Vatican portal publishes the allocution of antipope John XXIII in the Lateran Basilica (January 24, 1960), announcing and ideologically framing the Roman Diocesan Synod as a prelude and model for the coming so‑called Ecumenical Council. The speech exalts a supposed “new outpouring of grace,” presents a selective history of councils to justify aggiornamento, redefines discipline and praxis as a vast field of change under the pretext of “not to dissolve, but to fulfill,” and subtly displaces the immutable doctrinal primacy of the Church with pastoral experimentation and institutional self-celebration.

---

Programmatic Humanism in the Shadow of the Lateran: John XXIII Prepares the Conciliar Revolution

Historical and Factual Inversion: Councils as Engines of Adaptation

The allocution proceeds by invoking the apostolic Council of Jerusalem and the great Ecumenical Councils to legitimize the project of the Roman Synod and the planned “21st” council. At the factual level, several grave distortions and manipulative omissions appear:

– John XXIII emphasizes that councils addressed “difficulties, doubts, controversies, errors,” but immediately fuses this with the idea of “accommodating” apostolic action to “necessities and conditions of the times,” suggesting a dynamic of adaptation that prepares the hermeneutic of evolution.
– He lists Nicea to Vatican I as a harmonious series culminating almost naturally in his own initiative, but omits:
– That these councils were fundamentally dogmatic and condemnatory, safeguarding the deposit of faith by anathematizing errors (Arianism, Nestorianism, Monothelitism, Protestantism, Modernism’s roots).
– That Vatican I defined papal primacy and infallibility to defend the Church precisely against liberalism and national churches—errors that his own agenda implicitly rehabilitates.
– He presents the Roman Synod as “prima in annalibus” of Rome after centuries, as if the absence of such local synods were a deficiency now to be corrected by pastoral aggiornamento, ignoring that Rome has always been the fons iuris and doctrinal norm:
– Rome did not need to mimic provincial diocesan synods because it is the See of Peter, source of universal discipline. He turns this prerogative into a pretext for bureaucratic “updating.”

This ideological reading clashes with the constant pre‑1958 magisterium:

– The great condemnations of liberalism, indifferentism, and naturalism (Gregory XVI, Mirari vos; Pius IX, Syllabus; Leo XIII; St. Pius X, Lamentabili and Pascendi; Pius XI; Pius XII) show councils and papal teaching as bulwarks against accommodation to the world, not laboratories for it.
– Peace is only possible in the kingdom of Christ and in submission of states and individuals to His social kingship (Pius XI, encyclical Quas Primas). John XXIII’s speech never mentions the obligation of states to recognize Christ the King and shape laws accordingly; instead, it prepares an ecclesial structure that will soon surrender to laicism.

Thus, the historical narrative becomes a weapon: the conciliar sect retrofits Catholic history to justify its programmed mutation.

Linguistic Engineering: Pastoral Vagueness as a Vehicle of Apostasy

The rhetoric of the allocution is revealing. There is an abundance of:

– Generic optimism: “novam supernae gratiae effusionem,” “incrementum vitae christianae,” “laeta spes,” without doctrinal specificity.
– Institutional self-celebration: emphasis on “sapientia” of commissions, “magna Urbis Synodus,” “splendida lumina,” endless praise of structures, procedures, consultations.

At the same time, there is a deliberate silence about:

– Mortal sin, hell, divine judgment, danger of heresy, duty to reject condemned errors.
– The concrete enemies named by prior popes: Freemasonry, naturalism, liberalism, false “rights,” separation of Church and State (explicitly condemned in the Syllabus of Errors, n. 55), Modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies” (St. Pius X).
– The absolute necessity of the *Most Holy Sacrifice* in the traditional Roman rite as propitiatory, and of perseverance in the state of grace; sacraments are mentioned administratively, as “partes” of synodal themes, not as cruciform realities on which salvation depends.

This is not accidental. The tone is bureaucratic and sentimental: the Church as a perfect “societas” is invoked, but immediately functionalized into an organism of organization, planning, and pastoral management. The heart of the speech is procedural, not supernatural.

Such language marks the essential modernist tactic condemned by St. Pius X:

– Speak piously, quote Scripture, mention Tradition, but empty dogmatic content; replace “fight against error” with “pastoral adaptation”; veil doctrinal retreat under affective vocabulary and calls to “charity” and “unity.”

This allocution is a paradigmatic specimen of that poison.

Theological Subversion: From Immutable Deposit to Manageable Discipline

The crucial theological move is the treatment of doctrine and discipline.

John XXIII formally states that Christ did not come to destroy but to fulfill the Law, and notes that “veritas Domini manet in aeternum,” yet he immediately shifts:

– He distinguishes between immutable doctrine and “accidentia seu rationes non necessariae” that can be changed, using this as the master key for broad reconfiguration of ecclesial life.
– He presents the Roman Synod’s wide thematic agenda (clergy, teaching, worship, sacraments, apostolate, youth education, sacred art, charitable structures) as an arena for “new” norms, “nova peragenda sapientius indicent et in melius propellant.”

