The document under review is a Latin apostolic letter of John XXIII, dated 16 December 1960, in which he declares St Isidore the Farmer heavenly patron of all agricultural workers of Spain. It extols agriculture as a noble, innocent art, praises rural virtues such as simplicity, diligence, and justice, presents St Isidore as exemplar of prayerful labor and obedience, and grants the corresponding liturgical patronage privileges to Spanish rural workers. Beneath this apparently pious act lies the characteristic strategy of the conciliar revolution: sentimental naturalism, sociological flattery, and liturgical manipulation used to veil the deeper doctrinal subversion that would soon formally erupt at Vatican II under the same usurper.
Sanctifying the Soil While Poisoning the Faith
This short letter, despite its brevity and traditional-sounding citations, is a revealing specimen of the pre-conciliar facade of John XXIII: a carefully crafted image of continuity, rural piety, and harmless devotion, deployed while the foundations of doctrine and discipline were already being undermined. In such documents we see a tactic: use apparently orthodox devotional acts to accustom souls to the authority of the future conciliar sect, while the same authority prepares and executes an unprecedented revolution against the integral Catholic faith.
To expose the bankruptcy of this gesture, one must read it on multiple levels.
Factual Ornamentation as a Screen for a Different Religion
On the factual level, the letter seems straightforward:
– It recalls the traditional praise of agriculture:
– Citing Augustine: agriculture is “of all arts the most innocent.”
– Citing Cicero: rural life is a teacher of frugality, diligence, and justice.
– It laments that in contemporary times “perverse doctrines” and materialism endanger agriculture and calls for rural workers to align their lives with “religion and piety.”
– It notes a petition from Enrique Pla y Deniel of Toledo that St Isidore be proclaimed patron of all Spanish agricultural workers.
– It proclaims St Isidore as heavenly patron of all agricultural workers of the Spanish nation, with the usual liturgical honors.
– It couches this in solemn canonical form, invoking apostolic authority.
At the level of raw facts, no Catholic before 1958 would contest:
– the legitimacy of assigning patrons,
– the nobility of agricultural work,
– the exemplariness of St Isidore’s humble, prayerful labor.
But here lies the key: orthodox words can be made to serve a heterodox program. The issue is not the possibility of a genuine patronage, but the context, the agent, and the orientation:
– The act is performed by one who initiated and presided over the very council that enthroned the condemned errors of liberalism, religious freedom, and collegial democratization of the Church.
– The text’s apparently wholesome piety is used to consolidate the recognition of his legitimacy in the minds of the faithful, precisely on the eve of doctrinal disaster.
– The patronage is national and sociological: “all agricultural workers of Spain,” in a language that easily fits a naturalistic, corporatist, or merely cultural Catholicism—without explicit insistence on integral faith, rejection of error, and subordination of the State and society to Christ the King, as demanded by the pre-1958 Magisterium.
The gesture is thus deployed as a soft instrument of what Pius X denounced: modernists who “put on a mask of piety and sound doctrine” while inwardly poisoning everything (*Pascendi*, 1907, confirmed and armed with condemnations in Lamentabili sane exitu).
Sentimental Latinity and Soft Modernism: Linguistic Symptoms
Linguistically, the letter clothes itself in classical and patristic citations, juridical style, and apparently edifying vocabulary. Yet an attentive reading discerns several symptomatic elements.
1. Cult of the “human” and of the profession:
– The letter stresses the dignity of agriculture as something “natural, just, noble, and worthy of the free man,” echoing Cicero:
“nihil est … melius, nihil uberius, nihil dulcius, nihil homine, nihil libero dignius”.
– This classical humanist accent, in itself admissible, is subtly absolutized in the rhetoric: the emphasis falls more on the intrinsic nobility of the human work and social group than on the supernatural order and necessity of the *status gratiae* (state of grace).
2. Vague reference to “perverse doctrines”:
– The letter mentions “pravarae doctrinae” and an excessive materialism, but:
– It does not explicitly brand liberalism, socialism, communism, and laicism by name as mortal enemies of Christ’s social kingship, as did Pius IX in the *Syllabus Errorum* or Leo XIII in his social encyclicals.
