The letter “Si ingratae mentis” of John XXIII, addressed to Antonio Caggiano and the Argentine hierarchy on the anniversaries of diplomatic relations with the Holy See and of the erection of several ecclesiastical provinces, offers formal thanks for “celestial gifts,” praises institutional expansion (new dioceses, parishes, schools, hospitals, Catholic Action), and extols the Argentine State’s decision to participate officially in the celebrations as a sign of harmony between “Petri Sedes” and the nation. Beneath its pious biblical ornament and courtly compliments, this text manifests the already-advanced substitution of supernatural Catholicity by diplomatic self-congratulation and national-religious humanism, prefiguring the conciliar sect’s total betrayal of the kingship of Christ in favor of the modern cult of the State and of man.
When Piety Becomes Protocol: John XXIII’s Praise of a Mutilated Church
From Apostolic Vigilance to Ceremonial Flattery: A Structural Perversion
This letter is a paradigmatic specimen of the emerging *Church of the New Advent*: the tone, priorities, and omissions are not accidental; they delineate a coherent program.
Key moves in the text (all from John XXIII’s letter):
– He frames silence about “divine benefits” as *ingratitudo* (“Si ingratae mentis est beneficia tacere divina”), then immediately applies this to the diplomatic and institutional milestones between Argentina and the “See of Peter” as if these political and bureaucratic facts were privileged epiphanies of grace.
– He celebrates the 25th anniversary of multiple archdioceses and dioceses erected by Pius XI, and the centenary of official relations between Argentina and the Holy See, as a double cause for national and ecclesial exultation.
– He enumerates as decisive fruits: more parishes, churches, clergy, religious, Catholic Action, schools, colleges, hospitals, charitable works; then overlays this inventory with Psalm 64: “Visitasti terram et irrigasti eam…”, as if every structural expansion were eo ipso a sign of divine benediction.
– He urges the hierarchy to use the celebrations to strive for “nova” initiatives “quae catholico nomini magis magisque prosint” – without defining doctrinal content, but presupposing that institutional growth and social influence themselves constitute Catholic progress.
– He extols the Argentine civil authorities for officially joining the religious commemorations, calling it a mark of “civil wisdom” and a “pledge” for further fruitful relations between Argentina and the Apostolic See.
On the surface: an innocuous, even “traditional” Latin letter. In reality: a polished piece of conciliar diplomacy that drains supernatural faith into state-approved religiosity, preparing precisely the apostasy condemned by the pre-1958 Magisterium.
Factual Level: Confusing Quantitative Expansion with Catholic Fidelity
At the factual level, the letter engages in a recurring modernist sophism: the quantitative growth of structures is presented as proof of qualitative fidelity to Christ.
The central factual pattern is:
– More ecclesiastical territories → proof of ecclesial vitality.
– More parishes, churches, clergy, religious houses, institutions → proof of the action of grace.
– State recognition and participation → proof of healthy Church–State relations and mutual benefit.
This logic is alien to integral Catholic ecclesiology.
1. The constant teaching of the Church affirms that the note of apostolicity and unity is measured by fidelity to doctrine, not by bureaucratic cartography or diplomatic longevity. The Syllabus of Errors (Pius IX) explicitly condemns the notion that the Church’s rights and dignity rest upon civil recognition or state concessions, and rejects as error the thesis that the State defines the rights of the Church or stands as source of ecclesiastical legitimacy (propositions 19, 39, 55).
2. Pius XI in Quas Primas grounds peace and social order not in “friendship” between nation and “Holy See” in a neutral sense, but in the public and juridical recognition of the universal kingship of Christ and the exclusive truth of the Catholic religion. He does not canonize mere concordats or anniversaries; he demands submission of public life to Christ’s law.
3. The letter of John XXIII never once recalls that all these schools, works, and Catholic Action organizations only serve their purpose if they uncompromisingly teach the integral faith, condemn error, and form souls for eternal life and the reign of Christ. Instead, he reads institutional expansion as self-evident sign of God’s favor.
Such “argumentation” is empirically and theologically void. History before 1958 was full of robust Catholic structures rotted internally by Liberalism, Modernism, Jansenism, nationalism, or collaboration with anti-Christian regimes. Institutional size and diplomatic cordiality are perfectly compatible with doctrinal treason.