In itself, legitimate disciplinary reform is Catholic. The perversion lies in the context and direction:

– The speech refuses to recall that disciplinary and liturgical law is not neutral; it expresses and protects dogma. St. Pius V’s codification of the Roman rite, Trent’s decrees on sacraments and discipline, and the entirety of pre‑1958 praxis had precisely the function of safeguarding dogmatic clarity against Protestant and rationalist corruption.
– By isolating “accidents” without affirming that many of them are dogmatically protective and untouchable in their substance, John XXIII opens the conceptual door to:
– Replacement of the Catholic rite with an ecumenicalized “meal.”
– Dilution of clerical state and religious vows.
– Democratization of authority and the cult of “People of God” understood sociologically.
– Catechetical devastation and relativization of dogma.

This is exactly what followed in the Church of the New Advent: the allocution is the manifesto.

Compare with the pre‑1958 magisterium:

– St. Pius X in Lamentabili and Pascendi explicitly condemns the thesis that dogma and sacraments are mutable expressions of religious experience (e.g. Lamentabili 22, 54, 58, 64, 65).
– The Syllabus condemns the idea that:
– The State should be separated from the Church (55),
– The Church must reconcile herself with liberalism and modern civilization (80),
– Ecclesiastical authority cannot impose internal assent (7 rejected by John XXIII’s practical attitude).
– Quas Primas recalls that denying Christ’s social kingship is the root of contemporary disaster; John XXIII says nothing about restoring public recognition of Christ the King of nations—preparing, instead, the later acceptance of religious liberty as a “right” of error.

Thus, under the guise of reverence to “immutable truth,” the allocution introduces a practical mutability that empties that truth: a classic modernist dialectic.

Silenced Enemies: Modernism, Freemasonry, and the Betrayal of Prior Warnings

Striking is what John XXIII does not say.

– No reference to Modernism as already condemned and still active. Yet St. Pius X declared Modernism “the synthesis of all heresies,” and its propositions—dogmatic evolution, historical relativism, reduction of Revelation to experience—are precisely those that the upcoming council and Roman Synod would smuggle back.
– No warning against those “sectae” and paramasonic forces that Pius IX, Leo XIII (Humanum Genus), and other pre‑conciliar pontiffs branded as principal enemies of the Church, subverting states, laws, education, and even trying to occupy ecclesiastical structures.
– No denunciation of laicism, socialism, communism, ecumenical indifferentism, religious liberty—all directly condemned in the Syllabus and subsequent encyclicals as incompatible with the reign of Christ.

Instead, he:

– Exalts the Roman structure as naturally able to emit “rivos” of pure authority; but in fact, what follows historically is the transformation of that authority into an engine of compromise with what his predecessors exposed as *synagoga Satanae* (Pius IX’s expression about masonic machinations).

In light of the prior magisterium, such silence is not neutral; it is complicity. It prepares:

– The shift from anathemas to dialogues,
– From condemnation of secret societies to coexistence with them,
– From absolute rights of the Church to acceptance of pluralist secular orders.

This is why the allocution, though dressed as pious exhortation, is a turning of the helm away from integral Catholicism.

Clergy and Laity: Subtle Democratization under the Guise of Distinction

The text rehearses the formula:

– The Church is a *societas perfecta*.
– The clergy governs and sanctifies; laity participate in spiritual goods.
– The synod is formally clerical, laity are asked to leave at the juridic opening (“Exeant omnes”), but then invited spiritually to support.

On the surface, this reflects traditional teaching. However:

– The insistence on the “whole diocesan family,” the emotional inclusion of “all,” and the stress on shared enthusiasm prefigure the later conciliar sect’s horizontalism, “People of God” ideology, and erosion of hierarchical consciousness.
– The allocution does not recall the objective difference of state, the unique sacerdotal character, the clear separation between teaching Church (*Ecclesia docens*) and listening Church (*Ecclesia discens*) which Lamentabili explicitly defends (propositions 6–8).
– Instead, it elevates consultative bodies and expert commissions, a technocratic approach that historically became the instrument for theologians of modernist tendency to reshape catechesis, liturgy, and governance.

Thus, while verbally maintaining hierarchy, the text sows the seeds of a functional democratization: authority is depersonalized into “processes” and “commissions,” easily captured by those hostile to the Faith.

Cultic Ambiguity: The Holy Spirit Invoked Against the Holy Spirit

Particularly serious is the way John XXIII frames the invocation of the Holy Ghost.

– He grounds his initiative in a “divinum incitamentum” perceived “in humilibus precibus,” an interior motion without objective discernible content, subsequently confirmed by a human suggestion that Rome needs its synod.
– He orders intense prayers to the Holy Ghost (“instanter, instantius, instantissime”), culminating in the solemn singing of “Veni Creator Spiritus” to crown the opening.

