The speech delivered by John XXIII on 27 January 1960 at the Roman Synod presents itself as a pious exhortation to the Roman clergy: a meditation on the priesthood as participation in the priesthood of Christ, the image of the Good Shepherd, the dignity and duties of priests in Rome, the complementarity of direct and indirect pastoral work, and the model of St. John Mary Vianney and St. Gregory the Great for priestly life and governance. It culminates in an apparently devout appeal that the clergy of Rome live their vocation in union with the “Pope,” serving the salvation of souls under the image of Christ the Good Shepherd.
This seemingly edifying allocution is in reality a carefully constructed veil, covering and preparing the metamorphosis of the Roman clergy from guardians of the supernatural order into compliant functionaries of a new, naturalistic, conciliar religion.
Ecclesial Cosmetics before Revolution: The Strategy of John XXIII
Selective Piety as a Screen for Structural Subversion
At first glance, many passages sound orthodox. The text recalls the divine institution of the priesthood, quotes Hebrews, John 10, the formula “Tu es sacerdos in aeternum”, evokes the Good Shepherd, insists that the priest is taken from among men for the things that pertain to God. All this, in itself, reflects the perennial doctrine expressed, for example, by the Council of Trent on the sacrificial and mediatory nature of the priesthood.
But the problem here is not only what is said, but what is systematically and programmatically not said.
Key observations:
– The entire allocution is delivered by John XXIII, the inaugurator of the conciliar revolution, at the Roman Synod of 1960 – the immediate prelude to Vatican II. The timing is crucial: this is the rhetorical preparation of the apparatus that will implement the coming doctrinal and liturgical subversion.
– The text uses the vocabulary of priesthood, sacrifice, pastoral care, but subtly recasts the priest primarily as an administrator, organizer, and collaborator in a vast institutional machine, rather than as the man who offers the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary for the propitiation of sins and guards the flock against heresy and error.
– The allocution is saturated with affective reminiscences (Vianney, Pius X, Gregory the Great) placed in the mouth of the very man who will convoke the council that systematically neutralizes their legacy. This calculated juxtaposition is not innocent; it is psychological disarmament.
Already at this level, we see a consistent modernist method: preserve the phrases, evacuate the content, and prepare the clergy to obey a coming transformation whose principles are never named here.
Factual Level: Half-Truths about the Priesthood and the Roman Clergy
1. Apparent orthodoxy on priestly vocation:
John XXIII states that no one should be admitted to the priesthood without a special divine call and refers to “Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech”. This corresponds in language to Catholic doctrine (cf. Trent, Sess. XXIII).
But:
– There is no mention of the essential end of the priesthood as defined by the Magisterium: to offer the true Sacrifice of the Mass in a propitiatory sense for the living and the dead, to forgive sins in sacramental confession, and to guard the flock from doctrinal error.
– Instead, emphasis drifts toward a broad and elastic “pastoral” category, easily reoriented later toward social, psychological, or administrative activism.
When the Council of Trent speaks, it binds the priest to sacrifice and doctrine. When John XXIII speaks, he prepares the priest for “pastoral work” in a sense that can be – and soon will be – detached from dogmatic precision and sacrificial centrality.
2. Statistical lamentation without supernatural diagnosis:
He notes roughly the ratio of priests to faithful in Rome, discusses the multiplicity of functions, the demands on clergy, and the need to balance direct pastoral work with administrative and curial tasks.
Here the key omission is damning:
– There is no warning about doctrinal corruption.
– No denunciation of Modernism, even though St. Pius X had just defined it as the “synthesis of all heresies” and imposed an Anti-Modernist Oath still in force at that time.
– No mention of vigilance against secret societies, condemned repeatedly by the Magisterium (Pius IX, Leo XIII), even as the 20th century was marked by anti-Christian, masonic, and socialist infiltration.
