John XXIII (Part 1)
Archbishop Roncalli Before His Election
Was Semi-Heretical
Table of Contents:
- Introduction
- The Facts
2.1. Influenced by Modernist Ideas from 1914
2.2. Association with a Modernist Bishop
2.3. Acceptance of the Cardinal’s Hat from a Socialist
2.4. A Certain Ecumenism with the Eastern Schismatics
2.5. Participation in Non-Catholic Worship
2.6. Preaching of an Erroneous Universal Fraternity
- Conclusion from the Facts
- Roncalli as Semi-Heretical
- Theological Notes on His Errors
5.1. Modernist Influence from 1914
5.2. Association with Bishop Radini Tedeschi
5.3. Acceptance of the Cardinal’s Hat from a Socialist in 1953
5.4. Ecumenism with the Eastern Schismatics
5.5. Participation in Non-Catholic Worship
5.6. Preaching of an Erroneous Universal Fraternity
5.7. In Conclusion
- The Attitude of Pope Pius XII: Roncalli “Suspect of Heresy”
- Opinion of Prominent Sedevacantists: Roncalli Semi-Heretical
7.1. No Consensus on the Subject
7.2. Testimonies that Roncalli Was Semi-Heretical
- Final Conclusion
– What Is Certain
– A Principle of Law
- Introduction
In examining the validity of the popes subsequent to the Second Vatican Council, the question of whether Angelo Roncalli, known as John XXIII, was heretical before his election in 1958 is crucial for Catholics.
According to Catholic theology prior to 1963, a notorious heretic cannot be validly elected pope, since public heresy separates a person from the Church (see Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio of Paul IV, 1559).
- The Facts
This chapter examines, according to the principles of Thomistic logic and the certain teachings of the Church, the historical evidence suggesting that Roncalli adhered to heretical ideas, particularly modernism and ecumenism, before his election.
2.1. Influenced by Modernist Ideas from 1914
From 1914, while he was a professor at the seminary in Bergamo, Roncalli was accused of modernism, a heresy condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907). According to the biography by Lawrence Elliot, I Will Be Called John: A Biography of Pope John XXIII (Reader’s Digest Press, 1973, p. 59), Cardinal De Lai, secretary of the Congregation for Seminaries, officially reprimanded Roncalli. The cardinal stated: “According to the information that has reached me, I knew that you had read Duchesne [an author whose three-volume work was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books for critical history and modernist tendencies] and other bold authors, and that on certain occasions, you have shown yourself inclined to that school of thought which tends to empty of its value the tradition and authority of the past, a dangerous current that leads to fatal consequences.”
This reprimand indicates that Roncalli was perceived as influenced by modernist ideas, which reject Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Church in favour of adaptation to modern ideas.
2.2. Association with a Modernist Bishop
From 1905 to 1915, Roncalli was secretary to Bishop Radini Tedeschi, a progressive known for his modernist sympathies.
In John XXIII: Initiator of the Changes by Leroux (p. 10), Roncalli describes Tedeschi in these terms: “His ardent eloquence, his innumerable projects and his extraordinary personal activity could give the impression, at first, that he envisaged the most radical changes and that he was moved by the sole desire to innovate… [Tedeschi] was less concerned with carrying out reforms than with maintaining the glorious traditions of his diocese and interpreting them in harmony with the new conditions and new needs of the times.”
This description reveals a willingness to reinterpret traditions according to the “needs of the times”, a typical modernist approach, which seeks to adapt Catholic doctrine to modern ideals, in contradiction with the immutable teaching of the Church.
2.3. Acceptance of the Cardinal’s Hat from a Socialist
In 1953, Roncalli insisted on receiving the cardinal’s hat from the hands of Vincent Auriol, President of France and a convinced socialist. According to Elliot (I Will Be Called John, p. 59), Roncalli called Auriol an “honest socialist”. However, Pope Pius XI had clearly taught in the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (1931, §120): “No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true socialist.” By publicly associating with a socialist and accepting a distinction from him, Roncalli manifested an apparent contempt for pontifical teaching, suggesting adherence to ideas incompatible with the Catholic faith. However, accepting a civil honour is not automatically heresy. Roncalli presented it as a diplomatic act.