The letter, by refusing even to hint at doctrinal conditions, trains bishops and faithful to equate “more structures + good relations with the State” with faithfulness to God. That is an inversion of Catholic criteria.
Linguistic Level: Devout Latin as a Veil for Naturalism
The rhetoric is deliberately soft, euphoric, and non-combative. Its language reveals far more by what it avoids than by what it states.
1. Psalmic language misapplied:
– John XXIII overlays administrative and diplomatic events with imagery:
“Visitasti terram et irrigasti eam… benedixisti germini eius.”
– This scriptural praise, in its original Catholic sense, concerns God’s sanctifying action, the outpouring of grace, fruitful conversion, and perseverance in justice.
– Here it is used to canonize:
– erection of dioceses,
– multiplication of works,
– harmony with civil authorities.
– This is a subtle profanation of the supernatural sense of Scripture, assimilating external prosperity to sanctity, without any mention of the conditions laid down by previous Popes: doctrinal orthodoxy, moral rigor, rejection of Liberalism, condemnation of secret societies, defense against Modernism.
2. Sterile complimentarianism:
– Phrases about “peculiar brightness” of Argentina in “Christian humanism,” about inspiring other nations by patriotic and religious virtue, remain wholly generic. There is no concrete, binding content: no denunciation of Freemasonry, socialism, laicism, false religions, or internal corruption.
– The Syllabus and Lamentabili, in contrast, name and anathematize specific errors. John XXIII replaces precise doctrinal judgment with uplifting adjectives.
3. Absence of warning:
– The vocabulary is antiseptically devoid of threats of judgment, of hell, of the necessity of the *status gratiae* (state of grace), of the danger of error.
– Instead of “anathema sit”, we find “laudamus,” “gratulemur,” “speramus,” “fausta ominamur.”
– This is not a mere stylistic preference; it is symptomatic of a shift from *pastor bonus* warning the flock (John 10) to diplomatic functionary flattering a national episcopate and its rulers.
The linguistic register manifests a practical naturalism: the things praised and desired are overwhelmingly temporal, social, institutional, and diplomatic; the supernatural is evoked decoratively, never with dogmatic edge.
Theological Level: Replacement of the Kingship of Christ with State-Friendly Catholicism
Measured by pre-1958 doctrine, the theological profile of this letter is gravely deficient.
1. Silence on the Exclusive Truth of the Catholic Faith
Nowhere does John XXIII remind the Argentine bishops or state authorities that:
– The Catholic Church is the only ark of salvation.
– The State has the duty to profess the true religion, to protect it, and to reject religious indifferentism.
– False religions are objectively evil and cannot be placed on equal footing with the true Church.
Pius IX (Syllabus, 15–18, 21, 55, 77–80) explicitly condemns:
– the idea that any religion leads to salvation,
– that Protestantism is a legitimate form of Christianity,
– that the State should be neutral or divorced from the Church,
– that the Roman Pontiff should “reconcile himself” with Liberalism and modern civilisation.
Pius XI in Quas Primas demands public recognition of Christ’s Kingship over individuals, families, and states. Peace is conditioned on subordination to His law.
John XXIII, while having a perfect opportunity, confines himself to:
“religionem sanctissimam, qua hominum societatis summa bona continentur, et Petri Sedem honore prosequi civilis quoque sapientiae nobile insigne est clarumque pignus.”
He reduces the State’s participation to an honorable sign of “civil wisdom.” There is no assertion that the State is bound in conscience to acknowledge Christ as King, nor that failure to do so is a sin against divine law. This is an implicit concession to the Liberal thesis—later dogmatized by the conciliar sect—that the Church and State can content themselves with mutual respect and “friendship” without the explicit juridical subordination of the State to Christ.
2. Idealization of Concord with a Masonic-Influenced Order
By 1959, Argentina, like most modern states, was marked by:
– strong Masonic and Liberal currents,
– secularized legal frameworks,
– growing acceptance of religious pluralism and the gradual erosion of confessional principle.
The integral Catholic response, as seen in Pius IX and Leo XIII, is to:
– condemn secret societies as instruments of the “synagogue of Satan,”
– unmask state usurpations in education, marriage, ecclesiastical appointments,
– defend the Church’s exclusive jurisdiction in spiritual and sacramental matters.
