John XXIII’s Latin letter “Exeunte Iubilari,” addressed to Gregorio Pietro Agagianian, concerns the appointment of the Armenian patriarch as papal legate to a Marian Congress in Saigon at the close of the centenary year of the alleged Lourdes apparitions. The text praises Vietnamese bishops for organizing a solemn Marian Congress, extols the supposed fruits of devotion to the Immaculate Virgin, declares that the Lord “willed that we have everything through Mary,” and grants to the legate powers to preside, pontifically celebrate, and bestow a plenary indulgence in the name and by the authority of John XXIII on the attending faithful.
Marian Diplomacy in Service of Conciliar Subversion
The letter is brief, but every line is saturated with the programmatic ambiguity, sentimental piety, and juridical presumption that characterizes the incipient revolution of John XXIII. Behind the smooth Latinity and apparently edifying Marian devotion stands an ecclesiological mutation: the deployment of popular Marian cult, especially linked to dubious apparitions, as a spiritual anesthetic to prepare the faithful—particularly in mission lands—for the demolition of *integral* Catholic doctrine and the enthronement of the conciliar sect.
This document must therefore be read not as an innocuous administrative note, but as an early symptom of the *abominatio desolationis* (abomination of desolation) that would soon attempt to occupy the sanctuary.
Subordinating Marian Piety to a Neo-Ecclesial Agenda
At the factual level, the structure of the letter is simple:
– It recalls that Vietnamese bishops, on the occasion of the centenary of the so‑called Lourdes apparitions, resolved to hold a solemn Marian Congress in Saigon.
– John XXIII states that he has gladly approved this initiative.
– He lauds as “most fruitful and salutary” the effort of the faithful to secure the “most powerful patronage” of the Immaculate Virgin, “so that through this sweetest Mother all the treasures of the divine Redemption may be opened to them, and that they may have life and have it more abundantly.”
– He inserts the maxim that the Lord supposedly willed that “we have all things through Mary.”
– He appoints Cardinal Agagianian, Patriarch of Cilicia of the Armenians and head of Propaganda Fide, as his legate to preside in his name with pontifical rites and to impart, in his authority, the plenary indulgence to those fulfilling the usual conditions.
– He concludes with an Apostolic Blessing.
On the surface, it imitates pre‑1958 Roman diction; yet the context and emphases are revealing. The letter operates as a soft-power instrument: it sacralizes a congress anchored in a problematic apparition cult and binds it juridically and symbolically to the person and agenda of John XXIII—thus welding Marian devotion to the nascent conciliar revolution.
The decisive critical thesis is this: the text instrumentalizes Marian devotion, particularly devotion attached to a non-dogmatic apparition, as a sentimental veil masking the transition from the militant, doctrinally integral Church to the conciliatory, naturalistic, ecumenical “Church of the New Advent.”
The Factual Shifts: From Missionary Militia to Marianist Spectacle
1. The letter situates Vietnam—a land of heroic martyrs and ferocious persecution—within the memory of “three centuries since the first Vicars Apostolic,” yet it significantly avoids recalling:
– The obligation of rulers and nations to acknowledge Christ the King publicly, as taught with force by Pius XI in Quas primas (“Peace is only possible in the Kingdom of Christ”).
– The doctrinal condemnation of indifferentism, naturalism, and anti-clerical state domination defined by Pius IX in the Syllabus Errorum (1864), particularly errors 15–20, 55, 77–80.
– The permanent war waged by Freemasonry and its allied sects against the Church, denounced explicitly by Pius IX and his successors as the “synagogue of Satan.”
Instead, persecution and errors are dissolved into a vague phrase about children “so far from us and placed in so many difficulties,” without theological naming of the enemies of Christ or affirmation of the absolute rights of the Church over nations.
2. The decision to tie the Congress to the centenary of Lourdes is equally symptomatic. Although pre‑conciliar popes tolerated certain aparitions as private devotion, they never transformed them into parallel sources of spiritual orientation overshadowing dogma, sacraments, and the social Kingship of Christ. Here, however, the emphasis is on spectacle: a “solemn” Marian Congress, international presence, papal legate, indulgences. This anticipates the post‑conciliar method:
– elevate historically and theologically ambiguous apparitions and popular devotions,
– fuse them with papal visibility,
– use them as engines of emotional mobilization while the doctrinal and liturgical foundations are quietly re-engineered.
3. The appointment of Agagianian, then Propaganda Fide proprefect, as legate is not a neutral administrative act. It entwines:
– missionary authority,
– apparition-centered Marian devotion,
– the tightening grip of the soon-to-be conciliar orientation over mission territories.
The missionary Church that once catechized nations into the one true Faith is being re-purposed as a soft diplomatic arm of the rising neo-church.
Linguistic Cosmetics Concealing Doctrinal Dilution
The tone and vocabulary are outwardly traditional yet unmistakably reveal a subtle displacement.