– It completely omits the already rampant internal danger of Modernism condemned by Pius X.
– Such vagueness is a classic device of those preparing reconciliation with the very errors previously condemned: one laments “perverse doctrines” while preparing their entrance into the Church’s institutions and texts.
3. Absence of the non-negotiable note of militancy:
– The style is gentle, irenic, “pastoral,” devoid of the sharp, dogmatic clarity characteristic of pre-1958 papal language when confronting error.
– The rural worker is invited to “compose his life according to religion and piety” in a generic, affective sense. There is no insistence:
– that salvation is found exclusively in the Catholic Church;
– that rural society must publicly recognize and submit to the reign of Christ the King, as Pius XI solemnly proclaimed in *Quas Primas*;
– that false religions and sects must be rejected, as reiterated and condemned in the *Syllabus* (e.g., condemned propositions 15–18, 77–80).
4. The rhetorical self-reference:
– John XXIII notes that he himself is from rural stock, using personal sentiment to bolster sympathy and proximity.
– This personalization of the “pope” figure—human, approachable, sentimental—preludes the cult of personality and humanist “pastoral” style that the conciliar and post-conciliar usurpers will use to overshadow doctrine and promote a cult of man, precisely what Paul VI later lauded at the close of Vatican II.
The noble Latin and traditional citations function as a cosmetic. Beneath, the tone is that of a horizontal, human-centered religiosity: agriculture is praised more for its natural virtues than subordinated, in thunderous clarity, to the supernatural end and to Christ’s kingship.
Theological Dissection: From Patronage to Naturalistic Devotion
On the theological level, it is crucial to contrast this text with the pre-1958 doctrine it pretends to continue.
1. True Catholic principle:
– It is fitting and traditional that professional groups and nations have heavenly patrons, provided:
– they are exhorted to live in the *una fides, unum baptisma* (one faith, one baptism);
– they recognize the exclusive truth of the Catholic Church;
– they submit private and public life to the law of Christ the King.
– Pius XI in *Quas Primas* insists: lasting peace and order are impossible until individuals and states recognize and obey the reign of Christ; the Church demands true liberty and independence from secular power; rulers must publicly honor Christ and His law.
2. What the letter omits:
– No clear affirmation that:
– salvation is found only in the Catholic Church;
– false religions are evil and cannot be placed on a par with the true faith;
– the Spanish rural order must be explicitly and publicly subjected to Christ’s kingship in law, education, and institutions.
– No explicit warning against:
– socialism and communism in their doctrinal essence, not merely as peripheral “perverse doctrines”;
– liberalism, naturalism, and religious indifferentism, thoroughly condemned by Pius IX and Leo XIII.
– No mention of:
– the Most Holy Sacrifice as the heart of Christian rural life;
– the necessity of the sacraments received worthily;
– the Four Last Things (death, judgment, heaven, hell), which Catholic pastoral practice always set before workers and peasants as ultimate standards.
3. Subtle doctrinal shift:
– The text speaks of rural workers as having a “most natural and just” right to the fruits of their labor. This is correct in itself; Leo XIII in *Rerum Novarum* and Pius XI in *Quadragesimo Anno* affirm the rights of workers and property within the order of justice and charity.
– But by isolating this affirmation without the strong doctrinal framing:
– that all rights flow from God and are ordered to the supernatural end;
– that no “right” can contradict the rights of Christ and His Church;
– it prepares the mentality which will later exalt “human rights” detached from the rights of God—precisely condemned by Pius IX (propositions 3, 56, 57, 79-80 in the Syllabus and its context).
4. Canonical form in service of an illegitimate authority:
– The text uses the solemn juridical formulae:
– *certa scientia ac matura deliberatione Nostra deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine*,
– declaring the provisions “firm, valid, and effective.”
– However, if the claimant is a manifest modernist who prepares a council that enthrones condemned errors, his acts cannot be read as the continuation of the papal magisterium, but as their parasitic mimicry.
