John XXIII (4) After His Death:
Public Accusation of Occult Heresies
Table of Contents
Introduction
- The Proofs Advanced of Angelo Roncalli’s Membership in Freemasonry
1.1. Testimony of Carlos Vazquez Rangel, Grand Commander of the Supreme
Council of Masons of Mexico
1.2. Testimony of Pier Carpi
1.3. Testimony of Franco Bellegrandi
1.4. Testimony of Gioele Magaldi
- Freemasonry as Formal Heresy
- Evaluation of the Credibility of the Witnesses
3.1. Analysis of the Testimony of Carlos Vazquez Rangel
3.2. Analysis of the Testimony of Pier Carpi
3.3. Analysis of the Testimony of Franco Bellegrandi
3.4. Analysis of the Testimony of Gioele Magaldi
- General Principles of the Credibility of a Testimony
4.1. General Criteria
4.2. Specific Credibility of a Testimony Coming from a Freemason
- Remarkable Absence in the Pecorelli List and at Don Luigi Villa
5.1. The Pecorelli List
5.2. Don Luigi Villa
- Absence of Irrefutable External Proof and Thomistic Principles
Conclusion
Introduction
This chapter deals with Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, known as John XXIII, whose affiliation with a heretical sect would have been discovered after his death according to several authors.
According to the common opinion of theologians, a public heretic cannot validly hold the papal office, because he is separated from the Mystical Body of Christ (see the chapter on “heresy”).
This case is exceptional, because the publicity of the heresy would have occurred a few years after the death of John XXIII, while during his entire life it would have been occult until this discovery.
- The Proofs Advanced of the Membership of Angelo Roncalli in Freemasonry
Testimonies indicate that Angelo Roncalli would have been initiated into Freemasonry before his election.
1.1. Testimony of Carlos Vazquez Rangel, according to some he was Grand Commander of the Supreme Council of Masons of Mexico
Carlos Vazquez Rangel declares: “On the same day, in Paris, the profane (“non-Mason” in Masonic jargon) Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII) and the Profane Giovanni Montini (Paul VI) were initiated into the august mysteries of the Fraternity. Thus it turns out that a large part of what was accomplished at the Council rested on Masonic principles.” (Interview published in the magazine Proceso, cited by Mary Ball Martinez in The Athanasian, Vol. XIV, n° 4, June 1, 1993).
1.2. Testimony of Pier Carpi
He reports an initiation in 1935 in Turkey, linked to a Rosicrucian society (The Prophecies of John XXIII, 1975). However, Carpi himself was born only in 1940. He therefore has no direct testimony.
Pier Francesco Carpi was an Italian writer, essayist, novelist, screenwriter and director born on January 16, 1940 in Arceto di Scandiano, Italy, and deceased on June 26, 2000. He is particularly known for his works dealing with esoteric, occult and prophetic themes, such as the said “The Prophecies of Pope John XXIII” (translated from the Italian Le profezie di papa Giovanni in 1978), where he claims to reveal apocalyptic visions attributed to Pope John XXIII, covering the history of humanity from 1935 to 2033.
1.3. Testimony of Franco Bellegrandi
He was an Italian historian, journalist and dignitary in the service of the Catholic Church. He served as chamberlain of honor of the sword and cape (an honorary title within the Pontifical Court) to Popes Pius XII and Paul VI, and he also contributed as a correspondent to the official Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano. Bellegrandi is particularly known for his work Nikitaroncalli: Controvita di un Papa (published in 1994), in which he exposes, as a former member of the Pontifical Court and insider of Vatican corridors, a scathing critique of the life and action of Pope John XXIII (Angelo Roncalli), whom he accuses of having favored modernist infiltration within the Church, leading to the convocation of the Second Vatican Council. He mentions among other things documents discussed at the 1958 conclave proving the membership of Mgr. Roncalli in Freemasonry since the nunciature in Turkey (Nikitaroncalli, 1994).
