On 30 May 1960, in the Apostolic Palace, John XXIII convened a semi-public consistory to hear the Cardinals and bishops regarding the canonization of John de Ribera, Patriarch of Antioch and Archbishop of Valencia. The text briefly recalls the prior procedural stages, asserts that Ribera’s heroic virtue and miracles have been sufficiently established, invites once more the votes of the attending prelates, notes unanimous consent, and then announces the decision to enroll Ribera among the saints on Trinity Sunday (12 June 1960) in St Peter’s Basilica, exhorting prayer that this decree be for God’s glory and the good of the Christian people. From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, this seemingly formal act exposes the self-demolition of authority in the conciliar revolution: an usurper invoking the infallible forms of the Roman Pontificate to counterfeit sanctity, thereby corroding the very notion of canonization and preparing the way for the neo-church’s cult of ideological “saints.”
Simulated Sanctity: John XXIII’s Consistory as a Preludium to the Neo-Church Canonization Machine
Formal Gravity Without Legitimate Authority: A Canonical Shell Game
The Latin text parades all the external solemnity of the Roman Pontificate: *consistorium semipublicum*, juridical language, reference to the Apostolic See’s institution, consultation of the Cardinals, recognition of miracles *supra naturae ordinem patrata*, and the scheduling of a solemn rite in the majesty of St Peter’s Basilica. The structure imitates classical praxis: inquiry, discussion, unanimous suffrage, sovereign decision.
But the decisive datum, from the vantage point of the unchanging doctrine expounded before 1958, is brutally simple:
– Since the line beginning with John XXIII constitutes an unbroken succession of manifest modernists and ecumenists, they fall under precisely those conditions by which Catholic theology teaches a heretic cannot hold the Papal office.
– Therefore, this “canonization” procedure is not an exercise of the *suprema potestas* of the Roman Pontiff; it is a theatrical appropriation of Catholic forms by a paramasonic structure occupying the Vatican.
The entire rhetoric of the text rests on the unspoken assumption: “John XXIII is true Pope; his use of the traditional forms guarantees a true, safe cult.” This assumption is the central lie.
Pre-conciliar theology is explicit:
– *Canonization, as a definitive and universal judgment imposing a cult, presupposes a true Pope possessing jurisdiction over the universal Church.* Without that, the external rite is void of magisterial force.
– *Cum ex Apostolatus Officio* of Paul IV, repeatedly referenced in the 1917 Code, articulates that if someone has deviated from the faith before or in the act of assuming office, any promotion is nulla, irrita, inanis (null, void, of no effect). The document does not require a future “hermeneutic of continuity” to drain it of its meaning.
– Pre-Vatican II theologians, including Bellarmine and others cited in the provided Defense of Sedevacantism file, converge on the principle: a manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church; he is outside the Body and so deprived of jurisdiction.
Thus, when John XXIII in this speech says that in such causes he enjoys the assistance of the Holy Spirit—*Spiritum illum, omnis sanctitatis fontem*—he ascribes to his own person a charism that Catholic doctrine denies to one who openly advances the program subsequently codified in the conciliar revolution. The text becomes, therefore, a piece of self-referential propaganda: a non-pope using papal forms to validate his own usurpation.
The first and gravest fault of this document is not an explicit heretical formula, but the illegitimate appropriation of the papal voice itself. *Abusio formae sacrae* (abuse of sacred form) is, in this context, more destructive than a crude error: it anesthetizes the faithful, teaching them to see grace where there is only bureaucratized apostasy.
The Naturalization of Sanctity: Silence on Combat against Modern Errors
Note carefully what the speech emphasizes about John de Ribera:
– “multa et non dubia excellentis virtutis indicia”
– “miranda quaedam opera supra naturae ordinem patrata”
– scheduled solemnities will move the faithful to piety.
What is absent?
– No underlining of militant confession of the integral Catholic faith against heresy and against State encroachment.
