear theological line that a manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church: *non potest esse caput quod non est membrum* (“he who is not a member cannot be head”). St. Robert Bellarmine and the classical theologians in the supplied Defense of Sedevacantism make this principle explicit.
– There is no mention of the objective doctrinal crisis already denounced by St. Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi: the infiltration of Modernism in seminaries and episcopates. The speech pretends that the cardinals’ choice is purely supernatural, as if the warnings of previous popes about secret societies and modernist clergy (Pius IX in the Syllabus, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII) had evaporated.
– By declaring that he sees in their vote the divine will and by theatrically accepting “the chalice of bitterness,” Roncalli constructs a sacral shield around his person: to question his “pontificate” becomes, in effect, to question God’s will. This is the psychological preparation for the conciliar revolution: the usurper claims divine authentication ex antecedenti for whatever novelties he and his successors will impose.
The rhetorical humility—“my poverty and vileness,” “my smallness”—functions exactly as modernist hypocrisy usually does: an aesthetic of abasement deployed to make resistance appear impious. It is the inversion of the true papal firmness taught by Pius IX and Pius XI, who insist that authority is given not to display personal modesty, but to defend objectively the rights of Christ the King against liberalism, laicism, and secret sects.
Manipulation of the Name “John”: Pious Cloak for a Usurping Program
The central part of the allocution is the long justification of the name Ioannes. On the surface: harmless. In substance: a careful self-mythologizing operation.
He links the chosen name to:
– his father and baptismal parish (sentimentality, natural affection);
– the Lateran and a list of former Johns;
– St. Mark the Evangelist and Venice;
– especially to John the Baptist and John the Evangelist, “closest to Christ and His Mother.”
He concludes with the prayer that both Johns may “cry out in the whole Church” through his “very humble pastoral ministry,” to prepare “a perfect people for the Lord” and straighten the ways, and that John the Evangelist with Mary may continue the exhortation of mutual charity that concerns “the life and joy of the Catholic and Apostolic Church and the peace and prosperity of all nations.”
At first glance, this sounds traditionally edifying. But note the structural sleight of hand:
1. Sentimental naturalism displaces supernatural clarity.
– Instead of grounding his authority in the strict divine constitution of the Church, he drenches it in anecdotes: father, parish, local devotions. This psychologically moves focus from the objective office (which must be tied to defined doctrine) to the emotional aura of the man and his personal story.
– This is an early trace of the coming “cult of man” condemned by previous doctrine but later glorified by the conciliar sect.
2. Appropriation of austere figures to legitimize future softness.
– He invokes John the Baptist as “invincible witness of truth, justice, and liberty” unto bloody martyrdom. Yet his subsequent program (Council and aggiornamento) will mutilate truth, distort justice, and redefine “liberty” along the very lines condemned in the Syllabus: religious liberty, placing all cults on equal footing; laicist neutrality of the state; practical abdication of the social reign of Christ.
– He invokes John the Evangelist as apostle of love—then immediately reduces this love to the horizontal formula of “love one another,” linked to “peace and prosperity of all nations,” exactly in the naturalistic, pacifist terms of international diplomacy. There is no mention of love founded upon adherence to Catholic truth and rejection of heresy. The omission is the key.
3. Silence as theological weapon.
– There is no word about the condemnation of liberalism, socialism, secret societies, rationalism, indifferentism—all systematically denounced by Pius IX in the Syllabus, by Leo XIII, by St. Pius X, by Pius XI, and Pius XII.
– There is no reference to the obligation for states to recognize the reign of Christ the King, so strongly enjoined by Pius XI in Quas Primas. Instead, we hear of “peace and prosperity of all nations” in bland, secular tones, perfectly compatible with Masonic universalism.
– There is no mention of the need to root out Modernism from seminaries and episcopal conferences, although this had been the central task of St. Pius X and a constant concern of Pius XII.
– There is no stress on the dogmatic immutability of the Faith, no “non possumus” against error. Only emotive gestures.
This silence is not accidental; it is programmatic. *Tacere de necessariis est clamare contra veritatem* (to be silent about what is necessary is to cry out against the truth). From this first speech, his “pontificate” is oriented not toward guarding the deposit, but toward displacing doctrinal lines with sentimental imagery, thereby preparing acceptance for future doctrinal subversion.
Linguistic Symptoms of an Emerging Modernist Psychology
On the linguistic and rhetorical level, several elements unmask the spirit of this allocution.
1. Affective inflation versus doctrinal precision.
– Expressions like “sweet name,” “dear to us,” “humble parish,” “beloved Venetian people,” “most sweet Mother,” “my little ones, love one another” are multiplied. These are legitimate in themselves, but they dominate a text that ought, at so solemn a moment, to assert with virile clarity the supremacy of Christ’s social kingship, the exclusive truth of the Catholic religion, the binding character of prior condemnations of error.
– The result is a soft-focus spirituality, which, divorced from hard dogmatic edges, becomes the perfect medium for relativism while wearing the mask of piety.