John XXIII says nothing. He simply:
– congratulates the “Supremos Moderatores” for participating,
– presents this as “clarum pignus” of future harmonious progress.
This harmony, built on silence about their obligations to Christ’s law, is not Catholic peace; it is the armistice of a Church preparing to submit to the world-system.
3. Vacuous Praise for Catholic Action and Institutions
He extols:
“Actio Catholica provecta; cuiuslibet generis scholae, Collegia… opera increbruerunt.”
But integral doctrine demands that such works:
– teach and defend the whole faith,
– resist Liberal and Modernist infiltration,
– form Catholics ready to reject compromises condemned in the Syllabus and Lamentabili.
Instead, this letter:
– gives blanket legitimation to Catholic Action, which in multiple countries had already become a vehicle of democratic, laicist, and proto-conciliar ideology;
– praises schools and works with no mention that they must oppose naturalism, Communism, Modernism, false ecumenism, etc.
Again, theological neutrality where the Magisterium had been fiercely precise. This is not innocent; it habituates the hierarchy to treat structures as good regardless of doctrinal content, a perfect preparation for the revolution of Vatican II, where those same structures become conduits of apostasy.
4. Misuse of Scripture for Institutional Self-Celebration
By applying Psalm 64 to the expansion of dioceses and diplomatic friendship, John XXIII implicitly equates:
– divine visitation and sanctification,
with
– the smooth functioning and growth of administrative and political arrangements.
Authentic Catholic theology distinguishes sharply between *gratia* and mere prosperity or visibility. Pius X, in condemning Modernism in Lamentabili and Pascendi, rejects any confusion between religious experience or historical success and revealed truth.
Here, supernatural terminology is instrumentalized to sanctify institutional self-satisfaction.
Symptomatic Level: This Letter as a Seed of the Conciliar Paradigm
Seen in the light of the pre-1958 Magisterium, this text is not an isolated “pastoral” note but a symptom and catalyst of the systemic deformation that culminates in the conciliar sect.
1. Shift from Guarding Doctrine to Managing Relationships
The letter is structurally about:
– anniversaries,
– diplomatic ties,
– ecclesiastical administration,
– public ceremonies.
Missing are:
– warnings against condemned errors rampant in Latin America (Liberalism, socialism, Freemasonry, Protestant sects),
– affirmation of the Syllabus’ principles as normative,
– exhortation to preach unpopular truths against the world.
This corresponds exactly to the mentality of the conciliar revolution:
– The “pope” becomes a convener of celebrations, a guarantor of good international manners, rather than a hammer of heresies.
– Bishops are encouraged to be efficient administrators and loyal partners of the State, not uncompromising confessors ready to clash with impious governments.
2. Preparation for Religious Freedom and False Ecumenism
By favoring:
– a politically presentable religion that values state recognition,
– “friendship” between nation and “Holy See” without demanding explicit submission to Catholic truth,
the letter spiritually conditions the episcopate to accept:
– the heretical notion of “religious freedom” as later articulated by the conciliar sect,
– the reduction of the Church to a “moral authority” within a pluralistic order,
– the betrayal of the principle that error has no rights and that the State must publicly honor the true God.
Nothing in the letter would prevent or resist that transition; everything in it inclines toward it.
3. The Cult of National Prestige and Humanistic “Christianity”
John XXIII presents Argentina as:
“terra christianae humanitatis cultu peculiari modo eluceat”
A land that should shine in the cultivation of “Christian humanism,” inspiring neighboring nations. But true Catholic teaching demands not “Christian humanism” as an undefined aura, but the explicit social reign of Christ, the submission of laws to divine and natural law, the extirpation of anti-Christian forces.
The phraseology of “Christian humanism” — combined with diplomatic euphoria — is a prelude to:
– the cult of man proclaimed by the conciliar sect,
– the redefinition of Christianity as a religiously colored humanism compatible with Masonic principles.
4. Total Absence of Combat Against Modernism
Only two years earlier, Pius XII still made reference to the ongoing struggle against doctrinal errors (albeit with decreasing vigor). Pius X had bound the Church with an oath against Modernism and condemned its principles in detail.
