On 30 May 1960, in a so‑called semi‑public consistory, Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII) announced, in Latin, the final step toward the “canonization” of John of Ribera, Patriarch of Antioch and Archbishop of Valencia. He briefly recalls prior discussions in a secret and a public consistory, notes the alleged proofs of heroic virtue and miracles “above the order of nature,” solicits once more the opinions of the assembled “cardinals” and “bishops,” and, receiving unanimous consent, declares his intention to inscribe the blessed into the catalogue of saints on Trinity Sunday, 12 June 1960, in St. Peter’s Basilica, with all due liturgical solemnity, “for the glory of God and the good of the Christian people.”
Canonization as Revolutionary Weapon: Roncalli’s Cultic Engineering
Usurped Holiness: When an Antipope Manufactures “Saints”
The text presents itself with the austere ceremonial solemnity characteristic of Roman consistories, yet its very context unmasks it as a juridically and theologically void act.
From the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine prior to 1958, several principles are non‑negotiable:
– *Canonizatio sanctorum* (canonization of saints) is an act of the supreme pontifical Magisterium, traditionally held to be infallible in so far as it definitively proposes to the universal Church a person as a model of virtue and an object of public cult.
– This act presupposes:
– a true Pope, holding the primacy of jurisdiction according to Vatican I (Pastor aeternus, 1870),
– adherence to the integral Catholic faith,
– the exercise of authority in continuity with Tradition, not in rupture.
Angelo Roncalli, architect of the aggiornamento and convoker of the future Vatican II, publicly promoted religious liberty, ecumenical indifferentism, and the soft rehabilitation of condemned modernist tendencies. These positions stand in direct opposition to:
– Pius IX, *Syllabus Errorum* (1864), esp. 15–18, 55, 77–80, which condemns the equalization of religions, separation of Church and State, and reconciliation with “modern civilization” understood as liberal indifferentism.
– St. Pius X, *Lamentabili sane exitu* (1907) and *Pascendi*, which condemn the evolution of dogma, historicism, and democratization of doctrine.
– Pius XI, *Quas primas* (1925), which demands the public and social reign of Christ the King, diametrically opposed to the interconfessional, horizontal humanism later enthroned by the conciliar sect.
A man who installs precisely the doctrinal atmosphere anathematized by his predecessors cannot simultaneously be the infallible mouth of the same unchanging Magisterium. *Contradictoria non possunt simul esse vera* (contradictory propositions cannot both be true at the same time). Therefore:
– Roncalli’s claim to papal authority is incompatible with the pre‑1958 Magisterium.
– Acts that depend upon true papal authority—such as definitive canonizations—are theologically non‑binding and objectively suspect when issued by an intruder who inaugurates systemic apostasy.
Thus, the text we read is not a luminous act of the Church, but a sterile ceremonial of the conciliar revolution in its preparatory phase, using the external shell of Tradition to mask the interior corrosion of authority.
Factual Inversion: A Valid Rite Hollowed Out from Within
On the factual level, the document follows the traditional structure:
– recall of prior examination by the Congregation of Rites,
– mention of miracles and signs of virtue,
– request for the opinions (vota) of the “cardinals” and “bishops,”
– declaration of unanimous agreement,
– announcement of the date and solemn place of canonization,
– exhortation to prayer for right decision.
At first glance, nothing explicitly heterodox is asserted. However, the decisive fact lies outside the four corners of the text: the person acting.
Before 1958, the same Roman See:
– ruthlessly condemned Modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies” (St. Pius X, *Pascendi*),
– unmasked secret societies and paramasonic forces working to subjugate the Church (Pius IX, *Syllabus*, explicit denunciations of masonic sects),
– insisted that peace, order, and the dignitas of rulers stand only on the foundation of the public law of Christ the King (Pius XI, *Quas primas*).
Roncalli’s program, culminating in the council he convened, neutralized these very condemnations. The luminous continuity of doctrine is replaced by a dialectical “development” that functionally contradicts what came before. In such a setting, each canonization becomes:
– not a confirmation of an already objective ecclesial sensus fidei,
– but a political‑theological instrument to legitimize a new religion draped in old vesture.
The act concerning John of Ribera is historically situated precisely at this hinge: June 1960, on the threshold of the conciliar catastrophe. The use of a pre‑conciliar Spanish Archbishop—known historically also for his intransigence against heresy—as “canonized” by Roncalli allows the emerging conciliar sect to claim false continuity: “See, we canonize Counter‑Reformation bishops; therefore our aggiornamento is the same faith.”
This is factual manipulation: the man who is dismantling the doctrinal fortress presents himself as heir of those who constructed and defended it.