2. The carefully staged humility.
– He underlines his “poverty and vileness,” his confusion, his trembling. Yet in the same breath he proposes his acceptance as submission to the known will of God manifested in the cardinals’ votes. This feigned humility covers an absolute claim to supernatural legitimation: no examination of his doctrine, no recall to objective criteria (e.g., adherence to the anti-modernist Oath, the Syllabus, Pascendi).
– This contrasts with traditional papal consciousness: Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XI speak firmly of their duty to condemn, define, and rule; they do not hide behind emotive displays.
3. Horizontalization of charity.
– John the Evangelist’s injunction “Filioli mei, diligite alterutrum” (“My little children, love one another”) is invoked, but reduced to a slogan for generic intra-ecclesial harmony and “peace and prosperity of nations,” with no assertion that true charity is inseparable from true faith and from rejection of heresy and false cults.
– Pius IX condemns the idea that all religions are equally paths to salvation. St. Pius X condemns the transformation of dogma into symbols of experience. Here we see charity linguistically separated from dogma, which is exactly the modernist trajectory: sentimental ethics without objective creed.
The language is thus the opposite of the terse, juridical, dogmatically saturated style of the pre-1958 Magisterium. It is not accidental rhetoric; it is the manifestation of a new doctrine, even before it is overtly formulated.
Theological Subversion Hidden Under Devotional Varnish
From the theological standpoint, this allocution, though short, is pregnant with contradictions when measured against integral Catholic teaching before 1958.
1. Election as unquestioned sign of God’s will.
– Presenting the conclave vote as a direct sign of God’s will ignores the entire doctrinal and canonical tradition which distinguishes between a valid election and a supernatural approbation, and between material acts and their fruits.
– The Defense of Sedevacantism file correctly recalls Bellarmine, Wernz-Vidal, Billot: a manifest heretic cannot retain or obtain office; public defection from the faith vacates ecclesiastical office (1917 CIC can. 188.4); *Cum ex Apostolatus Officio* declares null and void any elevation of a public heretic.
– Roncalli had a documented history of doctrinal ambiguity and dangerous associations. To treat his election as irreformably divine is theologically irresponsible and contradicts the Catholic maxim that God cannot impose a manifest heretic as the rule of faith of the entire Church.
2. Appropriation of martyrial language for a future demolisher.
– He dares to pray to attain “even unto the shedding of blood” the holiness and fortitude of his name saints. Yet his actual “pontificate” launches the process leading to a council whose texts will soften the condemnation of liberalism, foster religious liberty, dilute the concept of the Catholic confessional state, and open the doors to syncretistic ecumenism—all programmatically contrary to the Syllabus, Quas Primas, and Pascendi.
– This is not ignorance; it is ideological rebranding. The language of martyrial fidelity is captured to bless what will become a systematic capitulation to the world.
3. Reduction of the Church’s mission.
– When he speaks, through John the Evangelist, of exhortation “which concerns the life and joy of the Catholic and Apostolic Church and the peace and prosperity of all nations,” he fuses in one breath the supernatural mission of the Church with temporal well-being of nations, without the clear hierarchy affirmed by Pius XI: that peace among nations is impossible unless they submit to the reign of Christ the King and the authority of His Church.
– In Quas Primas, Pius XI teaches that the laicization of states and rejection of Christ’s kingship is the root of modern disasters. Roncalli, in this allocution, completely ignores this doctrinal line. He speaks of peace and prosperity with a naturalist tone, almost as if the Church’s role were to inspire a humanitarian international order—precisely the Masonic dream condemned by Pius IX.
4. Silence on Modernism and Secret Societies.
– In the context of 1958, after a century of papal warnings against Freemasonry, rationalism, modernism, and laicism, a newly elected pontiff would have the obligation to declare immediate fidelity to those condemnations, to signal war on error. Instead: absolute silence.
– Pius IX identified secret societies as the arm of the “synagogue of Satan” seeking to destroy the Church. St. Pius X branded Modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies” and imposed an oath. Pius XI and Pius XII continued to warn.
– Roncalli’s complete omission here is symptomatic. *Qui tacet consentire videtur* (he who is silent seems to consent). This first allocution prefigures the reconciliation of the “Church of the New Advent” with “progress, liberalism and modern civilization” explicitly condemned in Syllabus proposition 80.
This speech is therefore not a benign trifle; it is the seed-crystal of a doctrinal inversion.
From This Allocution to the Conciliar Sect: A Symptomatic Reading
The symptomatic dimension reveals why this short allocution must be read as the soft prologue to the later, open apostasy of the conciliar structures.
1. The psychological dismantling of the pre-1958 fortress.
– Before 1958, the Church spoke as an objective authority, commanding assent, condemning errors by name, and demanding the submission of states to Christ the King. This speech replaces that posture with emotional storytelling and undefined appeals to love and peace.
– This is the essence of Modernism: doctrine is not denied head-on at first; it is dissolved in sentiment, so that when formal doctrinal novelties arrive, the faithful, having been disarmed emotionally, accept them as simple “developments.”