2.4. A Certain Ecumenism with the Eastern Schismatics
During his stay in Bulgaria, Roncalli developed close relations with the Orthodox schismatics. According to Luigi Accattoli in When A Pope Asks Forgiveness (New York: Alba House and Daughters of St. Paul, 1998, pp. 18-19), Roncalli stated:
“Catholics and Orthodox are not enemies, but brothers. We have the same faith; we share the same sacraments, and especially the Eucharist. We are divided by some disagreements concerning the divine constitution of the Church of Jesus Christ. The persons who caused these disagreements are dead for centuries. Let us abandon the old disputes and, each in his own domain, work to make our brothers good, by giving them good example. Later, though travelling along different paths, we shall achieve union between the Churches to form together the true and unique Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
This statement is gravely erroneous, for the Orthodox, as schismatics, do not share the same faith as the Catholic Church, particularly because of their rejection of papal primacy and other dogmas.
Fortunately, Roncalli somewhat corrects this error by saying that “We are divided by some disagreements”.
Indeed, the idea of a “union” without the conversion of schismatics to the Catholic faith is contrary to the teaching of the Church, which requires submission to revealed truth for unity (see Mortalium Animos of Pius XI, 1928).
2.5. Participation in Non-Catholic Worship
According to Renzo Allegri (Il Papa che ha cambiato il mondo, p. 66), a Bulgarian journalist, Stefano Karadgiov, reported:
“I knew Catholic priests who refused to enter an Orthodox church, even as tourists. Archbishop Roncalli, on the contrary, always participated in Orthodox functions, arousing astonishment and perplexity among some Catholics. He never missed the great ceremonies celebrated in the principal Orthodox church in Sofia. He would place himself in a corner and follow the rites with devotion. The Orthodox chants particularly pleased him.”
This passive or doubtfully active participation in non-Catholic worship is dangerous, for the theologian Merkelbach, in Summa Theologiae Moralis (1:746), teaches that external heresy is manifested not only by words, but also by dictis vel factis (words or acts), including signs, actions or omission of acts. Actively participating in a schismatic worship, even without verbal profession of heresy, constitutes a scandalous act and an implicit adherence to a false religion. Here Roncalli could protest a mere passive presence in this liturgy, yet it is “male odorans” [ill-smelling].
Furthermore, according to John Hughes in Pontiffs: Popes Who Shaped History (Our Sunday Visitor Press, 1994), Roncalli became friends with the Reverend Austin Oakley, chaplain of the British embassy and personal representative of the Archbishop of Canterbury to the schismatic Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch.
More troubling still, Roncalli visited Oakley’s chapel, where the two men prayed together. This common prayer with an Anglican minister, whose orders are invalid according to Apostolicae Curae of Leo XIII (1896), constitutes a grave violation of the Catholic prohibition against participating in heretical activities. Roncalli could protest that he prayed for the conversion of the other, so again: “fumeux” [smoky].
2.6. Preaching of an Erroneous Universal Fraternity
Finally, according to Kerry Walters in John XXIII (A Short Biography) (Franciscan Media, 2013, p. 14), Roncalli proclaimed from the pulpit that Jesus Christ “died to proclaim universal fraternity”.
This statement is incomplete and lends itself to theological errors, for Christ died primarily to redeem humanity from sin and restore communion with God. Only in this path is there a universal fraternity in the sense of the communion of Catholic saints (Catholic means “universal”).
But He did not die to promote a vague notion of universal fraternity independent of the Catholic faith. Such a declaration without further explanations seems to reflect a humanist vision, influenced by modernism, which minimises the necessity of conversion and adherence to the Church for salvation.
- Conclusion from the Facts
The historical evidence shows that Angelo Roncalli, before his election as John XXIII, manifested modernist and ecumenical inclinations contrary to Catholic doctrine.
His readings of forbidden authors, his association with a modernist bishop, his acceptance of a distinction from a socialist, his passive participation in schismatic and heretical worship, as well as his equivocal statements on faith and universal fraternity, constitute acts which, according to traditional Catholic theology, are incompatible with clear and straightforward orthodoxy.
These elements suggest that Roncalli was, before his election, in a position of semi-heresy.