– No linkage of his example to the doctrinal condemnations of indifferentism, rationalism, liberalism, socialism, secret societies, all enumerated, for example, in the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX.
– No explicit appeal to the public reign of Christ the King, as taught by Pius XI in *Quas Primas*: that true peace and order exist only when states and peoples recognize and submit to the dominion of Christ and His Church.
– No warning against the modernist infiltration everywhere denounced by St Pius X in *Pascendi* and *Lamentabili sane exitu*.
Instead, sanctity is reduced to a virtually decontextualized moral and devotional exemplar, whose canonization is framed primarily in terms of “splendore et frequentia” of rites that stir emotions. The silence is theological.
This silence is lethal for several reasons:
1. It severs canonization from doctrinal militancy. Pre-conciliar Popes incessantly extol saints as defenders of defined dogma against contemporary errors. Here, the saint is drained of polemical edge: an “edifying” figure, safe for a coming regime of dialogue.
2. It omits any reference to the absolute obligation—taught authoritatively by Pius IX’s Syllabus—that the Catholic religion alone enjoys public rights; error has no rights; the State must profess Christ and favor His Church. The consistory is held in 1960, on the eve of the revolution that will enthrone “religious liberty” and “ecumenical parity” in direct defiance of these principles, yet no pre-emptive strengthening of the faithful’s supernatural immune system appears.
3. It does not exhort to vigilance against modernism, although Pius X declared modernism “the synthesis of all heresies” and mandated the Oath against Modernism, precisely to safeguard the clergy. The man speaking is already preparing to discard that entire anti-modernist bulwark. The omission is not accidental; it is indicative.
The result is the naturalization of sanctity: a holy biography domesticated for a Church that is about to cease demanding the subjection of nations to Christ the King and instead embrace the rites of humanistic coexistence. *Quod tacetur, consentitur* (what is kept silent is consented to): by omitting the integral anti-liberal, anti-modernist content of the pre-1958 Magisterium, the text tacitly assents to its future abolition in practice.
Language of Continuity as Veil for Impending Revolution
The linguistic register is, at first glance, impeccably traditional Latin, which can deceptively reassure the unwary:
– Invocation of the “Apostolic See” and its “institutum”.
– Emphasis on legal procedure: “sacrum Consilium legitimis Ritibus cognoscendis,” “iustis rationum momentis expendit.”
– Deference to the Cardinals’ unanimous judgment.
– Pious exhortation to prayer: “in Dei ipsius gloriam… inque solidam christiani populi utilitatem.”
Yet this language functions here as an anesthetic: a sacralized bureaucratic idiom cloaking a radical dislocation of authority and doctrine that will soon break out in the council convoked by the same usurper.
Key rhetorical symptoms:
1. Self-Referential Certitude: John XXIII assures that in such causes he is conscious of the Holy Spirit guiding him. There is no conditional recognition of his own obligation to conform to the prior Magisterium’s anti-modernist decrees. The self-contained certainty foreshadows the later conciliar mentality: invoking the Spirit to legitimize novelties condemned by previous Popes.
2. Flattened Supernatural Horizon: The only supernatural reference is to miracles and sanctity as attested signs, but without eschatological warning, without mention of hell, judgment, the necessity of perseverance in the integral faith, the need for States to align their laws with divine law—points relentlessly affirmed in the Syllabus and *Quas Primas*. The speech remains formally pious, but practically horizontal.
3. Ritual Splendor as Compensation: The emphasis that canonization will be celebrated “eo catholicorum rituum splendore et frequentia, quibus christifidelium animi ad pietatem vehementer permoventur” reveals a mentality in which aesthetic intensity substitutes for doctrinal clarity. The neo-church will weaponize liturgical spectacle (until it discards even that) as a psychological tool to secure adherence to its new orientations.
