Jean XXIII (3)
Semi-Heretic Pope
Errors after His Election until His Death
Table of Contents:
- Introduction
- Universal Acceptance of the Papacy of John XXIII from the Conclave until 1971
2.1. The 1958 Conclave and the Immediate Acceptance
2.2. Absence of Organized Opposition before the Opening of Vatican II (1958-1962)
2.3. The Apparitions of Seredne and the Penitents: No Explicit Rejection before 1971
2.4. Late Emergence of Sedevacantism
2.5. Criticisms of Vatican II without Contestation of Legitimacy (1962-1971)
2.6. Ecclesial Proofs of Legitimacy
2.7. The Crucial Date: 1971
2.8. Conclusion of Part 2
- The Doctrinal Errors of John XXIII after His Election
3.1. Possible Heresy in the Encyclical Pacem in Terris (11 April 1963)
3.1.1. Pacem in terris, number 12
3.1.1.1. The English text on the Vatican website
3.1.1.2. The authentic Latin text
3.1.1.3. Observation of the falsification
3.1.2. Pacem in terris, number 14
3.1.2.1. The English and French texts on the Vatican website
3.1.2.2. The authentic Latin text
3.1.2.3. Observation of the falsification
3.1.3. Conclusions:
3.1.3.1. These observations show that certain translations…
3.1.3.2. Following of Conscience
3.1.4. Paragraph 144 of Pacem in terris – Praise of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights
3.2. Other Post-Election Acts and Discourses
3.2.1. Promotion of a Non-Traditional Ecumenism
3.2.2. Ecumenical Meetings
- Theological Notes and Doctrinal Conclusion
- Final Conclusion
- Introduction
Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, elected under the name of John XXIII on 28 October 1958 after the death of His Holiness Pius XII, exercised his pontificate until his death on 3 June 1963. Although brief, this reign was marked by the announcement of the Second Vatican Council in 1959, which opened in 1962.
As we have seen in a previous chapter, historically no open and explicit contestation of his papal legitimacy appeared before 1971, eight years after his death, as the ecclesial and historical facts demonstrate. The whole Church, clergy and faithful, unanimously recognized his papacy from 1958 until that date.
Sedevacantism, of which a certain number of adherents consider the apostolic see vacant since Pius XII, others after 1964 with the public heresy of Paul VI in Lumen Gentium, only emerged after 1970, with retrospective contestations.
- Universal Acceptance of the Papacy of John XXIII from the Conclave until 1971
2.1. The 1958 Conclave and the Immediate Acceptance
As demonstrated in the said chapter, the conclave brought together 51 cardinals and took place according to the strict canonical rules established by the Church. The election of John XXIII was accepted unanimously by the cardinals present and by the worldwide Catholic community. No historical proof attests to any contemporary contestation.
Even the so-called Siri thesis, alleging an election of Cardinal Giuseppe Siri that was supplanted, only emerged during the 1960s and was not seriously formulated until after 1971. Cardinal Siri, Archbishop of Genoa, himself publicly and officially recognized John XXIII, without ever openly contesting his election.
If ever Siri had been elected pope in the conclave, of which there exist six concordant testimonies and signs, it would then be clear that he would have abdicated in that same conclave or else this hypothesis would imply that he subsequently tacitly renounced any claim to the pontificate by openly and officially accepting John XXIII as pope for years after the conclave.
2.2. Absence of Organized Opposition before the Opening of Vatican II (1958-1962)
During the first years, John XXIII devoted himself to pastoral initiatives and to the preparation of the council, arousing hope among the progressives and measured concern among the conservatives.
Before 1962, no Catholic group, nor any bishop or Catholic authority, called him illegitimate. Even Mgr Marcel Lefebvre, then Superior General of the Spiritans, boldly desired a council to continue the work of Vatican I, suddenly interrupted by the Franco-German war, and he expressed only prudent reservations about the conciliar orientation, without ever rejecting the papacy of John XXIII or putting it in doubt.