1.4. Testimony of Gioele Magaldi
A figure of progressive Freemasonry, born in 1971. He is notably known for having founded the Masonic movement Grande Oriente Democratico (GOD) and for his work “Massoni, Società a responsabilità illimitata, La scoperta delle Ur-Lodges” (Chiaralettere editions, November 2014), in which he asserts that Roncalli belonged to four super-lodges: Ecclesia (n° 11), Ghedullah (n° 16), Ioannes (n° 20) and Montesquieu (n° 27), with affiliation to the degrees of Apprentice, Companion and Master.
- Freemasonry as Formal Heresy
Membership in Freemasonry constitutes formal heresy, because it implies adherence to doctrines contrary to the Catholic faith, such as religious indifferentism and naturalism.
It is condemned by the bull In Eminenti Apostolatus Specula of Clement XII (1738) and reaffirmed by Leo XIII in Humanum Genus (1884):
“The principles and maxims of the Masonic sect are diametrically opposed to Catholic doctrine.” (Original Latin edition).
The 1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 2335, declares:
“Those affiliated with Masonic sects or other associations of the same kind which plot against the Church or legitimate civil powers incur ipso facto excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See.”
This excommunication deprives the guilty party of legal communion with the Church and of the exercise of many ecclesiastical rights. If adherence to Freemasonry also involves formal and public heresy, it also separates its author from the body of the Church.
- Evaluation of the Credibility of the Witnesses
Do these testimonies, often coming from Masons themselves, constitute sufficient proof?
3.1. Analysis of the Testimony of Carlos Vazquez Rangel
A public declaration from 1993, reported in an interview in the magazine Proceso and taken up by traditionalist Catholic sites such as Foro Católico (April 13, 2020), raises a serious question. He affirms the existence of four Masonic lodges in the Vatican, as well as the simultaneous initiation of Popes John XXIII (Angelo Roncalli) and Paul VI (Giovanni Montini) in 1937 at the Grand Lodge of France, and the Masonic membership of figures such as Bishop Sergio Méndez Arceo.
These allegations, not supported by irrefutable documentary proofs, are often amplified by anti-modernist circles. But in the absence of independent confirmation – and given the secret nature of the lodges –, these remarks belong more to personal opinion than to certain truth. They do not constitute proof of deliberate lying on the part of Vázquez Rangel, but they invite greater prudence: a Masonic leader may be tempted to exaggerate to promote his obedience, without that invalidating his entire career.
Indeed after this testimony, it must however be noted that no element of material proof accompanies it. No copy of an initiation register, no authenticated signature, no contemporary document, no lodge minutes, no direct and independent testimony, no precise verifiable date, nor any place susceptible of being checked by historical sources, are produced in support of this affirmation. In historical as in legal matters, a simple declaration, even emanating from a person occupying a high function within an organization, is never sufficient to establish with certainty a fact as serious as this. The probative value of a testimony depends essentially on the possibility of objectively verifying its content. In the absence of any independent corroboration, this declaration remains a simple allegation and cannot constitute, by itself, certain proof of the Masonic membership of Angelo Roncalli.
To admit the contrary would amount to considering that an accusation of extreme gravity could be held as demonstrated by the sole authority of the one who affirms it, without any objective proof being required, which is contrary to the fundamental principles of all justice and all historical method.
3.2. Analysis of the Testimony of Pier Carpi
He claims to reveal apocalyptic visions attributed to Pope John XXIII, covering the history of humanity from 1935 to 2033. This book “The Prophecies of Pope John XXIII”, which enjoyed some success in circles fond of mysteries, is however criticized for its ambiguous style and its lack of reliable historical sources, according to some observers. Carpi also made films such as Povero Cristo (1975) and La moglie del diavolo (Satan’s Wife, 1979), and worked as a screenwriter for comic books.
His life and work fit into a marked interest in the mysterious and secret societies, without direct link to authentic Catholic doctrine, which condemns such superstitious speculations as contrary to the faith (cf. Catechism of Trent, Part I, Chapter II, on false miracles and divinations).
His book cites no archive document allowing control of his affirmations.