In place of the clear supernatural combat taught by Pius IX in the Syllabus, by Leo XIII in his encyclicals against Freemasonry, and by St. Pius X in Pascendi and Lamentabili, John XXIII offers a soft, sentimental, institutional speech. Silence here is not neutral; it is complicity.
3. Manipulative use of St. John Mary Vianney and St. Pius X:
He evokes the beatification of the Curé of Ars and the coronation of Pius X with the formula “sic transit gloria mundi”, praising their humility and pastoral zeal.
This is a theatrical operation:
– St. John Mary Vianney embodied rigorous catechesis, horror of sin, tireless confession, and unwavering preaching of judgment, hell, and the narrow way. None of that spirit of intransigent supernatural combat is drawn out; his image is reduced to a generic “pastoral hero.”
– Pius X, who condemned Modernism and reasserted doctrinal clarity, is sentimentalized for his humility, while his doctrinal war against the very tendencies that will triumph at Vatican II is carefully not mentioned.
Such selectivity is a factual falsification by omission. The allocution instrumentalizes saints of integral Catholicism to canonically perfume an emerging conciliar agenda that will trample their principles.
Linguistic Level: Pastoralism as Ideological Solvent
The rhetoric of this allocution is revealing:
– Repeated use of “pastoral” in an expansive, undefined, and emotive sense.
– Avoidance of precise doctrinal formulations regarding:
– the propitiatory character of the Sacrifice,
– the necessity of keeping the faithful from heresy,
– the exclusive truth of the Catholic Church.
– Focus on “munera,” “officia,” “cooperatio,” “auxilium,” “administratio,” presented as valid forms of “apostolate,” even when far removed from direct care of souls.
This language prepares the conceptual terrain for what will later be called “pastoral aggiornamento”: a shift in emphasis from immutable dogma and the rights of Christ the King to flexible, horizontal, human-centred “service.”
The priest is no longer primarily the guardian of the deposit of faith and minister of divine judgment; he is gradually being described as a collaborator in a bureaucratic-pastoral network within a worldwide institution. This is the embryo of the “Church of the New Advent.”
From an integral Catholic perspective, such linguistic strategy is not accidental:
– By absolutizing “pastoral” and detaching it from doctrinal militancy, modernism gains its preferred platform: praxis preceding doctrine, sentiment displacing definition.
Theological Level: The Subtle Revolt against the Kingship of Christ
Measured against pre-1958 Catholic doctrine, the allocution is marked more by its absences than by its affirmations.
1. No proclamation of the social kingship of Christ:
Pius XI in Quas Primas solemnly teaches that peace and order are only possible when individuals and nations publicly recognize the reign of Christ and subject law, education, and public life to His doctrine. He explicitly condemns laicism and religious indifferentism.
In this allocution:
– There is no call to restore public acknowledgement of Christ’s kingship in Rome and in Italy, where secular powers and masonic forces had long laboured to dethrone Him.
– There is no reminder that the priest, especially in the capital of the Catholic world, must fight against secular laws and principles contrary to divine and natural law.
Instead, the priest is framed primarily inside the internal system of ecclesiastical roles, very conveniently for a structure soon to collaborate with the world’s liberal-democratic framework and to abandon the Syllabus’ condemnation of “freedom of cults,” “separation of Church and State,” and “reconciliation with modern civilization.”
2. No condemnation of Modernism, despite historical context:
By 1960:
– The modernist crisis condemned by St. Pius X had not disappeared; it had gone underground, especially in seminaries, universities, and diocesan structures.
– Vigilance against modernist exegesis (denying inerrancy, Revelation, miracles) and modernist ecclesiology (Church as evolving consciousness, democratization, relativization of dogma) was urgently necessary.
Yet, in this key address to the Roman clergy, John XXIII:
– Does not recall Lamentabili, Pascendi, or the Anti-Modernist Oath.
– Does not warn against those who dissolve doctrine under the pretext of criticism and history.
– Instead, he accentuates unity, roles, pastoral zeal, and emotional bond with his person.