- Roncalli as Semi-Heretical
According to these texts, it is necessary to attribute to Angelo Roncalli, before his election in 1958, a crime of semi-heresy, in the precise sense understood by the teaching of the Church: temeraria, erronea, scandalosa et falsa.
First, let us recall the definition of semi-heresy (drawn from the file “Hérésie…pdf”): an inclination or partial adherence to grave doctrinal errors, without necessarily reaching the fullness of formal heresy (which requires fully conscious and obstinate pertinacity after admonition (see chapter on heresy).
As we have seen in the said chapter, semi-heresy involves equivocal acts or words that manifest a material deviation or proximity to error, without total exclusion from the Church, but rendering the person here of Roncalli suspect of modernism or illicit ecumenism.
This aligns with the infallible Formula of Pope Saint Hormisdas (around 519), which requires an anathema of past heresies and entire adherence to the apostolic faith, as a guide for discerning semi-heretics.
Let us apply this to the above accusations, which provide objective and verifiable historical evidence, without speculative hypothesis.
Roncalli manifests several acts which, according to Thomistic theology (Summa, II-II, q. 11, a. 1: heresy as a vice against faith, by deviation of the intellect from divine truth), fall under material or semi-formal error, but not plenary occult or public heresy before election.
- Theological Notes on His Errors
Here are the key elements, classified by degree of theological gravity (which lists the notes as “temerarius” for bold opinions, “scandalosus” for acts troubling the faithful, and “erroneus” for partial doctrinal deviations):
5.1. Modernist Influence from 1914:
The reprimand from Cardinal De Lai (cited in Elliot, I Will Be Called John, p. 59) for reading forbidden authors like Duchesne (placed on the Index for modernist theses, condemned by Pascendi Dominici Gregis of Saint Pius X, 1907:
“Modernismus est veluti collectum omnium haeresium.”
“The modernism is like the collection of all heresies.”) indicates a temeraria (temerarious) inclination, which empties Tradition of its authority.
This does not reach formal pertinacity, since Roncalli did not persist publicly after correction, but it places him under suspicion of material semi-heresy.
5.2. Association with Bishop Radini Tedeschi (1905-1915): Roncalli’s description (in Leroux, John XXIII: Initiator of the Changes, p. 10) of a reinterpretation of traditions according to the “needs of the times” reflects an erronea (erroneous) error, typical of adaptive modernism, contrary to the immutability of the Depositum Fidei, the Deposit of Faith.
Note of Semi-heresy by doctrinal proximity.
5.3. Acceptance of the Cardinal’s Hat from a Socialist in 1953:
Calling Vincent Auriol an “honest socialist” (Elliot, p. 59) contradicts Quadragesimo Anno of Pius XI (1931 that no one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true socialist, manifesting a scandalosus (scandalous) act, since public and contemptuous of pontifical teaching. This suggests a semi-adherence to incompatible ideas, without explicit dogmatic negation.
5.4. Ecumenism with the Eastern Schismatics:
The statement in Bulgaria (Accattoli, When A Pope Asks Forgiveness, pp. 18-19: “Catholics and Orthodox are not enemies, but brothers. We have the same faith; we share the same sacraments, and especially the Eucharist.”) is gravely erroneous, for the Orthodox reject papal primacy (dogma defined by Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, 1870).
Although corrected by “We are divided by some disagreements”, this remains a falsa (false) proposition on unity without conversion, contrary to Mortalium Animos of Pius XI (1928).
Note of semi-heresy by ecumenical equivocation.
5.5. Participation in Non-Catholic Worship:
Presence at Orthodox rites (Allegri, Il Papa che ha cambiato il mondo, p. 66) and common prayer with an Anglican (Hughes, Pontiffs, 1994), despite possible protests of passivity, constitute periculosus (dangerous) acts, for external heresy includes factis (acts) according to Merkelbach (Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1:746: heresy by “dictis vel factis”). Forbidden by Apostolicae Curae of Leo XIII (1896) on invalid Anglican orders. This borders on material heresy, but remains semi due to absence of verbal profession.