1. Sentimental Superlatives:
– The letter speaks of the “sweetest Mother” and “most powerful patronage” in a way that risks transforming objective Marian mediation into affective rhetoric detached from militant dogma and conversion.
– Legitimate Marian devotion in the pre‑1958 Church is always ordered to:
– faith in defined dogma,
– repentance from sin,
– fidelity to the Most Holy Sacrifice,
– rejection of error and heresy.
– Here, the language floats free: no mention of the state of grace, of sacramental confession, of doctrinal integrity, of the danger of false religions. Only a generalized assurance of abundant life “through Mary,” which, in isolation, easily morphs into a para-sacramental Marianism.
2. Selective Quotations and Absolutized Formula:
– The line “Nonne Dominus totum nos habere voluit per Mariam?” (“Did not the Lord will that we have all things through Mary?”) is rhetorically striking, but presented in isolation, without doctrinal guardrails, it becomes a formula ripe for abuse.
– The pre‑conciliar magisterium, when it extols Marian mediation, always subordinates it strictly to the unique, sufficient mediation of Christ (cf. Trent, the Fathers, Leo XIII’s Rosary encyclicals). It never allows Marian formulas to eclipse:
– the centrality of the Cross,
– the necessity of incorporation into the true Church,
– the condemnation of errors against Faith.
– In this letter, the emphatic Marian phrase functions as a sentimental centerpiece, not as a doctrinally grounded synthesis. This is emblematic of the conciliar technique: deploy partial truths in isolation to soften resistance and blur contours.
3. Sanitized Vocabulary of “Difficulties”:
– The faithful of Vietnam are said to be “in so many difficulties.” This bureaucratic euphemism avoids any explicit denunciation of:
– atheistic communism,
– Masonic-liberal regimes,
– paganism and false religions.
– Pius IX, Pius X, and Pius XI speak with clarity and combativeness; they name socialism, secret societies, rationalism, modernism, and liberalism as mortal enemies of Christ’s Kingdom.
– The cautious, diplomatic language here signals a shift from the *Ecclesia militans* to a Church of “dialogue” still veiled, but already gestured.
Verba mollia, vulnera gravia (soft words, grave wounds): the linguistic softening prefigures doctrinal surrender.
Theological Deviation: Apparition-Centric Devotion Without Dogmatic Militia
At the theological level, the letter’s most serious problems are not what is said, but what is not said. Silence about the central truths of salvation in an official act is itself a sign of doctrinal disarmament.
1. Absence of the Social Kingship of Christ:
– In a context of a national Marian Congress and the anniversary of missionary implantation, authentic Catholic doctrine demands explicit assertion:
– that nations owe public worship to Christ and submission to His law (Pius XI, Quas primas),
– that civil rulers sin gravely by legislating indifferentism, secularism, or persecution (Pius IX, condemned propositions 55, 77–80),
– that the Church is a perfect society with rights not dependent on any civil concession.
– The letter says nothing. Marian piety is floated in a vacuum, detached from the juridical and social claims of Christ’s Kingship.
– This is not an accident; it is an early manifestation of the conciliar project that would enthrone “religious liberty” and “pluralism” against the constant Magisterium.
2. Absence of Ecclesial Exclusivity:
– Nowhere is it affirmed that outside the true Catholic Church there is no salvation (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus), nor that Marian protection presupposes:
– membership in the Church,
– supernatural faith,
– submission to the Roman See as it existed in fidelity to Tradition.
– Instead, one finds a generic assurance: obtain Mary’s patronage to access “all the treasures of Redemption.”
– By omitting the exclusive mediation of the Church and the necessity of true Faith, such formulas can be—and later in post-conciliarism are—co-opted into a universalist Marianism compatible with religious relativism.
3. Misaligned Emphasis on Apparitions:
– The impetus is explicitly “ad apparitionem Deiparae Immaculatae in Lapurdensi specu commemorandam.”
– Pre‑1958 theology carefully subordinates approved private revelations under public Revelation, insists they are not necessary to salvation, and never allows them to function as parallel magisteria or geopolitical programs.
– Yet here, the apparition serves as the driving horizon of a national congress with papal legate and indulgences. That inflation of apparition cult prefigures later manipulations—where such devotions, often theologically ambiguous, become instruments to divert attention from the true frontlines: the battle against modernism and Freemasonry already unmasked by St. Pius X in Pascendi and Lamentabili.
– It is noteworthy that while St. Pius X used his authority to anathematize modernist theses and condemn pseudo-mystical movements, John XXIII uses his to crown an apparition-centric spectacular piety that leaves modernist infiltration unmentioned and unchallenged.
4. Mechanized Indulgence Without Doctrinal Warning:
– The letter grants the legate faculty to impart a plenary indulgence after pontifical Mass, under the usual conditions.
– Authentic indulgence doctrine assumes:
– valid jurisdiction,
– true papal authority,
– valid sacraments,
– right doctrine regarding sin, purgatory, and satisfaction (cf. Trent, Session 25).