This is a theological betrayal by silence. Where a true successor of Pius X would warn, John XXIII caresses.
3. The Good Shepherd without the Sword of Truth:
The allocution centres on Christ’s words: “Ego sum Pastor bonus… Ego sum ostium ovium.” It mentions the contrast with the mercenary, but:
– He explicitly states he will omit stronger words about the hireling who abandons the flock to the wolf.
– He refuses to apply this distinction concretely to unfaithful clergy, false teachers, or infiltrated enemies.
By softening Christ’s own severe warnings, he presents a “Good Shepherd” stripped of the zeal that drives out wolves and denounces lying doctrines.
Authentic Catholic tradition, from the Fathers through Trent and St. Pius X, always unites the sweetness of the Shepherd with the intransigence against heresy. The allocution severs them.
The result is a counterfeit pastoral theology:
– A Shepherd who smiles at all, tolerates all, denounces no heresy by name, and thus leaves the flock exposed to precisely the conciliar devastation that will follow.
Symptomatic Level: Prototype of the Conciliar Sect’s Clerical Ideology
This allocution, read in light of what followed, exhibits the laws of the conciliar revolution in nuce.
1. Preparation of a new obedient apparatus:
– The Roman Synod of 1960 and John XXIII’s addresses served to align the Roman clergy emotionally and institutionally around his person and “pastoral” vocabulary.
– The aim: to ensure that when Vatican II is opened, the Roman presbyterate and curial staff will be predisposed to accept reforms not as ruptures, but as the “organic fulfilment” of the pious exhortations they have just heard.
The speech converts legitimate hierarchical obedience into psychological adhesion to a man who will shortly convoke a council that contradicts key points of the Syllabus of Errors, Quas Primas, and St. Pius X’s anti-modernist legislation.
2. Dissolution of the supernatural primacy into institutional functionality:
Much space is devoted to:
– Justifying priests engaged in curial and administrative roles as performing “true apostolate” even far from direct care of souls.
– Warning priests not to neglect their assigned offices in favour of “excessive” pastoral zeal.
This inversion is telling:
– Traditional doctrine subordinates every ecclesiastical function to the direct supernatural end: salvation of souls through true doctrine, true Sacrifice, true sacraments.
– Here, there is a hidden elevation of the institutional machine: to serve central structures becomes itself a quasi-sacramental apostolate, even when detached from explicit preaching of dogma and direct sanctification of the faithful.
Such a theology is ideal for a paramasonic structure occupying the Vatican: a docile corps of religious officials, the majority engaged in management, diplomacy, and public relations for a “Church” progressively reconciled with modern errors.
3. The missing war against the wolves:
According to Catholic Tradition:
– The shepherd must guard against heresy, condemned by councils and pontiffs with precise anathemas.
– The priest must refuse communion with manifest heretics.
– The Church must condemn false religions, secret societies, and all that denies the rights of God and of His Church.
In this allocution:
– There is not a single explicit denunciation of doctrinal error.
– There is not a single reference to the enemies of the Church named by previous popes: rationalism, liberalism, socialism, Freemasonry, false ecumenism, religious indifferentism.
– There is no call to defend the integrity of dogma against those within—precisely those against whom St. Pius X warned as “enemies hidden inside the Church.”
Such absence is not neutral; it is the signature of apostasy in gestation. Where the true magisterium raises the sword of truth, the conciliar precursor offers sentimentalism.
Contradiction with Pre-1958 Magisterium: Key Points
Measured rigorously against the pre-conciliar Magisterium (which remains the only standard of truth):
1. Against the Syllabus of Errors (Pius IX):
– The Syllabus condemns reconciliation with liberalism, religious indifferentism, and the idea that the Church should adapt to “modern civilization.”
– John XXIII’s tone and theological project (fully manifested in the council announced and prepared by such speeches) moves precisely toward such reconciliation. The allocution’s silence about condemned modern errors is diametrically opposed to the vigilance demanded by Pius IX.
