Dated 24 June 1959, this Latin letter of John XXIII congratulates Alfonso Castaldo on the 25th anniversary of his episcopal ordination, praising his pastoral initiatives in Pozzuoli and Naples, commending his social, charitable, and educational works, and granting him the faculty to impart the so-called papal blessing with plenary indulgence on the occasion of the jubilee.
The Cult of the Episcopal Functionary in the Dawn of the Conciliar Revolution
This short text, though apparently harmless, is a distilled specimen of the new religion being installed in 1959: a sentimental, horizontal, bureaucratic piety that glorifies the human administrator, cloaks structural apostasy under elegant Latin, and empties the Catholic episcopate of its supernatural and sacrificial character.
From Successor of the Apostles to Decorated Social Manager
On the factual level, the letter is almost entirely a panegyric of career and administration.
John XXIII addresses Castaldo as a model bishop because, as the letter enumerates, he:
“sedulously visited” the diocese of Pozzuoli, increased the number of parishes, promoted the local clergy and Catholic Action, renewed the seminary, founded hospices, and multiplied works of charity and assistance; later, in Naples, as coadjutor, apostolic administrator, then archbishop, he is credited with “varia et multiplici actio” that produced “maximae utilitates”, especially in education.
Even before we reach the theological heart of the matter, the ideological profile is evident:
– The decisive criteria of praise are:
– organizational efficiency,
– expansion of structures,
– social and educational activity,
– public recognition from civil society.
– Almost nothing is said about:
– preaching of the integral Catholic faith against modern errors condemned by Pius IX and St. Pius X,
– defense of the flock against socialism, liberalism, indifferentism, and Freemasonry,
– cultivating the spirit of penance, reparation, Eucharistic devotion to the *Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary*,
– zeal for the salvation of souls in the face of judgment, hell, and the necessity of remaining in the state of grace.
The post of bishop is thus implicitly lowered from being a guardian of the deposit of faith and judge of error (*custos fidei*, *iudex erroris*) to being an effective director of works and shepherd of civilly appreciable “utilities.” This is the embryonic profile of the conciliar episcopate: not the Athanasius standing against the world, but the smiling mediator in harmony with it.
The letter culminates in the rhetorical flourish:
“gemina messis ab uno repetitur satore” – “a double harvest from one sower.”
Yet that “harvest” is described in purely naturalistic categories: social aid, pedagogy, popularity. A harvest of grace, conversions from error, trampled heresies, restored confessional states? Silence.
This silence is not accidental. It is programmatic.
Language of Flattery as a Symptom of Doctrinal Emptiness
At the linguistic level, every sentence is soaked in courtly flattery and bureaucratic optimism.
Characteristic elements:
– Excessive personal exaltation:
– Castaldo is portrayed as “boni pastoris exemplar”, the “example of the good shepherd,” on the basis of external works, without a single mention of his duty to defend doctrine, condemn error, and exercise canonical discipline.
– Instrumentalized Augustinian citation:
– John XXIII cites Augustine:
“Help us both by praying and obeying, that it may delight us not so much to preside over you as to be of service to you”
(Sermon 340).
– Augustine spoke as a bishop conscious of his obligation to teach the whole counsel of God and to fight heresy. Here the quote is used to reinforce a soft-focus image of the bishop as one who “serves” his people in a consensual, non-confrontational way, perfectly aligning with democratic and collegial sensibilities that would soon explode in the Council.
– Evasive piety:
– Vague formulas about “celestial help,” “plebs Dei,” and “spiritual gifts” are scattered as incense – but never grounded in the hard, dogmatic content of:
– the necessity of the Catholic faith,
– rejection of condemned errors,
– the kingship of Christ over society,
– the Church’s rights against the state.
We face refined rhetoric masking a real doctrinal evacuation. Pius XI in *Quas primas* denounced precisely such laicistic softening of Christ’s Kingship, insisting that civil rulers and societies must publicly submit to Christ’s law, or they reap chaos. Here, in 1959, in a major Italian see plagued by secularism and revolution, the antipope praises the bishop’s “great benefits” to citizens without even hinting that the state must be subject to Christ the King and His true Church.