– Here:
– there is no reminder of the necessity of being in the state of grace,
– no warning against sacrilegious communions,
– no mention of confession or true contrition.
– The indulgence is presented in a mechanistic, event-linked form—precisely the legal shell that a paramasonic structure occupying Roman institutions can later exploit while emptying doctrine from within.
– When the one who claims to grant it is himself architect of a rupture with the prior Magisterium, the indulgence regime is co-opted into the apparatus of deception.
Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief): to attach plenary indulgence and pontifical ritual to an apparition-based congress presided over by an agent of the coming council is to catechize the faithful that this new orientation is continuous and safe—when in reality it prepares the stage for the destruction of the Most Holy Sacrifice and the tyranny of a neo-church.
Symptomatic Revelations of the Conciliar Syndrome
This brief letter, read in light of the integral pre‑1958 Magisterium, manifests several structural pathologies that would soon blossom in the “conciliar sect”:
1. Apparitionism as Political Technology:
– The Lourdes centenary and a Marian Congress in a geopolitically critical, persecuted region are not random. They create an emotionally charged, media-friendly environment in which Rome appears as tender, close, Marian—while in the background doctrinal and liturgical changes are being prepared.
– Apparition-centered events allow control of the narrative: Marian language can be invoked universally, even by those who intend to relativize dogma and reshape ecclesiology.
2. Silence on Modernism and Freemasonry:
– St. Pius X in Lamentabili and Pascendi explicitly condemns:
– denial of Scriptural inerrancy,
– evolution of dogma,
– reduction of Revelation to religious experience,
– re-interpretation of Christ and the Church according to modern philosophy.
– Pius IX denounces masonic and liberal sects as chief agents of the war against the Church.
– This 1959 letter, coming after decades of documented infiltration, says nothing. This omission is not neutral; it normalizes amnesia. While the enemies of Christ intensify their assault, the occupant in Rome prefers to send sweet Marian greetings and indulgences, refusing to arm the faithful intellectually and spiritually against the real apostasy.
3. Instrumentalization of Mission Territories:
– Vietnam, like other lands of martyrdom, is used as a stage to display a benevolent global figurehead united to Marian devotion.
– Yet there is no stern exhortation:
– to preserve the integrity of catechesis,
– to resist syncretism,
– to uphold the uncompromising condemnation of false religions and ideologies.
– Instead, the Congress is framed as a devotional celebration—an ideal environment where, under the banner of Mary, a softened conciliar ecclesiology can be introduced without triggering immediate resistance.
4. Export of a Pre‑Council Illusion:
– By clothing the nascent revolution in familiar vestments—Latin, Marian themes, indulgences, legates—John XXIII administers to the faithful an illusion of continuity.
– This is the essence of the conciliar fraud: retain forms and vocabulary long enough to lull consciences while the content is methodically inverted.
– Once the council and its aftermath unfold, the same apparatus that celebrated Marian congresses will sanction:
– liturgical vandalism,
– ecumenical betrayal,
– religious liberty against Christ’s Kingship,
– coexistence with communism and Freemasonry.
Thus the Saigon letter is a small but telling piece of the puzzle: a Marian mask for a modernist metamorphosis.
The Only Authentic Remedy: Return to Integral Pre‑1958 Doctrine
Confronted with such texts, the only Catholic response—measured solely by the immutable doctrine prior to the conciliar usurpation—is:
– to refuse the sentimental exploitation of Marian devotion as cover for doctrinal surrender,
– to reaffirm:
– *Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus* (outside the Church no salvation),
– the social Kingship of Christ over individuals, families, and states, as doctrinally defined and non-negotiable,
– the incompatibility of Catholic faith with liberalism, socialism, modernism, and all forms of naturalism (Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XI),
– the binding force of condemnations such as the Syllabus and Lamentabili, which anathematize precisely the tendencies later enthroned by the conciliar sect.
Authentic Marian devotion is inseparable from:
– full adherence to defined dogma,
– hatred of heresy,
– love for the Most Holy Sacrifice according to the Roman rite as codified and defended before its conciliar deformation,
– public recognition of Christ as King and Mary as Queen within the one visible, indefectible Church.
Any structure or figure that uses Mary’s name to dissolve these truths, to gloss over modernism, or to habituate the faithful to a counterfeit continuity, betrays both Christ and His Mother.
In this light, the 1959 “Exeunte Iubilari” letter stands not as a shining example of Marian pastoral care, but as an early, polished fragment of the strategy by which the paramasonic neo-church wrapped its revolution in the language of piety, in order to disarm resistance and obscure its assault on the foundations of the Catholic religion.
Source:
Exeunte Iubilari Anno – Ad Gregorium Petrum Tit. Sancti Bartholomaei in Insula, S. R. E. Presb. Card. Agagianian, Ciliciae Armenorum Patriarcham ac Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide propraefect… (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025