A brief letter of Ioannes XXIII, dated April 4, 1959, congratulates the Franciscan superiors general on the 750th anniversary of Innocent III’s oral approbation of the Franciscan Rule, praises Saint Francis as model of evangelical poverty and charity, exhorts the Orders to fidelity to their Rule, fervent preaching, and exemplary life, and invokes Mary’s protection and a blessing for their apostolate. This apparently devout exhortation functions as a pious veil covering the nascent conciliar revolution that will exploit the Franciscan name to sanctify naturalism, anthropocentrism, and rebellion against the integral reign of Christ the King.
Conciliar Exploitation of Franciscan Poverty as a Banner of Apostasy
Historical Inversion: From Innocent III’s Authority to Ioannes XXIII’s Subversion
At the factual level, the letter anchors itself in a genuine and venerable datum: Innocent III’s confirmation of the Franciscan Rule as *disciplinae moderatrix* (moderatrix of Franciscan discipline). Ioannes XXIII recalls that this event is inscribed “in golden letters” in ecclesiastical annals and celebrates the “fertility of accumulated goods” it bore for the Church.
Here already irrupts the first fundamental falsification.
– Innocent III (Lateran IV, 1215) stands as one of the clearest exponents of the *plenitudo potestatis* of the Roman Pontiff, the supremacy of the Church over temporal powers, the condemnation of heresy, and the obligation of public Catholic order. He approved a Franciscan Rule in perfect submission to:
– the hierarchical Church,
– sacramental life,
– doctrinal exactitude,
– a poverty lived in adoration of the crucified King, never against the rights and possessions of the Church herself.
– Ioannes XXIII, the first in the line of conciliar usurpers, invokes Innocent III only to empty this heritage into a proto-conciliar rhetoric that will shortly culminate in the calling of a “pastoral” council, the aggiornamento, and the demolition of the very doctrinal edifice Innocent embodied. This is theological parasitism: borrowing pre‑1958 symbols as rhetorical capital to fund a revolution against their substance.
He extols Saint Francis as:
“pauper et dives, humilis et praecelsus, in Christum… figuratus, seraphicis incensus ardoribus”
(“poor and rich, humble and exalted, configured to Christ, inflamed with seraphic ardours”).
All this is superficially accurate, yet instrumentalized. Saint Francis is deployed not as champion of *integral* Catholic submission—who obeyed the papal command to cease unsanctioned preaching, sought confirmation in Rome, defended priests, venerated the Most Holy Sacrifice—but as emblem of a moralistic “poverty” and horizontal “humanism,” preparing the conciliar cult of Man.
The letter never once:
– affirms the unique salvific necessity of the Catholic Church;
– recalls the duty of submission of nations to Christ the King as proclaimed by Pius XI in Quas primas;
– warns against heresy, Modernism, or the Masonic sects whose action against the Church Pius IX unmasked in the Syllabus and related allocutions;
– stresses the doctrinal integrity of the Franciscan mission.
Instead, it wraps the revolution in seraphic tones. This is the method already condemned by Saint Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi: corrupt doctrine disguised as pious sentiment, *sub specie pietatis* (under the appearance of piety).
Rhetoric of Sweetness Concealing Doctrinal Silence
The linguistic texture of the letter is smooth, irenic, sentimental. This tone is not accidental but symptomatic.
Key features:
– Abundance of gentle exhortations:
– “piis laetitiis festisque ritibus”
– “suave et optabile”
– “semper laetari et facere bene”
– “vita vestra loquatur”
– Absence of martial or juridical categories:
– no *militia Christi*,
– no denunciation of error,
– no call to combat the enemies of the Church,
– no insistence upon doctrinal orthodoxy as condition of true Franciscan identity.
The letter’s most revealing passage states that Franciscans must show both to a world rushing into sin and to “well‑behaved children of the Church” how sweet it is to honour God with little, to be content with poverty, to rejoice and “do good.” The entire supernatural horizon is reduced to a moralistic aesthetic of simplicity.
This vocabulary operates as linguistic anesthesia:
– “Poverty” is detached from its dogmatic context (adoration, propitiation, submission to the Cross, obedience to the Church).