– The apparent theological correctness of making St Isidore patron cannot whitewash the author’s role as architect of the conciliar revolution that openly contradicts the permanent Magisterium on religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, and the social kingship of Christ.
The doctrinal danger is thus not in the choice of patron, but in the exploitation of such devotional measures to habituate souls to accept as “Catholic” the authority that will soon overthrow the profession of exclusive truth and the condemnation of modern errors.
How Harmless Devotions Prepare Systemic Apostasy
Symptomatically, this letter must be situated within the broader trajectory of John XXIII’s actions:
– Announcing and convoking Vatican II with the explicit intention of a “pastoral aggiornamento,” weakening condemnatory language and seeking “dialogue” with the modern world.
– Rehabilitating and promoting theologians previously censured for modernist tendencies, in direct contempt of *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*.
– Establishing a “style” of magisterial discourse that replaces anathematizing error with irenic phrases, precisely against the logic of the Syllabus and of all prior anti-liberal teaching.
In that light, the Isidore patronage letter exhibits four symptomatic features:
1. Reduction of the supernatural to benevolent background:
– Confessional phrases appear, but the center of gravity is the natural goodness of agriculture and the social dignity of the rural worker.
– The document does not command, in firm and absolute terms, the duties towards Christ the King and His Church in law, culture, education, and social organization.
– The supernatural is “invoked” as a blessing on an already-valued human reality, rather than as the absolute principle that judges and transforms it.
2. Corporatist devotionalism as substitute for doctrinal militancy:
– Assigning a patron to a professional class is praiseworthy, but here it is isolated from strong doctrinal reminders.
– This promotes a “light” Catholicism of cultural identities and patronal feasts, perfectly compatible with a future acceptance of religious pluralism and laicism.
3. Silence about Modernism and internal enemies:
– Pius X condemned Modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies,” denouncing the internal conspiracy within seminaries, universities, and chanceries.
– John XXIII’s letter merely alludes to “perverse doctrines” external to the Church, maintaining total silence about the modernist infiltration in the clergy and hierarchy.
– This silence is not neutral; it is complicity. The greatest threat—apostasy within the structures—remains unmentioned.
4. Use of traditional saints to legitimize a new religion:
– St Isidore, a symbol of medieval Catholic Spain, is here mobilized to give devotional credibility to the very authority that will soon promote ecumenism, religious liberty, and reconciliation with liberalism—all condemned in the Syllabus and by Leo XIII.
– This is analogous to the later pattern whereby the conciliar sect exploits images of saints and traditional devotions while simultaneously repudiating their doctrinal positions and the anti-liberal, anti-modernist magisterium that formed them.
Simulata sanctitas, vera perfidia (simulated holiness, true treachery): the pattern is consistent.
Contradiction with the Pre-1958 Magisterium on Christ the King
Contrasting this letter with *Quas Primas* exposes its deficiency.
Pius XI teaches clearly that:
– Christ is King not only of individuals but of societies and states.
– Public law, education, and civil institutions must acknowledge and obey His law.
– The Church cannot accept the separation of Church and State, which is condemned (cf. Syllabus, proposition 55).
– The social reign of Christ is the only foundation for authentic peace and justice.
In the Isidore letter we find:
– No word about the obligation of the Spanish State and nation to recognize Christ’s social kingship.
– No denunciation of the liberal and secularist principles that had already been spreading.
– A frame where rural workers’ legitimate rights are affirmed without being placed under the absolute primacy of God’s rights and the duty of public profession of the Catholic faith.
Thus, even when using language of piety, the letter aligns with the mentality that would culminate in Vatican II’s proclamation of religious liberty (Dignitatis humanae) and ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio), in open contradiction to the constant Magisterium.
The omission itself is doctrinally significant: silence where the prior Magisterium spoke most forcefully is not accidental; it is strategic.
From Patron of Farmers to Patron of a Neo-Church
This innocuous-looking act is emblematic of the broader revolution.