3.3. Analysis of the Testimony of Franco Bellegrandi
His affirmations rest essentially on anecdotal testimonies, symbolic interpretations and rumors from internal Vaticanist circles, without irrefutable documentary proofs.
3.4. Analysis of the Testimony of Gioele Magaldi
Independent analyses, such as that of the Irregolare blog (November 28, 2014), qualify his work as a “great bluff” and disguised conspiracy theory, underlining the absence of solid proofs despite hundreds of pages. On forums like Steemit (September 5, 2017), his work is seen as a novelistic work rather than factual, comparable to a thriller rather than a rigorous investigation. Users on X (formerly Twitter), such as @JakTubal (February 23, 2024 and December 3, 2022), compare him to Dan Brown, noting that his 50 pages of bibliographic references do not support his extravagant theses, serving rather to “drown the reader” with the true to pass off the false.
His media interventions, such as interviews on Affaritaliani.it or appearances on Border Nights (podcasts from 2014 and 2021), are often sensationalist, reinforcing the image of a promoter of ideas rather than an objective researcher.
- General Principles of the Credibility of a Testimony
4.1. General Criteria
The Credibility of a Testimony rests essentially on the credibility of the witness, because the testimony is only a word reporting a fact.
To evaluate this credibility, one examines:
- The sincerity of the witness: absence of motive for lying (personal interest, hatred, fear).
- His competence: capacity to observe and remember correctly (mental health, distance, conditions).
- His coherence: absence of internal contradictions or with established facts.
- His corroboration: agreement with other reliable witnesses or objective proofs.
Without these qualities, the testimony loses all probative value, because an unreliable word proves nothing.
4.2. Specific Credibility: that of a Testimony Coming from a Freemason
And speaking… of a pope accusing him of an unheard-of crime: in fact never in the bimillennial history of the Church has there been a heretical pope according to the First Vatican Council.
The credibility of a Freemason who testifies that a pope is a Freemason is null, for the following reasons, exposed with clarity:
4.2.1. Lack of sincerity: Freemasons are bound by secret and lying oaths, sworn enemies of the Catholic Church (infallibly condemned by the magisterium prior to 1963, notably by Humanum Genus of Leo XIII, April 20, 1884). Their testimony often aims to deceive or defame. And to bring down a pope is obviously the height for a Freemason.
The document, taken from the “Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita” – the highest governing body of the Italian Carboneria, a 19th-century revolutionary secret society closely linked to continental Freemasonry -, published in 1859 at the request of Pope Pius IX, and provided in the edition of Jacques Crétineau-Joly, “L’Église romaine en face de la Révolution”, 1859, exposes with diabolical clarity the Masonic strategy: thus, “to destroy Catholicism, one must destroy the Pope”.
4.2.2. Moral incompetence: As members of a heretical and conspiratorial sect, they have neither the probity nor the objectivity required to report the truth about the Church.
4.2.3. Habitual incoherence: Their affirmations on other verified subjects are contradictory with facts established by reliable Catholic sources and lack objective proofs.
4.2.4. Absence of legitimate corroboration: Such testimony can only be confirmed by other pure Catholic sources, not by accomplices of the sect.
4.2.5. Machiavellianism: members of these sects reserve the right to lie for a “greater good” (Masonic principle of relativistic esotericism), making their affirmations subject to caution:
– As Leo XIII warns in Humanum Genus (1884):
“… the seductions and ruses of the apostles of lying…. the perfidious and varied artifices with the help of which their proselytes seek to ensnare men…”
– Clement XII, In eminenti (1738) formally declares that Masonic societies are founded on secrecy, illicit oaths, artifices and deceptions. Therefore their testimony is not reliable, on the contrary, one must beware boldly.
4.2.6. Legal consequence of the principle
If one admits that such a grave accusation can be held as demonstrated solely by testimonies coming from Freemasons, without any independent documentary proof nor objective corroboration, the same procedure could tomorrow be used against any pope, bishop or priest. Such a principle would ruin all legal security, since it would suffice for a simple accusation, emanating from a secret and condemned organization, to cast discredit on any member of the hierarchy. The principle would thus become universally destructive of law and incompatible with the elementary requirements of natural justice as of canon law.