– “Doing good” is abstracted from the necessity of the state of grace, sacramental life, and true faith.
– “Joy” is opposed implicitly to the ascetical realism of sin, judgment, and hell, which are never named.
Such silence is itself a doctrinal statement. What Saint Pius X warned in Pascendi is visible: the substitution of moral sentiment and “experience” for revealed truth and dogma. When a purported “supreme pastor” addresses the sons of Saint Francis in 1959 without a single explicit warning against Modernism—after Lamentabili, after Pascendi, after the repeated condemnations of liberalism, indifferentism, socialism, and Freemasonry by the Popes of the previous century—this is not omission by accident. It is programmatic.
The greatest scandal in this letter is not what it says, but what it deliberately refuses to say: no condemnation of modern errors, no defense of the objective rights of Christ the King over societies, no affirmation that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. This calculated silence is an index of apostasy.
Naturalistic Humanism under the Franciscan Mask
A central sentence unveils the naturalistic axis of the text. Ioannes XXIII observes that, due to “the marvelous progress of the arts,” men “inflated by insane pride” fall into atheism or neglect of divine law, thinking themselves self‑sufficient, threatened by a kind of “wintry cold” without the spiritual sun. So far, a seemingly Catholic lament.
But the proposed remedy?
Francis “should somehow return to earth” through his followers, as a herald of penance and charity, to recall those enslaved by harmful desires to “better things.”
Where is:
– the explicit call to return to the one true Church as societas perfecta, possessing exclusive rights against the State (Syllabus, 19, 55)?
– the proclamation that all nations must publicly adore Christ as King (Pius XI, Quas primas)?
– the demand for rejection of false religions, secret societies, and modernist theology?
Instead, we see a proto-conciliar moral humanitarianism: Francis as universal symbol of peace, disarmed simplicity, dialogue with the world, eventually instrumentalized for ecologism, pacifism, and religious syncretism in the later conciliar sect.
Compare with the pre‑1958 magisterium:
– Pius XI in Quas primas teaches that only by subjecting individuals and nations to the reign of Christ can true peace and order exist. Religious indifferentism and secularism are condemned as a “plague.”
– Pius IX in the Syllabus rejects as errors:
– the equality of all religions before the law,
– the separation of Church and State,
– the reduction of the Church to a merely moral influence.
Ioannes XXIII carefully avoids reaffirming these doctrinal positions. The entire Franciscan vocation is horizontalized as a soft corrective to immoderate consumption and atheistic arrogance, not as a militant instrument for the restoration of Catholic civilization. We are no longer in the world of Innocent III, who summoned a crusade and defined dogma; we are watching the construction of a post‑dogmatic, “pastoral” Franciscanism—useful to the nascent neo‑church as a friendly face for its reconciliation with “modern civilization,” precisely condemned by the true Popes.
Here the shift is exact: from Saint Francis as penitent subject of the Church Militant to “Francis” as mascot of the conciliar cult of man.
Instrumental Obedience: Attachment to the “Apostolic See” as Tool of the Revolution
Ioannes XXIII appeals to the Franciscans’ traditional attachment to the Apostolic See:
“Apostolicae Sedi ex instituto et more vestro in exemplum addicti…”
(“devoted to the Apostolic See by your institute and custom, as an example”).
Superficially, this seems orthodox: Franciscan loyalty to Peter. In reality, within the concrete historical context of 1959, this exhortation functions as an invitation to unconditional submission to the new conciliar program that Ioannes XXIII is preparing: the council, liturgical “reform,” ecumenism, religious liberty.
The strategy is subtle:
– Invoke the authentic Franciscan vow of obedience.
– Transfer its object from the perennial, doctrinally defined Roman Primacy to the person of a revolutionary usurper.
– Thus co‑opt the Orders as shock‑troops for the coming apostasy: preaching a “Gospel” adjusted to “the needs of our time.”
He commands them:
“in verbi Dei praedicandi munus prisco animi ardore et novis, si oportet, aetati nostrae rationibus et viis congruentibus incumbatis”
(“to apply yourselves to the office of preaching the word of God with the ancient ardour of soul and, if necessary, with new methods and ways suited to our age”).