In this 1959 letter:
– No reference to Modernism,
– No call to maintain vigilance against condemned propositions of Lamentabili,
– No warning about doctrinal corruption in seminaries, universities, or Catholic Action.
The silence is deafening. When confronted with the grave threat that St. Pius X called “the synthesis of all heresies,” a supposed successor writes only about anniversaries and gives a blank check to structures already infected. This silence is not neutral; it is complicity.
The Betrayal of Supernatural Ends: Omissions that Condemn
The gravest indictment against this letter is not what it affirms, but what it consistently omits.
1. No mention of:
– the necessity of living and dying in the state of grace,
– the Four Last Things (death, judgment, heaven, hell),
– the Most Holy Sacrifice as propitiation for sins,
– the need for penance and reparation,
– the danger of error and heresy,
– the exclusivity of the Catholic Church for salvation.
2. No instruction to bishops:
– to defend marriage against civil usurpations,
– to resist state control of education condemned in the Syllabus,
– to expose Freemasonry and secret societies as sworn enemies of Christ and His Church,
– to discipline wayward clergy or denounce collaboration with anti-Christian political powers.
3. No differentiation between:
– honoring the true divine constitution of the Church,
– and celebrating a merely diplomatic “friendship” that is morally indifferent unless grounded in Christ’s kingship.
This studied omission of the supernatural order in its concrete, dogmatic demands is the surest sign of the internal revolution: the hierarchy is formed to think, speak, and rejoice within a horizontal frame, with doctrinal truth and eternal salvation relocated to the margins.
Silentium de supremis veritatibus (silence about the highest truths) in a solemn episcopal letter is not pastoral discretion; it is a sign of an authority already oriented toward another religion.
Condemned Principles Reintroduced under Pious Phrases
When we juxtapose this letter with the pre-1958 Magisterium, several condemned principles reappear in softened form:
– Proposition 55 of the Syllabus condemns the separation of Church and State. The letter, by speaking only of mutual honor and benefit, sidesteps the State’s duty to submit to the Church and Christ, tacitly legitimizing a de facto separation masked by ceremonies.
– Proposition 80 (Syllabus) condemns the idea that the Roman Pontiff ought to reconcile himself with liberalism and modern civilization. The tone and content of this letter are precisely a gesture of such reconciliation: no clash, no warning, only encouragement of a modus vivendi with liberal-national structures.
– Lamentabili condemns the reduction of dogma to historical or social forms and the subjugation of the Magisterium to the “living consciousness” or practical needs. This letter, by canonizing institutional and national success as signs of divine favor, implicitly indulges the very historicist mentality that Modernism uses to justify evolution of dogma and Church–world relations.
Thus the text is not merely weak; it is architecturally aligned with errors already solemnly rejected by true Popes.
Conclusion: A Harbinger of the Neo-Church’s Apostasy
John XXIII’s “Si ingratae mentis” is a deceptively small document. Yet from the perspective of integral Catholic teaching:
– It replaces the sharp, supernatural doctrine of the pre-1958 Magisterium with vague “Christian humanism” and institutional self-congratulation.
– It flatters civil power without reminding it of its obligation to the reign of Christ and the one true Church.
– It reads visible success and diplomatic concord as direct signs of God’s favor, ignoring the possibility — historically constant — that such favor is withdrawn precisely when pastors choose human approval over divine fidelity.
– It habituates bishops and faithful to a new paradigm in which anniversaries, expansions, and state smiles are treated as sacraments of grace, while dogma, anathema, and the fight against heresy recede into silence.
In short: this letter is an early, polished manifestation of the conciliar sect’s spirit — the spirit that enthrones man, pacifies governments, and slowly suffocates the Faith under a velvet shroud of optimistic rhetoric.
Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief): when the highest authority ceases, even in such letters, to speak as guardian of dogma and instead speaks primarily as chaplain of nations and institutions, he reveals that another religion is gestating. In that light, “Si ingratae mentis” stands not as a testimony of Catholic gratitude, but as a milestone on the road to the abomination that today occupies the once-holy places.
Source:
Si ingratae mentis – Ad Antonium Tit. S. Laurentii in Panisperna S. R. E. Card. Caggiano, Rosariensem Episcopum, et ad ceteros Argentinae Sacrorum Antistites, saeculo exeunte ab initis inter Petri Sed… (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025