In itself, praying the “Veni Creator” is Catholic. The perversion lies in:

– Instrumentalizing the hymn to canonize a revolutionary agenda that contradicts prior dogmatic condemnations.
– Associating the Paraclete with a planned structural and disciplinary upheaval whose fruits—new rite, doctrinal ambiguity, ecumenism, religious liberty, collapse of morals—are manifestly opposed to the Spirit of Truth.
– Presenting subjective “divine impulse” as sufficient ground for major ecclesial initiatives, echoing modernist psychologization of Revelation condemned by Lamentabili (20, 21).

The operation resembles invoking the Holy Spirit to approve what the Holy Spirit has already, through the Church, condemned: a practical blasphemy, turning sacred forms into a shield for apostasy.

Continuity in Words, Rupture in Deeds: The Modernist Dialectic

The allocution’s most refined tactic is the manufactured impression of continuity.

Key elements:

– Constant references to Scripture: Council of Jerusalem, “Non veni solvere sed adimplere,” calls to holiness, charity.
– Homage to councils, saints, patristic authority.
– No explicit denial of any dogma.

Yet, at the same time:

– Dogmatic clarity is replaced by universal, vague exhortations.
– The condemning edge of the pre‑conciliar magisterium is dulled into generic “errors” unspecific, creating space to rehabilitate what had been condemned.
– Adaptability, aggiornamento, and structural reform are elevated from prudent secondary considerations to the organizing principle of ecclesial life.

This is precisely how St. Pius X described Modernism:

– In Pascendi, he exposes how the modernist professes loyalty to formulas while subverting their meaning through “vital evolution,” historical relativism, and primacy of praxis.
– In Lamentabili, he condemns as heretical the idea that dogmas are interpretations of religious facts subject to historical development.

John XXIII’s language is a textbook performance of this dialectic. He does not openly overthrow; he empties and reorients.

Systemic Fruit: From Roman Synod to Conciliar Sect

Seen retrospectively, this allocution is not an isolated speech; it is the foundational script for:

– The Roman Synod’s decrees, used as a template for later changes.
– The calling and spirit of the Vatican II assembly, which:
– Refused to condemn communism;
– Introduced religious liberty in contradiction to the Syllabus and Quas Primas;
– Propagated false ecumenism with schismatics and heretics;
– Promoted collegiality and the erosion of papal monarchical clarity into parliamentary structures;
– Opened the way to the liturgical devastation culminating in the new rite—a constructed text contrary to the sacrificial theology of Trent.

The allocution’s careful insistence on “not to destroy, but to fulfill” must therefore be read as a rhetorical screen: the very formula used to justify, step by step, the practical dissolution of the visible marks of the true Church within the paramasonic structure occupying the Vatican.

This is why the speech is theologically and spiritually bankrupt:

– It instrumentalizes Tradition while preparing its inversion.
– It silences the true enemies while opening the doors to them.
– It invokes the Holy Ghost to sanctify the agenda of Modernism and liberalism previously anathematized.
– It disorients clergy and faithful with optimistic assurances, leading them unresisting into a structure that no longer defends the reign of Christ the King, but accommodates the cult of man.

Call to Return to Pre‑Conciliar Orthodoxy and Reject the Conciliar Program

Measured against the unchanging doctrine of the Church before 1958, the allocution of John XXIII in the Lateran Basilica stands condemned not by private opinion, but by:

– The Syllabus of Errors and the anti-liberal encyclicals.
– The anti-modernist magisterium, especially Lamentabili and Pascendi.
– The decrees of Trent and Vatican I on the immutability of dogma and the objective content of faith.
– The social doctrine affirming the public kingship of Christ (Quas Primas).

The only coherent Catholic response is:

– To reject the conciliar and post-conciliar reinterpretation of councils as engines of aggiornamento.
– To refuse the abuse of the Holy Spirit’s name in support of doctrines and disciplines contrary to the prior magisterium.
– To adhere without compromise to the integral doctrine, liturgy, and discipline attested before the conciliar revolution.
– To discern that the structures which took shape from this programmatic speech onward constitute not the faithful continuation of the Mystical Body, but the external machinery of a neo‑church, in which “novelty” displaced the *fides quae semper*, and where sacrilege, indifferentism, and naturalism reign.

The allocution, stripped of its rhetoric, is a manifesto of that usurpation. The duty of Catholics is not to applaud it, but to unmask it and to cleave instead to what the Church has always and everywhere taught, believed, and sanctified before the advent of the conciliar sect.

---

Source:
Allocutio adstantibus Em.mis Patribus Cardinalibus urbisque clero et christifidelibus habita, priusquam coetus hymnum «Veni, Creator» decantaret (die XXIV m. Ianuarii, A. D. MCMLX)   (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025