2.3. The Apparitions of Seredne and the Penitents: No Explicit Rejection before 1971
At Seredne (Ukraine), the Marian apparitions began on 20 December 1954 under the direction of Father Ignatius Soltys and his sister Hanna Kuzminska. The messages, reported in Divine Mysteries and The Miracle of Seredne (Soltys, 2016), predicted that the pope would be betrayed and assassinated and that Rome would fall. These visions, prior to 1958, did not necessarily or directly target John XXIII. Between 1958 and 1971, the Penitents (Pokutnyky) were able to reinterpret these messages in the light of Vatican II, but no proof indicates that they explicitly called John XXIII an antipope. Their priority remained Soviet persecution, and their isolation limited public statements.
2.4. Late Emergence of Sedevacantism
The conviction that the see is vacant since Pius XII only appeared after 1970. No structured group nor bishop or priest rejected John XXIII as antipope before that. Father Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga published Sede Vacante only in 1971, retrospectively calling John XXIII and Paul VI illegitimate. In 1963 (La nueva Iglesia Montiniana), he criticized Vatican II without yet designating John XXIII as antipope.
2.5. Criticisms of Vatican II without Contestation of Legitimacy (1962-1971)
Vatican II aroused concerns among traditionalists, but these concerned the reforms, not the legitimacy of John XXIII. From his death in 1963 to 1971, Catholics, including conservatives, recognized him as pope. Groups such as the Roman Catholic Movement (founded in 1972) and the sedevacantists only organized after 1971, under the impact of the reforms of Paul VI (new Mass of 1969).
2.6. Ecclesial Proofs of Legitimacy
The official documents of the Church and the worldwide clergy recognized John XXIII as legitimate pope from 1958 to 1963 and far beyond his death. His death was universally mourned, and Paul VI confirmed his authority by continuing Vatican II.
As mentioned, before 1971, no documented case shows a Catholic group openly contesting his papacy.
2.7. The Crucial Date: 1971
To summarize: the first explicit contestation arose in 1971 with Sede Vacante by Sáenz y Arriaga, marking the beginning of organized sedevacantism of which one part retrospectively rejected John XXIII because of Vatican II. Before that, all Catholics, from the Penitents of Seredne to conservative priests, recognized him as pope, despite implicit reservations or later eschatological reinterpretations. The apparitions of Seredne, too early, did not therefore target him; later interpretations remained internal.
1971 separates universal acceptance from explicit questioning.
2.8. Conclusion of Part 2
No historically documented case attests to organized public contestation before 1971 concerning the papacy of John XXIII.
- The Doctrinal Errors of John XXIII after His Election
3.1. Possible Heresy in the Encyclical Pacem in Terris (11 April 1963)
False translations on the Vatican website.
Let us note at the outset that the Vatican internet site has no magisterial value. Only the official Latin edition is authoritative. In case of divergence between a translation and the typical Latin edition, only the Latin text is authoritative.
In the encyclical Pacem in terris of John XXIII, published in Rome by Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis in 1963 in Latin, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 55 (1963), pages 257-304, the official English Vatican website presents translations that deviate from the authentic Latin text. These deviations introduce heretical elements that are not present in the original document.
3.1.1. Pacem in terris, number 12.
3.1.1.1. The English text on the Vatican website reads as follows: Rights Pertaining to Moral and Cultural Values. Moreover, man has a natural right to be respected. He has a right to his good name. He has a right to freedom in investigating the truth, and, within the limits of the moral order and the common good, to freedom of speech and publication, and to freedom to pursue whatever profession he may choose. He has the right, also, to be accurately informed about public events.
Literal translation of this: Rights relating to moral and cultural values. Moreover, man possesses a natural right to respect. He has the right to a good reputation. He has the right to freedom to investigate the truth and, within the limits of the moral order and the common good, to freedom of speech and publication, as well as to freedom to pursue the profession he chooses. He also has the right to be accurately informed about public events.
3.1.1.2. The authentic Latin text reads: Homo praeterea iure naturae postulat, ut in debito habeatur honore; ut bona existimatione afficiatur; ut libere possit verum inquirere, et, morali ordine communique omnium utilitate servatis, opinionem suam declarare, vulgare, et artem qualemcumque colere; ut denique ex veritate de publicis eventibus certior fiat.
Literal translation of this: Man moreover demands by natural right to be treated with the honor due to him; to be provided with a good reputation; to be able freely to seek the truth and, safeguarding the moral order and the common utility of all, to express and spread his opinion and to practice any form of art; and finally to be informed on the basis of truth about public events.