Language of Piety in the Service of Subversion
On the linguistic level, the text deploys traditional rhetoric:
– frequent mention of *sanctitas*, *virtus praestabilis*, *miranda opera supra naturae ordinem*;
– deferential address to the “Venerable Brothers”;
– insistence on maintaining *translaticius mos* (the traditional custom);
– invocation of the Holy Ghost as the “fons omnis sanctitatis” in causes of saints;
– concern that the decision be “in Dei gloriam et utilitatem populi christiani.”
All of this language is objectively Catholic taken in itself. The problem lies in the duplicity: orthodox phrasing cloaks a heterodox authority structure.
Key symptoms:
1. The careful emphasis on procedural correctness (“sacrum Consilium,” “Consistorio Secreto,” “Consistorio Publico,” ordered suffrages) is used as a juridical aesthetic to offset the radical doctrinal shifts Roncalli is preparing. It is a liturgical‑bureaucratic hypnosis: continuity in gestures masking rupture in belief.
2. The phrase:
Quamquam Nobis conscii sumus, in id genus causis Spiritum illum, omnis sanctitatis fontem et originem, sui Nobis facere capiam…
“Although We are conscious that in such causes We can rely on that Spirit, source and origin of all holiness…”
This appeal to the Holy Ghost, while standard in genuine papal acts, becomes blasphemously presumptuous when uttered by one who opens the doors to the very errors the Holy Office had anathematized scarcely fifty years earlier. The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself by first condemning Modernism through St. Pius X and then crowning its architects.
3. The unanimity of the assembly:
Quod vos, nulla cuiusquam discrepante opinione, Beatum Ioannem de Ribera dignum iudicavistis…
is linguistically presented as a sign of ecclesial concord, while in reality it signals the already advanced infiltration and paralysis of those structures that should have resisted. Silence and unanimous consent here are not proof of sanctity, but of complicity or blindness.
The choice and tone of words are “pious,” yet emptied of their Catholic referent and reoriented to furnish symbolic capital to the nascent neo‑church.
Theological Contradiction: Infallibility Abused to Authenticate Apostasy
Theologically, the crux is simple:
– If Roncalli were a true Pope, his definitive canonizations would demand internal assent, as the Church traditionally taught that God does not permit the universal Church to be led into invoking as saint one who is in hell.
– But the same Roncalli inaugurates, approves, and symbolizes teachings, practices, and attitudes gravely condemned by his predecessors.
From pre‑1958 doctrine:
– *Quas primas* teaches that true peace and order are only possible in the kingdom and law of Christ, explicitly rejecting laicism and religious relativism as a “plague” poisoning society.
– *Syllabus Errorum* condemns as errors:
– that “every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which he shall consider true” (15),
– that “the Church ought to be separated from the State” (55),
– that the Roman Pontiff ought to reconcile himself with “progress, liberalism, and modern civilization” (80).
– *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi* condemn the very modernist principles—historicism, immanentism, mutability of dogma—that would become the DNA of Vatican II and the conciliar sect’s theology.
Roncalli’s concrete course—ecumenical gestures, programmatic optimism about “modern man,” preparation of a “pastoral” council that in fact dogmatically re‑engineers ecclesiology and religious liberty—stands under those condemnations.
Therefore:
– Either the prior Magisterium erred (which is impossible according to the same Magisterium), or
– Roncalli is not exercising the same Petrine office, and his acts, including canonizations, lack the charism of infallibility and are incapable of binding consciences.
To pretend that such a man, in such an epoch, can by a few lines in Latin infallibly propose a new saint under the same authority that anathematized his program is to accept a theological absurdity. *Lex credendi* (law of belief) and *lex orandi* (law of prayer) are being weaponized against each other.
The consistory text never confronts this. It is silent about:
– the necessity of integral faith as a presupposition of pontifical acts;
– the gravity of Modernism as condemned by St. Pius X;
– the social kingship of Christ threatened by the very orientation Roncalli represents.
This silence is not innocent; it is part of the strategy. The sacramental and liturgical language is retained externally while the doctrinal substance is slowly displaced.
Sanctity as Political Capital of the Conciliar Sect
Symptomatically, this act prefigures the later, more spectacular abuses of “canonization” by the conciliar sect:
– the inflation of “saints” to canonize Vatican II and its usurpers (notably the later cult around men like Wojtyła and Montini);
– the use of beatifications and canonizations as propaganda for religious liberty, ecumenism, the cult of man, and sentimental humanitarianism;
– the desacralization of the investigative process, where criteria of “pastoral relevance” and ideological compatibility with the neo‑church replace rigorous scrutiny rooted in dogma.
Already in this 1960 text, we see:
– the collective acclamation of a pre‑conciliar figure by an already compromised college, thus offering a bridge: a Counter‑Reformation bishop repurposed as a “saint” of the impending aggiornamento.
– an insistence on the emotional effect of the rite:
…eo catholicorum rituum splendore et frequentia, quibus christifidelium animi ad pietatem vehementer permoventur.
