John XXIII (3)
Pope semi heretic
Errors after His Election until His Death
Table of Contents:
Introduction
I. Universal Acceptance of the Papacy of John XXIII from the Conclave until 1971
I.1. The Conclave of 1958 and Immediate Acceptance
I.2. Absence of Organised Opposition before the Opening of Vatican II (1958- 1962)
I.3. The Apparitions of Seredne and the Penitents: No Explicit Rejection before 1971
I.4. Late Emergence of Sedevacantism
I.5. Critiques of Vatican II without Contestation of Legitimacy (1962-1971)
I.6. Ecclesiastical Proofs of Legitimacy
I.7. The Crucial Date: 1971
I.8. Conclusion of Part I
II. The Doctrinal Errors of John XXIII after His Election
II.1. Possible Heresy in the Encyclical Pacem in Terris (11 April 1963)
II.1.a. Paragraph 14 – Authentic Latin Text (Ambiguous, not Heretical)
II.1.b. Official French Translation (Heretical on the Surface)
II.1.c. Following the Conscience
II.1.d. Paragraph 144 – Praise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
II.2. Other Post-Electoral Acts and Speeches
II.2.a. Promotion of a Non-Traditional Ecumenism
II.2.b. Ecumenical Encounters
III. Theological Notes and Doctrinal Conclusion
Final Conclusion
Introduction
Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, elected under the name 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 demonstrated by ecclesiastical and historical facts. The entire Church, clergy and faithful, unanimously recognised 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.
I: Universal Acceptance of the Papacy of John XXIII from the Conclave until 1971
I.1. The Conclave of 1958 and Immediate Acceptance (see chapter on the AUP of Mgr. Roncalli)
As demonstrated in the said chapter, the conclave gathered 51 cardinals and proceeded according to the strict canonical rules established by the Church. The election of John XXIII was unanimously accepted by the cardinals present and by the worldwide Catholic community. No historical proof attests to a 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 recognised John XXIII, without ever openly contesting his election.
If Siri had ever been elected pope in the conclave – a fact for which there are six testimonies and signs – it is clear that he abdicated in that same conclave and in any case implicitly by openly and officially accepting John XXIII as pope for years after the conclave.
I.2. Absence of Organised 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 progressives and measured concern among conservatives.
Before 1962, no Catholic group, nor any bishop or Catholic authority, qualified him as illegitimate. Even Mgr Marcel Lefebvre, then superior general of the Spiritans, ardently wished for 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 calling it into doubt.
I.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) could reinterpret these messages in the light of Vatican II, but no proof indicates that they explicitly qualified John XXIII as an anti-pope. Their priority remained Soviet persecution, and their isolation limited public declarations.
I.4. Late Emergence of Sedevacantism
The conviction that the see is vacant since Pius XII only appeared after 1970. No structured group nor any bishop or priest rejected John XXIII as an anti-pope before that. Father Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga published “Sede Vacante” only in 1971, retrospectively qualifying John XXIII and Paul VI as illegitimate. In 1963 (“La nueva Iglesia Montiniana”), he criticised Vatican II without yet designating John XXIII as an anti-pope.
I.5. Critiques of Vatican II without Contestation of Legitimacy (1962-1971)
Vatican II aroused concerns among traditionalists, but these focused on the reforms, not on the legitimacy of John XXIII. From his death in 1963 until 1971, Catholics, including conservatives, recognised him as pope. Groups such as the Roman Catholic Movement (founded in 1972) and sedevacantists only organised after 1971, under the impact of Paul VI’s reforms (new Mass of 1969).
I.6. Ecclesiastical Proofs of Legitimacy
The official documents of the Church and the worldwide clergy recognised 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.
I.7. The Crucial Date: 1971
To summarise: the first explicit contestation arose in 1971 with “Sede Vacante” by Sáenz y Arriaga, marking the beginning of organised sedevacantism, part of which retrospectively rejected John XXIII because of Vatican II. Before that, all Catholics – from the Penitents of Seredne to conservative priests – recognised him as pope, despite implicit reservations or later eschatological reinterpretations. The apparitions of Seredne, too early, therefore did not target him; later interpretations remained internal.
1971 separates universal acceptance from explicit questions.