2. Usurpation of continuity through symbolic overload.
– By choosing the heavily symbolic name John and saturating his first words with biblical allusions, Roncalli wraps himself in a mantle of continuity. The unsuspecting intellect sees only Scripture and saints; it does not notice the precise doctrinal elements omitted.
– This prefigures the “hermeneutic of continuity” ruse: using traditional vocabulary to smuggle in contradictory content. The allocution is an early case of pseudo-continuity: lexicon retained, logic reversed.
3. Preparation for the cult of the Council.
– The themes of mutual love, pastoral humility, and universal peace will soon be instrumentalized to convoke a council that no dogmatic necessity required, but which became the Magna Carta of the Church of the New Advent.
– A true pope, conscious of the modernist infiltration, would have used his inaugural discourse to renew Pascendi, to enforce the anti-modernist oath, to crush the enemies within. Roncalli does the opposite: he offers them gentle rhetoric and the promise of “pastoral” renovation.
4. The emerging replacement of supernatural with natural ends.
– The allocution is almost entirely devoid of reference to:
– eternal salvation and damnation,
– the necessity of supernatural faith,
– the centrality of the Most Holy Sacrifice as propitiation,
– the authority of the pre-existing condemnations.
– Instead, it orients the Church’s gaze toward a vague “peace and prosperity of the nations” through mutual love, disconnected from the duty of nations to profess the Catholic faith. This is laicist humanitarianism wearing a cassock.
Silence about the Cross as propitiatory sacrifice, silence about hell, silence about the exclusive claims of the Catholic Church: this silence is the loudest word of the allocution. The abomination of desolation always begins with omission.
Usurped Authority Versus the Immutable Rights of Christ the King
Against this background, the contrast with the pre-1958 Magisterium must be underscored with precision.
– Pius XI in Quas Primas teaches that peace is only possible in the kingdom of Christ; that rulers sin if they do not publicly honour Christ and subject their laws to His commandments; that laicism and indifferentism are the plague of society. The entire conciliar and post-conciliar trajectory—prepared by Roncalli’s mentality—systematically contradicts this doctrine by praising religious liberty, interreligious dialogue, and the secular state.
– Pius IX’s Syllabus anathematizes the propositions that the State is source of all rights, that the Church should submit to civil power, that all religions should be free in public, that the Roman Pontiff can reconcile himself with modern liberal civilization. The conciliar sect built precisely such a reconciliation as its badge of honour; Roncalli’s tone is the first bow.
– St. Pius X’s Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi condemn the ideas that dogma evolves, that revelation continues, that truth is subject to historical conditioning, that Scripture should be treated like any human book. The council convoked by Roncalli and implemented by his successors will be interpreted and enforced exactly along those lines.
Thus the allocution of 28 October 1958 is the ceremonial self-presentation of a man who, while cloaking himself in John the Baptist and John the Evangelist, prepares to bless a process diametrically opposed to what these saints represent:
– John the Baptist: denunciation of adultery and of state corruption, martyrdom for an objective moral law. The conciliar sect: capitulation to divorce, annulment abuse, moral relativism, and grovelling before worldly powers.
– John the Evangelist: thunderer against antichrists, apostle of doctrinally grounded charity, herald of the exclusivity of Christ. The conciliar sect: ecumenism with heretics and pagans, panreligious rites, praise of non-Catholic “paths,” and sentimental “fraternity” without conversion.
To invoke these saints while inaugurating the path that leads to the “Church of the New Advent” is not mere bad taste; it is a sacrilegious exploitation of holy names in service of a paramasonic project.
Conclusion: The Operative Bankruptcy Behind the Pious Facade
This allocution, read with Catholic eyes, is not a harmless introductory speech. It is the first public liturgy of a new regime occupying the Vatican.
– It absolutizes a conclave choice without confronting the doctrinal prerequisites for a valid pontificate as recalled by Bellarmine, the 1917 Code, and Pope Paul IV.
– It drenches authority in sentimental autobiography and scriptural imagery, systematically omitting those doctrinal elements—anti-liberal, anti-modernist, anti-Masonic—that defined the pre-1958 papal magisterium.
– It uses John the Baptist and John the Evangelist as ornaments while preparing a program that will neutralize their message: no uncompromising condemnation of sin in high places, no denunciation of antichrists, no insistence on the exclusivity of the Catholic faith.
– It shifts the horizon of the Church from the militant defence of the social reign of Christ the King and the salvation of souls to a naturalistic quest for “peace and prosperity of all nations” through an undefined love—language perfectly adaptable to the humanitarianism of secret societies.
The theological and spiritual bankruptcy lies precisely here: where the true Papacy would reaffirm the unchanging condemnations of error and strengthen the walls against the “synthesis of all heresies,” this new voice inaugurates a pontificate by making itself agreeable to the world, wrapping an unexamined claim of divine legitimacy in sugary rhetoric. Under Catholic doctrine, such a beginning is not a guarantee but a warning sign of usurpation.
Source:
Accettazione del Supremo mandato, 28 ottobre 1958, Giovanni XXIII (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025