3.1.1.3. Observation of the falsification.
The word profession in a text whose title is Rights relating to moral and cultural values and in a context of freedom of thought, expression and conscience, is normally understood without further explanation as conviction.
Now, the English translation contains the phrase to freedom to pursue whatever profession he may choose (freedom to pursue the profession he chooses), while the Latin text has artem qualemcumque colere, which means to practice any form of art or trade and contains no reference to freedom to choose a life conviction or a religion. Source: Acta Apostolicae Sedis 55 (1963), page 260, Latin edition.
Conclusion: the English version on the Vatican website introduces an ambiguous and heretical interpretation that does not exist in the Latin original.
The heresy is indifferentism: one can follow any conviction and one has the right to it. Therefore a right to error.
3.1.2. Pacem in terris, number 14.
3.1.2.1. The English text on the Vatican website reads as follows: Also among man’s rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public.
The French text on the same site gives the same text: Chacun a le droit d’honorer Dieu suivant la juste règle de la conscience et de professer sa religion dans la vie privée et publique.
The translation of the two texts is the same: Among the rights of man is also the right to be able to honor God according to the just prescriptions of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public.
3.1.2.2. The authentic Latin text however reads: In hominis iuribus hoc quoque numerandum est, ut et Deum, ad rectam conscientiae suae normam, venerari possit, et religionem privatim publice profiteri.
Translation of this: Among the rights of man one must also count this: that he be able to honor God according to the just norm of his conscience, and to profess the religion both in private and in public.
3.1.2.3. Observation of the falsification.
The English and French versions (and also the German and Swahili texts) speak of to profess his religion (his religion), which implies his (possibly false) religion, while the Latin text has religionem, which means the religion (the one true, the Catholic), as a pope would understand it. Source: Acta Apostolicae Sedis 55 (1963), page 260, Latin edition.
Conclusion: the English and French translation puts all religions on the same level, which is a heresy, while the Latin text does not do so.
NB
It is strange that the following versions give the correct translation, the Spanish: y profesar la religión, as well as the Italian il diritto al culto di Dio privato e pubblico and the Portuguese e de professar a religión.
3.1.3. Conclusions:
3.1.3.1. These observations show that certain translations on the Vatican website modify the original text on points that concern Catholic teaching. According to the teaching of the Church before 1964, there exists only one true religion, the Catholic, and there can exist no natural right to the exercise of false religions.
These heresies are attributed to John XXIII, whereas his text (Latin original) contains no error. Those at the Vatican who made these false translations are gravely guilty of multiple heresies and of their diffusion and they are also guilty of falsification of pontifical documents.
Cf. Syllabus Errorum of Pius IX, proposition 15: Liberum cuique homini est eam amplecti ac profiteri religionem, quam rationis lumine ductus veram putaverit. (Condemned.) It is free for every man to embrace and profess the religion which he has judged true under the guidance of the light of reason.
Cf. Mirari Vos of Gregory XVI (15 August 1832): From this poisoned source of indifferentism flows that false and absurd maxim, or rather that delirium: that one must procure and guarantee to each the liberty of conscience; error most contagious…
The pope is directly responsible only for the Latin original, the translations are made only by secretariats of dicasteries of the Roman Curia.
3.1.3.2. Following of Conscience
The pre-1963 doctrine condemns the public following of an erroneous conscience if it propagates error.
Cf. Immortale Dei of Leo XIII (1885): It is thus that, in his Encyclical Letter Mirari vos, of 15 August 1832, Gregory XVI… rejected what was then advanced, that in matters of religion there is no choice to be made: that each is answerable only to his conscience…
Saint Thomas Aquinas: To act against a certain conscience is sinful (Summa Theologica, Ia-IIae, q. 19, a. 5). An erroneous conscience does not dispense if it propagates error against the divine law (Summa Theologica, Ia-IIae, q. 19, a. 6, ad 3).
Rectam conscientiae aims at objective truth (Thomism). The Latin prevails and remains faithful.
3.1.4. Paragraph 144 of Pacem in terris – Praise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Praise without explicit subordination to Catholic revelation.
In an isolated reading this gives a material heresy of naturalism, contrary to Quanta Cura. And read in context (paragraphs 10-15: subordination to natural law) it is ambiguous.
Cf. Syllabus, prop. 39 (condemned proposition: the State considered as the source of all rights).