2. Against Quas Primas (Pius XI):
– Pius XI demands the public recognition of Christ’s kingship and condemns the laicization of states.
– This address to the clergy of Rome, heart of Christendom, says nothing about restoring the rights of Christ the King in society; it confines itself to inner ecclesiastical concerns. This naturalistic shrinkage of mission is already a betrayal of Quas Primas.
3. Against Lamentabili and Pascendi (St. Pius X):
– Modernism is condemned as the synthesis of all heresies, including the subordination of dogma to history, the reduction of faith to religious experience, and the adaptation of doctrine to modern thought.
– John XXIII’s entire ecclesial course, anticipated here, is characterized by trust in those very currents, soon given a platform at Vatican II. The allocutio does not invoke anti-modernist safeguards; it cultivates an atmosphere where they will be discarded.
When a speech to the clergy of Rome omits every reference to the principal doctrinal battles fought by its true popes, while emphasizing affective attachment to a coming conciliar project, it functions as a programmatic text of the conciliar sect.
The Good Shepherd versus the Conciliar Hireling
The allocution dares to speak of the “Good Shepherd,” yet refuses to exercise his defining act: defending the flock against the wolf.
The true Good Shepherd:
– proclaims that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation;
– denounces error by name;
– upholds the integrity of the Sacrifice;
– insists on the supernatural end of all ecclesiastical structures;
– refuses to dilute dogma for the sake of “dialogue” and worldly expectations.
John XXIII in this text:
– reduces the theme of the mercenary to a vaguely moral note, deliberately avoiding the sharp words of Christ about hirelings;
– encourages all Roman clergy, regardless of function, with benevolent generalities, without calling any to doctrinal combat or separation from error;
– weaves together saints of anti-modernist intransigence with his own program in a way that neutralizes their prophetic opposition to what he is setting in motion.
This is not pastoral charity; this is pastoral simulation.
Consequences: From Roman Synod to Abomination of Desolation
This speech is historically verifiable as a prelude to:
– the convocation and opening of Vatican II;
– the adoption of religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality in contradiction with prior magisterial condemnations;
– the invention of a new rite of “mass” that attacks the theology of propitiatory sacrifice and priestly mediation;
– the progressive reduction of priests to social workers, coordinators, and “presiders” in an assembly, no longer sacrificers at the altar.
Read backwards in the light of these fruits, the allocution is the mask preceding the surgical strike.
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, it represents:
– an ideological deception toward the Roman clergy;
– a significant step in the transition from the true hierarchical Church to the “conciliar sect,” in which structures remain but the end, doctrine, and worship are subverted.
Conclusion: The Bankruptcy Revealed
The allocution of 27 January 1960:
– wraps itself in scriptural citations and references to saints;
– speaks of the Good Shepherd, priestly dignity, pastoral care;
– exhorts the Roman clergy to unity and zeal.
Yet, under scrutiny:
– it systematically omits the doctrinal battles that defined the pre-1958 Magisterium;
– it refuses to name Modernism, liberalism, naturalism, and masonic subversion as enemies;
– it recasts “pastoral” in a way detached from militant defense of dogma and the rights of Christ the King;
– it serves as a psychological and rhetorical preparation for the conciliar overthrow of the Catholic order.
Therefore, judged exclusively by the perennial doctrine of the Church, this allocution is not a harmless exhortation but a milestone in the spiritual disarmament of the Roman clergy, a polished surface hiding the preparation of that paramasonic structure which would later enthrone the cult of man in place of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
The only remedy is a return to the immutable doctrine expressed by the authentic Magisterium up to Pius XII, the rejection of the conciliar novelties and their preparatory texts, and the recovery of the true meaning of priesthood: altar, sacrifice, doctrine, and the uncompromising guardianship of the flock against error, whatever mitre or office that error may wear.
Source:
Allocutio die XXVII Ianuarii A. D. MCMLX habita in tertia Synodi sessione (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025