5.6. Preaching of an Erroneous Universal Fraternity:
The proclamation that Christ “died to proclaim universal fraternity” (Walters, John XXIII, p. 14) is captiosa (captious), minimising redemption from sin in favour of a vague humanism, influenced by modernism (Pascendi, §39). Semi-heresy by omission of the plenary doctrine on the communion of saints.
5.7. In Conclusion.
According to these texts, which harmonise with certain pre-1963 theology, Roncalli was not a formal heretic due to lack of proof of public heresy, but certainly semi-heretical, with cumulative notes of errors “temeraria, erronea, scandalosa et falsa” on points of faith; these censures indicate partial opposition to the divine and Catholic faith.
- The Attitude of Pope Pius XII: Roncalli “Suspect of Heresy”
The Church, which does not permit heresy and does not tolerate heretics in its bosom, never condemned Roncalli for heresy, although he was on a list of “suspect of heresy” under Pius XII due to his association with Ernesto Buonaiuti, a contemporary and close friend, which might have led to his sudden removal from a post at the seminary. Source: “The Facts about “Pope” John XXIII” (https://novusordowatch.org/john-xxiii/, accessed on 13 November 2025).
- Opinion of Prominent Sedevacantists: Roncalli Is Semi-Heretical
Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli is at least semi-heretical, even if according to most sedevacantists he is considered heretical and thus not fit to receive the papacy.
Thus the opinions are divided, “in opiniis libertas” see the chapter on this adage.
7.1. Testimonies that Roncalli Was Semi-Heretical:
Here are testimonies from prominent sedevacantists:
– Bishop R.: “I find no formal heresy in John XXIII, but for me he is heretical”. But if one finds no heresy, one cannot accuse of heretical, but only of suspect of heresy or a similar accusation.
– Bishop S.: “I have doubt about the papacy of John XXIII”
– The editor B. S.: “I find no formal heresy in John XXIII, although he is a scandalous pope, I have doubt about his papacy”.
– The Abbé B. accepts John XXIII as pope due to lack of formal heresy and celebrates his 1962 Mass out of obedience to a pope.
No one finds an explicit public formal heresy in John XXIII.
NB The names of these persons are well known to the editorial team, but we do not produce them here due to lack of permission for publication.
- Final Conclusion
– What Is Certain
… and certain is therefore that Archbishop Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, before his election, was “semi-heretical” (see the chapter on “heresy”) in the sense of favouring heresy, modernism and liberalism, naturalism and indifferentism etc., without ever clearly uttering a public heresy in the strict sense himself.
Yet that he is heretical outright is disputed among sedevacantists, among whom a certain number find that all his suspect acts and thoughts together constitute a heretical attitude. This is not, however, the classical definition of the formal heretic. To designate someone as a formal heretic, one must have proof of his public expression of a heresy in the strict sense (see chapter on “Heresy”).
Up to now we are not convinced of the existence of clear proof of a public heresy in Archbishop Roncalli.
However, this large number of confrères, bishops and lay authors considering John XXIII as an antipope due to heresy must well understand that a serious Catholic awaits from them conclusive proof of one or more certain and evident heresies. And as long as there is none, we must well accept that John XXIII is pope (but favouring heresy).
– Universal Principle of Law:
Nulla poena sine culpa certa et publica. (No penalty without certain and public fault)
Code of 1917: (on the distinction between suspectus and convictus) An individual is never declared heretical without public, notorious, certain proof.
Indeed, the Code of 1917 requires, for any declaration or sanction of heresy, public, notorious and certain proof. No ecclesiastical authority can declare someone heretical on the basis of suspicions, rumours or doubtful evidence. This principle is an application of natural justice and traditional Catholic doctrine: nulla poena sine culpa certa et publica.
Thus, the principle we cite is certain, sure and in conformity with the canon law of 1917, and it is an exact synthesis of canons 2195, 2197, 2223 § 4 and 2314.
AMDG
Note:
Since in the sedevacantist world several confrères, including a certain number of bishops and priests, hold an opinion different from mine, I accept and apply the adage “in fide unitas, in opiniis libertas, in omnibus caritas”.
Since they are quite numerous, one must take into account an “extrinsic evidence” in their favour, although the strength of the arguments I employ in the above text seems to give it the value of an “intrinsic evidence”. In any case, I submit in advance to any decision of the Church in this matter.