1. Legitimation by continuity:
– By issuing classically-formed Latin letters, by honoring traditional saints, the usurper seeks to appear in perfect communion with all prior popes.
– This rhetorical continuity eases the faithful into accepting later, far more radical documents as if they too were in unbroken continuity.
2. Transforming the sense of devotion:
– True devotion to saints binds souls more strongly to the Church’s dogma, sacraments, and discipline.
– In the conciliar project, devotion is aestheticized and nationalized, losing its dogmatic cutting edge, making it easily adaptable to a pluralistic, “open,” “dialogical” religion where saints become cultural symbols rather than witnesses to the exclusive truth of the Catholic faith.
3. Shielding the revolution with pious acts:
– While preparing a council that would introduce notions explicitly condemned by prior popes—religious liberty, collegial egalitarianism, false ecumenism—the same authority issues a pious letter about a rural patron.
– The tactic: “How can we be accused of revolution? Look, we honor St Isidore, we speak Latin, we praise agriculture.”
4. Abuse of juridical language:
– The solemn assertion of validity and perpetuity of the provisions is an instance of a broader abuse: employing papal legal formulae to cloak acts and intentions which, in their deeper orientation and in their author’s subsequent deeds, form part of the demolition of the papal office as understood by the Church.
Abusus non tollit usum (abuse does not take away proper use) is true: genuine patronages remain theologically possible. But here we confront the inverse axiom: usus non sanat abusum (mere use does not heal the abuse). Isolated acts that look orthodox cannot rehabilitate an authority architect of a system diametrically opposed to the condemned modern errors.
Silence on the Only Remedy: Return to the Full Kingship of Christ
Most gravely, the letter fails to proclaim the only effective remedy against the “perverse doctrines” it vaguely laments: the total and public subjection of individuals, professions, and nations to Our Lord Jesus Christ and to His one true Church, as taught unwaveringly until 1958.
– No call for:
– restoration of the integral Catholic rural order;
– rejection of secular schooling condemned by Pius IX (propositions 45–48 of the Syllabus);
– defense against Masonic and liberal legislation which the popes repeatedly exposed as satanic plots against the Church.
– No affirmation that:
– agriculture, like all temporal reality, must be ruled according to divine and ecclesiastical law;
– rural workers’ associations and institutions must exclude socialist, liberal, or Masonic influence under pain of mortal sin.
This silence is not accidental; it reflects the very modernist mindset condemned by Pius X: a Christianity dissolved into general moral benevolence and appreciation of natural values, where dogma is suppressed or relativized to avoid conflict with the modern world.
Such a letter, issued less than two years before the opening of Vatican II, thus prefigures the conciliar sect: a religion of sentimental values, human dignity, and cultural devotions, emptying out the sharp, exclusive, supernatural claims of the Catholic faith.
Conclusion: Beneath the Pious Surface, an Instrument of De-Catholicization
– On the surface:
– The proclamation of St Isidore as patron of Spanish agricultural workers appears pious, traditional, and harmless.
– In reality:
– It is executed by the very figure who inaugurated the doctrinal catastrophe against which Pius IX and Pius X had armed the Church.
– Its language, omissions, and tone are coherent with the emerging conciliar mentality: naturalistic, irenic, allergic to condemnation, silent on the exclusive rights of Christ and His Church.
– It exploits traditional symbols to cement allegiance to an authority that was already preparing to betray the integral Catholic faith.
Therefore, judged by the unchanging doctrine of the Church prior to 1958—by the Syllabus of Pius IX, by *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi* of Pius X, by *Quas Primas* of Pius XI, by the entire pre-conciliar anti-liberal Magisterium—this letter, though externally orthodox in its object, functions as part of a broader program of spiritual disarmament: softening the faithful through innocuous devotions so that the coming Revolution might be accepted as a legitimate development rather than rejected as apostasy.
Only a radical return to that integral doctrine, and an unflinching rejection of modernism in all its liturgical, doctrinal, ecumenical, and political forms, can restore to such devotions their true Catholic sense and free them from exploitation by the conciliar sect.
Source:
Agri culturam (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025