I.8. Conclusion of Part I
Until 1971, no Catholic explicitly doubted the papacy of John XXIII.
II: The Doctrinal Errors of John XXIII after His Election
II.1. Possible Heresy in the Encyclical Pacem in Terris (11 April 1963)
This magisterial encyclical deals with human rights and peace. The analysis distinguishes the authentic Latin text from the official translations.
II.1.a. Paragraph 14 – Authentic Latin Text (Ambiguous, not Heretical)
“In hominis iuribus hoc quoque numerandum est, ut et Deum, ad rectam conscientiae suae normam, venerari possit, et religionem privatim publice profiteri.”
Literal French translation: “Among the rights of man, it must also be counted that he can venerate God according to the right norm of his conscience, and profess the religion in private and in public.”
Here, “religionem” designates the true religion (Catholic), and “rectam conscientiae suae normam” a conscience formed by the eternal law, incapable of erring on truths of faith without fault. This accords with doctrine: private tolerance of invincible error, but condemnation of its public propagation.
Cf. Syllabus Errorum of Pius IX, proposition 15: “Liberum cuique homini est eam amplecti ac profiteri religionem, quam rationis lumine ductus veram putaverit.” (Condemned.)
The text does not grant an objective right to public error, but to the quest for truth via a right conscience. Orthodox, though insufficiently clear.
II.1.b. Official French Translation (Heretical on the Surface)
“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.”
“Sa religion” introduces a subjective right to profess any religion, even false, publicly. This contradicts the Syllabus (prop. 15) and Quanta Cura of Pius IX, condemning indifferentism.
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; an error of the most contagious…”
The probable cause of this faulty translation lies in Masonic infiltration at the Vatican, as exposed by the theologian Don Luigi Villa (dossiers on https://chiesaviva.com/).
The pope is directly responsible only for the original Latin; translations are made only by secretariats of the Roman Curia’s dicasteries.
II.1.c. Following the 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 already being advanced then, that in matters of religion, there is no choice to make: that each one answers 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 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.
II.1.d. Paragraph 144 – 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 (par. 10-15: subordination to natural law) it is ambiguous.
Cf. Syllabus, prop. 39 (condemned proposition: the State considered as the source of all rights).
II.2. Other Post-Electoral Acts and Speeches
II.2.a. Promotion of a Non-Traditional Ecumenism
The opening speech of Vatican II (11 October 1962) by John XXIII gives this astonishing 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 to brandish the arms of severity… the errors which spread everywhere extinguish themselves.”
Materially, this affirmation weakens vigilance. See “Pascendi Dominici Gregis” of Saint Pius X, 8 September 1907, which seeks to neutralise modernists.
See also Saint Thomas on the public correction of grave errors in the Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 33, a. 2: fraternal correction is a precept.
II.2.b. Ecumenical Encounters
During the reception of the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury Geoffrey Francis Fisher at the Vatican (1960). This encounter constitutes the first audience granted by a Roman pontiff to a primate of the “Church”/Anglican 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 favouring 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 favour indifferentism (see “Mirari Vos”).
III: Theological Notes and Doctrinal Conclusion
- Pacem in Terris, par. 14: French version is heretical on the surface.
- Par. 144: Material error of naturalism (ambiguous in context).
- Ecumenism (speech 1962): Dangerous (weakens condemnation).
- Encounters (1961): Suspect of heresy (tends towards indifferentism if equality).
These errors, examined in the light of pre-1963 tradition, are contrary to the requirement of integral fidelity in articles of faith (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 5, a. 3).
Without clear public heresy, they constitute a semi-heresy: John XXIII favoured heresy through 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-heretical” (see the chapter on “heresy”) in the sense of favouring heresy… without ever himself clearly uttering a public heresy in the strict sense.
However, that he was heretical outright is disputed among sedevacantists, among whom a certain number find that all his suspicious acts and thoughts together constitute a heretical attitude.
Yet this is not the classical definition of a 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 Mgr Roncalli.
And as long as there is none, we must indeed 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, a public, notorious, and certain proof. No ecclesiastical authority can declare someone heretical on the basis of suspicions, rumours, or doubtful proofs. 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 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, one must take into account an “extrinsic evidence” in their favour, although the strength of the arguments I employ in the text above 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.