This is the essence of the modernist tactic condemned by Saint Pius X:
– retain traditional vocabulary (“ancient ardour”),
– inject the evolutionary principle (“new methods and ways suited to our age”),
– unsettle the stable sense of doctrine by pastoral experimentation.
The phrase *“si oportet”* (“if necessary”) masks a non‑negotiable agenda: it will be “necessary” because the conciliar sect will impose it—new liturgy, new ecumenism, new religious liberty—all justified in the name of pastoral adaptation. The Franciscans are here gently maneuvered into complicity.
Obedience severed from truth becomes the instrument of tyranny; “loyalty” to a conciliar usurper becomes disloyalty to the perennial Magisterium.
Deliberate Omission of the Modernist Threat: A Condemnation by Silence
Assessing omissions is crucial.
By 1959:
– Modernism had already been identified as “the synthesis of all heresies” (Pascendi).
– The subversive action of Masonic and liberal forces against the Church and Christian states had been extensively documented and condemned by Pius IX, Leo XIII, Saint Pius X, and Pius XI.
– The doctrinal authority of Lamentabili, Pascendi, the Syllabus, and numerous encyclicals against indifferentism, socialism, laicism, and rationalism was firmly established.
In a letter to the spiritual sons of Saint Francis—so often at the front of preaching and pastoral life—one would expect:
– a solemn recall of these condemnations;
– a grave warning not to dilute poverty into social ideology;
– a demand for doctrinal vigilance against the new theology spreading in universities and seminaries.
Instead, nothing.
This is doctrinally decisive. The usurper:
– speaks of atheism vaguely as coldness,
– never identifies its doctrinal roots in rationalism and liberalism condemned by the pre‑1958 Popes,
– exhorts to a life that “speaks” by example, but does not command explicit combat against error.
The result is:
– a depoliticized, de‑dogmatized Franciscanism,
– ripe to be weaponized as the smiling missionary arm of a neo‑church that will:
– sign documents on religious liberty against the Syllabus,
– dissolve the notion of the Catholic confessional State,
– embrace false ecumenism,
– and progressively evacuate the Most Holy Sacrifice in favor of a communal table rite.
The silence regarding Modernism in such a context is not benign; it is a practical repudiation of Saint Pius X and a signal that the conciliar sect is free to proceed.
Abuse of Saint Francis Against the Hierarchical and Sacrificial Church
Saint Francis’s authentic charism is inseparable from:
– adoration of the Eucharistic Christ and trembling reverence for priests who alone confect the Sacrifice;
– strict obedience to the Roman Pontiff as guardian of doctrine and judge of heresy;
– zealous preaching of conversion, penance, and adherence to the Catholic faith as necessary for salvation.
The letter of Ioannes XXIII:
– never mentions the Most Holy Sacrifice or Eucharistic adoration;
– never invokes the horror of sacrilege or necessity of confession;
– never preaches that those outside the Church must enter Her to be saved;
– never calls Franciscans to defend the liturgy or doctrine against profanation.
Instead, it proposes:
– “humility, meekness, modesty, continence, candour,” all true virtues,
– but abstracted from their doctrinal foundations and easily assimilated to mere humanitarian ethics.
This reduction prepares:
– caricatures of “Franciscan” activism:
– pacifist, ecological, egalitarian, often indifferentist;
– embracing “dialogue” instead of evangelization;
– relativizing dogma in favour of “witness” and “presence.”
The conciliar sect will later enthrone a counterfeit “Franciscan” spirit precisely along these lines: a sentimental poverty used against the rights, worship, and majesty of God, and to justify the demolition of ecclesiastical structures in the name of the poor.
Thus the usurper instrumentalizes Franciscan poverty against the Church’s own divine constitution, turning sons of the Seraphic Patriarch into foot soldiers of the neo‑church.
Perverse Unity: Varietas as Pretext for Doctrinal Dilution
Ioannes XXIII refers approvingly to the “variety” among Franciscan institutes, allowed by God, and exhorts that this variety should spur emulation of better “charismata.”