– Canon 1939 §1 of the 1917 Code. If the offense is neither notorious nor absolutely certain, but results from public rumor, denunciation or any other source, a special investigation must precede in order to establish whether the imputation has a foundation and which one.
This canon shows that simple suspicion or public renown never suffice by themselves. Consequently, an individual is never declared or treated as a heretic without public, notorious and certain proof.
Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches that testimony does not bring absolute certainty, but only probable certainty (“auctoritas testimonii non est infallibilis sed probabilis”). That is why the credibility of a testimony diminishes when the person of the witness presents serious motives for distrust. He notably cites infidels, persons of bad reputation and those guilty of a public crime among the witnesses whose deposition can be set aside. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 70, a. 3.)
In short, a testimony coming from a declared enemy of the Church proves nothing; it is intrinsically suspect and must be rejected as false until certain proof to the contrary by irreproachable Catholic witnesses.
- Remarkable Absence in the Pecorelli List and a surprising mention at Don Luigi Villa
5.1. The Pecorelli List
Mgr A.G. Roncalli does not appear in the “Pecorelli list”, which gives all the important Masonic prelates of the mid-20th century.
This list, published on September 12, 1976 in the review L’Osservatore Politico by the Italian journalist Carmine Pecorelli (himself a member of the Propaganda Due lodge), enumerates high prelates and Vatican officials accused of belonging to Freemasonry, with their initiation dates, code numbers and pseudonyms. It mainly concerns the years 1960-1970, under the reign of the so-called Paul VI.
According to the provisional “Excel” version provided by the international Committee Rore Sanctifica (based on the original Pecorelli publication), and confirmed by analyses such as that of Carlo Alberto Agnoli in La Maçonnerie à la conquête de l’Église (1996, p. 17-18), Roncalli does not appear there. This list, although criticized for its partiality (Pecorelli being a Freemason), possesses a general reliability recognized by Catholic investigators such as Agnoli, who note its absence of names like that of Roncalli, deceased in 1963.
5.2. Don Luigi Villa
Don Luigi Villa (1918-2012) was an Italian Catholic priest, ordained in 1942, Combonian missionary, founder of the institute Operaie di Maria Immacolata and director of the review Chiesa Viva. Mandated by Pius XII and Padre Pio, he unmasked Masonic infiltration in the Church, defending Catholic Tradition against post-conciliar errors.
Don Luigi Villa writes in his book on “Paul VI… blessed?”:
“..confirmation was had during another Congress, promoted by the ‘J. Maritain’ Institute, in the Marches, on the theme: “How did we arrive at Vatican II?”. On behalf of the Italian Episcopal Conference, Mgr. Ruini was present at the ‘Congress’, then Secretary. Well, “The theme – wrote Baldoni – focused especially on the figure of Pope Roncalli and on the opening to the world, on the fact that this exceptional pope wanted to look out the window”.
But Mgr. Capovilla revealed – for the first time! – that he had seen the Pontiff’s face furrowed with tears, shortly before dying, because some affirmed that he had set in motion a process that would not be for the good of the Church!. These ‘tears’ of Pope Roncalli demonstrate that he had not at all foreseen the negative effects of his decisions, of his apostolic gestures (!!) accomplished without consulting either his Secretary of State, Cardinal Tardini, nor the other cardinals responsible for the various competent Congregations, in particular that of the Holy Office, while he preferred to listen to his prophet-adviser, his factious personal secretary, Mgr. Capovilla, to the point that Cardinal Tardini came to ask to be able to abandon his post, and Cardinal Siri, then Secretary of the Italian Episcopal Conference, protested to the pope against this unusual encroachment and this inconsiderate way of acting of Mgr. Capovilla, but without result!”