“with such splendour and frequency of Catholic rites, by which the souls of the faithful are greatly moved to piety.”
The stress on affective impact—while legitimate in itself—within this context betrays the deeper manipulation: move the people by ceremony so they do not discern the doctrinal inversion.
Canonization is here reduced to a *sacramentale politicum* of the conciliar sect: a ceremony by which the usurper validates himself and his agenda under the cover of venerating someone long dead, unable to protest the abuse of his name.
The Modernist Mechanism: Continuity of Forms, Rupture of Faith
This consistory text must be read as an early, paradigmatic example of the modernist method condemned by St. Pius X:
– retain Catholic terminology,
– empty it of its precise dogmatic content,
– refill it with new, vague, and adaptable meanings suitable to liberal “modern civilization.”
In *Pascendi*, St. Pius X denounces the modernists’ tactic of hiding radical innovations beneath traditional expressions, using “a thousand masks.” Here, Roncalli:
– speaks of the “Holy Spirit,” yet later installs a council whose fruits systematically contradict solemnly defined teaching;
– invokes the “glory of God and the good of the Christian people,” yet helps to construct a structure (the Church of the New Advent) which:
– enthrones religious liberty in contradiction to *Syllabus* and *Quas primas*,
– engages in false “ecumenical” worship,
– tolerates or promotes sacrilegious liturgical innovations,
– leads countless souls into indifferentism and practical atheism.
The semi‑public consistory is thus not benign. It is a cog in the machine of a paramasonic, anthropocentric project that Pius IX foresaw when he spoke of the “synagogue of Satan” allied with secret societies striving to enslave the Church and erase her from the earth.
The fact that this act concerns canonization—one of the most solemn expressions of papal authority—makes it more, not less, serious. The usurper touches the very sign by which faithful Catholics recognize the voice of Christ in His Church, and bends it into an instrument to authenticate his counterfeit magisterium.
A Silence More Eloquent than Words: Omitted Supernatural Warnings
Finally, one must note what the text does not say—its omissions, which in this context constitute an indictment.
There is:
– no mention of the danger of error in doctrine already spreading widely,
– no reiteration of the condemnations of Modernism by St. Pius X,
– no call to defend the social reign of Christ against secular states, as demanded by *Quas primas*,
– no warning against secret societies and naturalistic ideologies strangling Christian nations, as denounced by Pius IX,
– no insistence on the integrity of the Most Holy Sacrifice and the sacraments.
Instead, the act assumes as unproblematic the very ecclesiastical environment that is in fact collapsing from within. The “glory of God” and “utility of the Christian people” are invoked, but concretely subordinated to the silent dogma of aggiornamento.
The gravest silence: there is no vigilance regarding the purity of faith in the supreme authority itself. Previous Popes warned that heresy and public defection from the faith sever ecclesiastical office (*Cum ex Apostolatus Officio*, canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code, the doctrine summarized by Bellarmine and others: a manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church). This text proceeds as if such principles did not exist, as if any man peacefully occupying the Vatican apartments automatically enjoyed the promises made to Peter, regardless of his doctrine.
That silence is the system’s self‑indictment.
Conclusion: Reject the Cultic Cloak of the Neo-Church
Measured against the unchanging Catholic doctrine prior to 1958:
– The semi‑public consistory of 30 May 1960 is not an innocuous devotional act; it is a liturgical‑juridical façade employed by an antipope to appropriate for the conciliar revolution the prestige of the Church’s saints.
– Its language, while externally orthodox, becomes materially abusive when placed in service of a structure that soon after will trample the condemnations of *Syllabus*, *Lamentabili*, *Pascendi*, and *Quas primas*.
– Its unanimous consent reveals the depth of infiltration and abdication among those who should have resisted, not a guarantee of the Holy Spirit’s guidance.
– Its theological premise—that Roncalli’s word suffices to bind consciences to a cult of his “saints”—collapses once his opposition to the pre‑1958 Magisterium is recognized.
Therefore, the faithful who hold to the integral Catholic faith must:
– refuse to accept such “canonizations” as acts of the true Church,
– recognize in them a manipulative strategy of the conciliar sect to simulate continuity while entrenching apostasy,
– cling instead to the secure doctrine and saints promulgated when the Roman See spoke in manifest unity with its own perennial teaching.
Only within the true, pre‑conciliar faith, the true sacraments, and the true hierarchy—those not subjugated to the Church of the New Advent—does the veneration of saints remain what God instituted it to be: a participation in the one reign of Christ the King, not an ornament for the kingdom of man.
Source:
Feria secunda, die XXX mensis Maii anno MCMLX, in consueta Aula Palatii Apostolici Vaticani, Consistorium semipublicum habitum est de Canonizatione Beati Ioannis de Ribera, Patriarchae Antiocheni et A… (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025