This is the rhetoric of the *hermeneutica displacementis*: preserving the sound of Catholic vocabulary while emptying it of its determinate pre-1958 content, preparing the faithful to accept doctrinally neutered notions of “holiness,” “Church,” and “Spirit.”
Theological Illegitimacy: Canonization without the Church
From a strictly theological standpoint rooted in pre-1958 doctrine, the essential contradictions of this speech can be enumerated.
1. Usurped Jurisdiction:
– The act of canonization requires the exercise of universal, supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff.
– A manifest modernist, advancing principles condemned by preceding Popes, cannot be presumed to hold that jurisdiction. The Defense of Sedevacantism (provided) faithfully synthesizes this classical position.
– Therefore, any “canonization” performed by John XXIII does not enjoy the charism of infallibility attached to the solemn judgments of a true Pope.
– The speech’s repeated “Nos… constituimus… decreturi sumus” has juridical sound but no juridical substance: *vox hominis privati in habitu papali* (the voice of a private man in papal garb).
2. Ecclesia docens versus Ecclesia demolens:
– In Catholic theology, the Church’s act of canonization is an expression of her teaching office; it is a proclamation not only of a fact (the saint’s salvation), but also of a model of doctrine and life safe to imitate.
– John XXIII’s regime will immediately set in motion a council that:
– Exalts “religious freedom” in a sense condemned by Pius IX (Syllabus 77–80).
– Embraces “ecumenism” that treats false religions not as systems of error but as dialogue partners, contradicting the dogma *extra Ecclesiam nulla salus* in its integral sense.
– Opens the door to precisely those modernist interpretations of Scripture and dogma condemned by *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*.
– Thus, the same false authority that inaugurates structural apostasy is here claiming to select models of sanctity. This makes the use of canonization a tool of ideological consolidation: saints become, or will become, sign-bearers of the conciliar creed.
3. Canonical Coherence Destroyed:
– The 1917 Code (can. 188.4) states that public defection from the faith tacitly vacates ecclesiastical office.
– Pastors who subordinate revealed doctrine to liberal “rights,” place the Church on a level with sects, or deny her exclusive claims, objectively fulfill the criteria of such defection.
– John XXIII’s entire line of successors embodies this tendency culminating in religious syncretism, “dialogue” with Freemasonry, and adoration of humanity.
– To recognize the act of such a line as infallible is to dissolve canon law and dogmatic principles into sentiment.
Hence, the speech is internally incoherent: it presupposes the very ecclesiology its authors’ broader program dismantles. A pseudo-pontiff cannot confer the guarantee that belongs exclusively to the true Vicar of Christ. *Ex defectu subjecti, deficit actus* (from defect of the subject, the act fails).
Omission as Manifesto: No Condemnation of the Contemporary Apostasy
The symptomatic reading is decisive. In 1960:
– Communism ravages nations.
– Masonic and liberal legislative systems wage open war on the Church, as Pius IX and Leo XIII repeatedly warned.
– The infiltration of modernist ideas among clergy and theologians, condemned sternly by Pius X, continues and deepens.
A genuinely Catholic consistory, wielding the act of canonization, would:
– Present John de Ribera as a champion of orthodoxy against heresy, a defender of Catholic unity against false religions and schismatics.
– Reaffirm the exclusive truth and rights of the Catholic Church against liberal indifferentism.
– Recall, in the spirit of *Quas Primas*, that public life and civil authority must submit to Christ and His Church, and that canonized saints embody, not relativize, that obligation.
Instead, this speech:
– Mentions no contemporary errors.
– Proposes no doctrinal theses.
– Issues no warnings.
– Abstracts sanctity from the concrete battle against modernity’s revolt against God.
This *ablatio contenti*—removal of content—is the tactical sophistication of post-1958 posturing: never directly deny pre-conciliar doctrine at this stage, but silently refuse to confess it. The effect is to train the faithful in a new religion of non-conflict, where saints are icons for a harmless devotion compatible with liberal states, interreligious dialogue, and ultimately the cult of man.