- Absence of Irrefutable External Proof and Thomistic Principles
Without irrefutable external proof (eyewitness testimonies, authentic documents verified by the Church), one applies the Thomistic principle of not claiming what exceeds certain reason. A suspect is presumed innocent until certain proof, according to a universal principle of all law.
Thus Canon Law:
Canon 1748 Ҥ2. Actore non probante, reus absolvitur.
“§2. If the plaintiff does not prove, the defendant is absolved.”
Finally: “De mortuis nihil nisi certum”
“Of the dead, one must say only what is certain”: the Church never judges the dead on the basis of rumors, even less on testimonies of enemies or condemned societies.
Another fundamental principle of Roman law remains fully applicable in this matter:
“Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.”
“The proof rests on the one who affirms, not on the one who denies.”
Consequently, the one who maintains that Angelo Roncalli belonged to Freemasonry must bring certain, public and objectively verifiable proofs. Failing such a demonstration, this accusation cannot be held as historically established, but remains at the level of a simple hypothesis or opinion.
- First Conclusion
The initiation of Angelo Roncalli into Freemasonry is not demonstrated by certain historical facts independent of any sectarian, indiciary or hearsay source.
According to the apostolic teaching of Saint Paul – 1 Tim. 5, 19: “Against a priest (all the more a pope), do not accept an accusation, except on the deposition of two or three witnesses” -, no concordant chain of primary published and verifiable proofs, coming from prelates faithful to traditional doctrine and from accessible ecclesiastical archives, confirms these allegiances of Roncalli in Turkey and elsewhere.
The absence of any disciplinary measure or public accusation by Pius XII, who discreetly monitored diplomatic compromises, as well as the non-existence of original documents published demonstrating a certain initiation, indicate that this affiliation belongs to an uncertain opinion and not to a sure teaching.
The blessed Pius XII named Cardinal Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli Patriarch of Venice on March 5, 1953 (pontifical bull of January 15, 1953, published in the month of March). He was consecrated bishop and installed in Venice on March 19, 1953. Pius XII died on October 9, 1958. At that date, Mgr Roncalli was still titular Patriarch of Venice and Cardinal-Priest of the title of Saint Prisca.
If Pius XII had possessed certain proof that Roncalli belonged to a sect condemned under pain of excommunication, it would be difficult to explain why he would have successively named him nuncio, cardinal then Patriarch of Venice.
In the absence of documents establishing that Pius XII knew of such membership, this succession of promotions constitutes a serious historical index against the certainty of this accusation.
Catholics attached to doctrinal truth must reject unfounded conjectures and hold firmly to the immutable faith, without any compromise with rumors.
In conclusion, John XXIII, recognized by what several authors call the universal peaceful acceptance, but acting as a semi-heretic, without public formal heresy during his entire life, validly exercised his office.
The doubtful Masonic allegations cannot invalidate this.
- The Widely Spread Opinion: John XXIII was a heretic and therefore not pope.
However, we note that a large number of Catholics (sedevacantists) consider the testimonies and indices of Roncalli’s membership in Freemasonry as reliable, and the other indices – all this together – sufficient as proof of his state as a heretic.
We can only conclude out of respect for the opinion of our confreres, to accept that this question is not resolved, that our convictions are in the meantime only opinions.
For this principle obliges us all:
“In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas”
In theology the adage becomes:
“In fide unitas, in opiniis libertas, in omnibus caritas.”
Here is the explanatory translation:
“In the necessary things of the Faith, we must keep unity among us;
In opinions, there is freedom;
In all, charity must be kept, and not treat as a heretic the one who holds another opinion than ours or yours.”
We will develop this adage in a following chapter.
- Final Conclusion
We await one or absolutely probative proofs, without leaving any doubt, which will convince all.
Probably at the latest, a future pope will be able to decide definitively, having access to the Vatican archives.
May Divine Providence keep us in the immutable Catholic truth.
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 an “extrinsic evidence” in their favor, although the force of the arguments that I use in the text above seems to him to give the value of an “intrinsic evidence”. In any case I submit in advance to any decision of the Church in this matter.