In conclusion, it is fitting to carefully distinguish the official Latin text, the only authentic act of the Roman Pontiff, from the subsequent translations published by various services of the Holy See. If a translation introduces a doctrinal error absent from the original, this error cannot be imputed to the Pontiff as author of the magisterial act, but only to the translators or those responsible for that edition. This distinction is essential in dogmatic theology, where only the authentic text possesses normative value.
3.2. Other Post-Election Acts and Discourses
3.2.1. Promotion of a Non-Traditional Ecumenism
The opening discourse of Vatican II (11 October 1962) by John XXIII gives this surprising statement: In praesentibus rerum adiunctis Ecclesia… mavult misericordiae medicinam adhibere quam severitatis arma vibrare… errores enim, qui passim grassantur, sponte sua languescant.
Translation: In the present circumstances, the Church… prefers to use the remedy of mercy rather than brandish the weapons of severity… the errors that spread everywhere die out by themselves.
Materially, this affirmation weakens vigilance. See Pascendi Dominici Gregis of Saint Pius X, 8 September 1907, which seeks to neutralize the modernists. Read also Saint Thomas on the public correction of grave errors in the Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 33, a. 2: fraternal correction is of precept. See finally Pius XI, Mortalium animos: Redire ad unicam Christi Ecclesiam (to return to the one Church of Christ).
3.2.2. Ecumenical Meetings
During the reception of the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury Geoffrey Francis Fisher at the Vatican (1960). This meeting constitutes the first audience granted by a Roman pontiff to a primate of the Anglican Church/sect since the rupture of Henry VIII in 1534. The final communiqué speaks of fraternal exchange and common prayer for unity, without mentioning the necessity of return to the Catholic Church. (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 53 (1961), p. 92.)
See Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII, 18 November 1302: Subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus… extra Ecclesiam non est salus.)
Pius XI, in Mortalium animos (6 January 1928), had reaffirmed this doctrine: The union of Christians cannot be procured otherwise than by favoring the return of dissidents to the one true Church of Christ (AAS 20 (1928), p. 14)
It was presented as a diplomatic act, but it seems ambiguous. For to advocate religious equality is to favor indifferentism (see Mirari Vos).
- Theological Notes and Doctrinal Conclusion
- Pacem in Terris, paragraph 14: French version is heretical on the surface.
- Paragraph 144: Material error of naturalism (ambiguous in context).
- Ecumenism (1962 discourse): Dangerous (weakens condemnation).
- Meetings (1961): Suspectus de haeresi (tends toward indifferentism if equality).
These errors, examined in the light of the pre-1963 tradition, are contrary to the requirement of integral fidelity in the articles of the faith (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 5, a. 3).
Without clear public heresy, they constitute a semi-heresy: John XXIII favored heresy by multiple ambiguities, without being formally heretical.
- Final Conclusion
We return to the conclusion of the previous chapter:
What is certain is that Mgr Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, after his election and until his death, was semi-heretic in the sense of favoring heresy, without ever clearly uttering a public heresy in the strict sense.
Yet that he be heretic pure and simple is disputed among sedevacantists, among whom a certain number finds that all his suspect acts and thoughts together constitute a heretical attitude.
This is however not the classical definition of the formal heretic. To designate someone as formal heretic it is necessary to have proof of his public expression of a heresy in the strict sense (see chapter on Heresy).
Until now we are not convinced of the existence of clear proof of a public heresy in Mgr Roncalli. And as long as there is none, we must indeed accept that John XXIII is pope (but favoring 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 heretic without public, notorious, certain proof.
Indeed the 1917 Code requires, for any declaration or sanction of heresy, public, notorious and certain proof. No ecclesiastical authority can declare someone heretic on the basis of suspicions, rumors or doubtful proofs. This principle is an application of natural justice and of traditional Catholic doctrine: nulla poena sine culpa certa et publica.
Thus, the principle that we cite is certain, sure and in conformity with the 1917 canonical law, and it is an exact synthesis of canons 2195, 2197, 2223 paragraph 4 and 2314.
AMDG
Note:
Since in the sedevacantist world several confreres, 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, it is necessary to take into account with extrinsic evidence in their favor, although the force of the arguments that I employ in the above text seems to give it the value of intrinsic evidence. In any case I submit in advance to any decision of the Church in this matter.