A Prototype of the Neo-Church’s Cultic Strategy
Seen in the light of subsequent decades of conciliar sect practice, this 1960 consistory speech reveals its paradigmatic function.
1. Instrumentalization of Canonization:
– In the true Church, canonization safeguards the faithful: they may venerate and imitate without danger.
– In the conciliar sect, “canonization” becomes a weapon: imposing new models aligned with ecumenism, religious liberty, sentimental mercy without conversion, the naturalistic humanitarianism condemned by Pius XI and Pius XII.
– This speech’s focus on unanimity, procedure, and splendor without doctrine previews the later use of the same mechanisms to exalt figures who embodied or facilitated doctrinal dilution.
2. Psychological Continuity:
– Retaining Latin and traditional forms suggests continuity.
– The laity, seeing robes, processions, and old formulas, assume identity of faith.
– But content mutates: silence on condemned errors, absence of militant claims, displacement of Christ’s objective reign by vague appeals to “piety.”
– This fosters misplaced obedience to an authority that has defected from its own divine constitution.
3. Sacralization of Usurpation:
– The usurper cloaks himself not first by crude slogans, but by handling the most sacred acts of the Papacy—canonizations, consistories, solemn decrees.
– By doing this prior to the most manifest doctrinal ruptures, he inoculates the faithful against later alarm: “it is still the same Church, look, it canonizes saints as before.”
– This is precisely how a paramasonic structure stabilizes itself: parasitically feeding on the prestige of the institution it is dissolving.
In this sense, the 1960 consistory is not a neutral or benign episode; it is part of the choreography of the revolution. It accustoms the Church’s children to accept, without theological scrutiny, the acts of men who have already placed themselves outside the Catholic rule of faith.
Restoration Requires Rejection: The Duty of Integral Catholics
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, the only consistent conclusion is uncompromising:
– The speech’s authority claim is void because its author, as initiator of the conciliar upheaval, does not meet the theological conditions for being a true Roman Pontiff.
– The “canonization” decision announced lacks the infallible guarantee that attaches to genuine papal canonizations; it cannot bind consciences as a safe, irreformable cult.
– The rhetorical and doctrinal omissions in the text—its refusal to reaffirm the Syllabus of Errors, *Quas Primas*, *Lamentabili*, *Pascendi*—are symptomatic of an underlying modernist agenda that culminates in the post-1960 cataclysm.
– Accepting this act as a normal exercise of the Roman Magisterium means implicitly legitimizing the conciliar sect’s entire program of canonical and liturgical falsification.
Therefore:
– Integral Catholics must distinguish between the historical figure of John de Ribera and the neo-church’s use of him. His personal sanctity, virtues, or faults must be discerned in light of trustworthy pre-1958 processes and sources, not on the basis of the usurper’s declaration.
– They must categorically refuse the illusion that the structures of the “Church of the New Advent” retain the authority to define saints, doctrine, or liturgy for the Mystical Body of Christ.
– They must return to and stand upon the immutable teachings reaffirmed in the Syllabus, *Quas Primas*, *Pascendi*, *Lamentabili*, the 1917 Code, and the constant doctrine of the Fathers: *extra veram fidem et veram Ecclesiam nulla auctoritas, nulla sanctitas imposita* (outside the true faith and the true Church, no authority and no sanctity can be imposed).
If the saints are to be lamps for the faithful, their light must not be filtered through the smoky glass of a paramasonic anti-church. The document analyzed is one small but precise piece in the machinery that transforms the infallible marks of the Church into props for an apostate spectacle. To unmask that machinery is not an option; it is an obligation of fidelity to Christ the King, whose kingdom, as Pius XI teaches, demands public, exclusive, and unconditional obedience from individuals, families, and nations—and also, first of all, from the holders of ecclesiastical office, or from those who falsely claim to hold it.
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