On the surface, this is a harmless admonition to mutual edification. In the conciliar context, however, “varietas” and “charismata” become the code words for:
– pluralization of the religious life,
– experimental formation,
– inculturation,
– and finally the relativization of Rule and tradition under the pretext of “diverse gifts of the Spirit.”
Pre‑1958 Catholic doctrine teaches:
– the stability of religious rules,
– the duty of superiors to preserve their institute’s spirit in fidelity to its founder,
– the subordination of “charisms” to hierarchical judgment and doctrine.
The post‑1958 neo‑church will:
– exploit such language to justify radical experiments,
– emptying Franciscan life of choir, habit, penance, and common observance,
– while claiming continuity under the seal of “the council” and papal approval.
This letter is structurally aligned with that maneuver:
– it praises the founders,
– insinuates adaptation,
– omits any juridical strictness,
– and offers an early template of “obedience to the council” under the mantle of Saint Francis.
Doctrinal unity is quietly replaced by pastoral pluralism; fidelity to the Rule by a fluid “charismatics” compatible with Modernism.
Christ the King Silenced: Betrayal of Quas Primas in Franciscan Garb
From the standpoint of unchanging Catholic teaching, perhaps the gravest doctrinal vacuum is the complete absence of the public Kingship of Christ.
Pius XI, in Quas primas, defined:
– that the rejection of Christ’s reign over societies is the root of modern disorder,
– that rulers and states must publicly recognize and honour Christ and His Church,
– that peace and order are impossible where laws are not grounded in His authority.
Franciscan spirituality, historically, is entirely consonant with this:
– it is not anarchic or egalitarian,
– but profoundly hierarchical and Christocentric, adoring the King crucified, not enthroning man.
Ioannes XXIII mentions:
– “Evangelii libertatem et regnum” (the freedom and kingdom of the Gospel),
but:
– never specifies that this kingdom is the visible, juridically constituted Catholic Church,
– never demands the submission of nations to Christ’s social Kingship,
– never denounces liberal errors as Pius IX and Pius XI did.
Instead, the lexicon of liberty and kingdom is left vague, susceptible to re‑interpretation:
– as interior freedom,
– as moral improvement,
– compatible with pluralistic, secular states.
This ambiguity is precisely the method of the conciliar sect:
– keep enough Catholic words to reassure the unsuspecting,
– hollow them from within by omitting their defined doctrinal content,
– prepare the acceptance of religious liberty and ecumenism as “developments.”
When Christ’s Kingship is left implicit in such a letter, it is already practically denied in favor of the conciliar project of coexistence with error.
Conclusion: A Pious Envelope for the Program of the Neo-Church
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, measured solely by pre‑1958 doctrine and the binding condemnations of Modernism, this letter is theologically symptomatic and spiritually toxic:
– It parasitically uses Innocent III and Saint Francis to clothe a new orientation that:
– refuses to confront modern errors explicitly,
– reduces Franciscan poverty to an ethical aesthetic,
– instrumentalizes religious obedience to secure compliance with an impending revolution.
– It exhibits the linguistic marks of the conciliar mentality:
– sugary rhetoric,
– affective moralism,
– deliberate doctrinal ellipses,
– promotion of “new ways suited to our age” as norm.
– It prepares the Franciscan families not to defend the Most Holy Sacrifice, dogma, and the social reign of Christ, but to accompany the construction of the Church of the New Advent:
– a paramasonic structure founded on human dignity, dialogical coexistence, and liturgical desolation.
Thus, beneath the devout Latin and scriptural citations, we discern a decisive mutation: the Franciscan banner enlisted not under the Cross of the King of kings, but in service of a conciliatory, naturalistic, and anthropocentric project that the pre‑1958 Magisterium had already anathematized. This letter stands as an early manifestation of the systemic apostasy that will unfold in the conciliar sect, betraying the memory of Innocent III, the spirit of Saint Francis, and the rights of Our Lord Jesus Christ over His Church and all nations.
Source:
Cum Natalicia – Ad Augustinum Sépinski, Ordinis Fratrum Minorum Ministrum Generalem; Victorium Costantini, Ordinis Fratrum Minorum Conventualium Ministrum Generalem; Clementem A Milwaukee, Ordinis Fra… (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025