The very tone reveals a proto-conciliar mentality: diplomatic, horizontal, allergic to sharp supernatural claims, non-judgmental toward the world that Pius IX in the *Syllabus* identified as organized rebellion against God.
Supernatural Mission Replaced by Naturalistic Social Action
From the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine prior to 1958, the most serious issue is not what is said, but what is systematically excluded.
Contrast:
– The traditional Magisterium (e.g. Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII) constantly:
– defined, defended, and armed the faithful against specific errors:
– *indifferentism*, *liberalism*, *socialism*, *modernism*, *religious freedom* in the condemned sense of neutral states and equality of cults,
– masonic and revolutionary conspiracies against the Church.
– emphasized:
– necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church for salvation,
– objective duty of civil authority to protect the true religion and repress public attacks on it (cf. *Syllabus* propositions 15-18, 55; *Quas primas*),
– immutable character of dogma (*Lamentabili sane exitu*, *Pascendi*).
– This letter:
– has no doctrinal content beyond the barest banalities;
– does not call the bishop to be vigilant against the very errors ravaging Italy and Europe (laicism, Communism, masonic liberalism, moral dissolution);
– presents the success of the episcopate largely in terms of:
– charity institutions,
– educational initiatives appreciated “even publicly” by society,
– expansion of parishes and Catholic Action as sociological networks.
This is classic modernist naturalism: the Church is retold as humanitarian, educational, social, culturally useful. Grace, dogma, the supernatural order are reduced to a scented backdrop. Such reduction is precisely what Pius X condemned: reinterpreting Catholic life as a religious “experience” expressed in ethical and social action, while denying the permanent, objective truths of Revelation.
Here the poison is subtle but real:
– By praising a bishop almost exclusively as an efficient manager of natural goods, the letter:
– tacitly teaches bishops to seek recognition from the world,
– marginalizes their sacred duty to condemn the world’s errors.
Silentium de novissimis – silence on the last things (judgment, hell, sin, state of grace) – is itself an indictment. A text addressed to a bishop on his jubilee that does not even allude to the terrifying responsibility for souls (Heb 13:17), the account to be rendered to Christ the Judge, is already a betrayal of the episcopal office.
The False Aura of Authority: Indulgences as Cosmetic Cover
One of the most revealing elements is the grant:
“libenter id tibi concedimus, ut sacra sollemnia acturus ipse papalem Benedictionem cum indulgentia plenaria consueto more lucranda populo impertias.”
Translated:
“We gladly grant you this, that while celebrating the sacred solemnities you yourself may impart to the people the papal blessing with the plenary indulgence to be gained in the usual manner.”
Under traditional Catholic theology:
– Indulgences flow from the authority of the true Roman Pontiff and the Church’s treasury of merits.
– Their abuse or use as adornment of empty celebrations is culpable.
– They are ordered to the remission of temporal punishment for sin, presupposing:
– true contrition,
– sacramental confession,
– firm purpose of amendment,
– supernatural orientation toward salvation.
In this 1959 letter:
– The indulgence is tacked on as a ceremonial “spiritual gift” to crown a triumphalist career eulogy.
– There is no mention of conditions of serious conversion, contrition, or doctrinal fidelity.
– The language suggests more an honorific privilege for a celebrated dignitary than a grave instrument for purifying souls.
This is a symptom of a deeper lie:
– When one who inaugurates the conciliar apostasy poses as Pope and dispenses indulgences while promoting a new religion, the external forms are weaponized to anaesthetize consciences.
– Such gestures provide a counterfeit aura of Catholic continuity to a project that, in doctrine and praxis, leads away from the faith defined by previous pontiffs.
Simulacrum auctoritatis (a simulacrum of authority) is erected:
– the letter exudes “papal” style,
– but the content reveals the submission of supernatural realities to naturalistic, human-centered goals.
Conspicuous Omission of the Church’s Enemies
In the mid-20th century, and specifically in Naples and Pozzuoli, the dangers to souls were not abstractions:
– militant socialism and communism,
– Freemasonry, openly denounced by Pius IX and Leo XIII,
– moral decadence,
– doctrinal erosion among clergy and laity,
– nascent theological movements advocating:
– evolution of dogma,
– collegiality against papal primacy,
– religious liberty in the sense condemned in the *Syllabus*.
Authentic pre-1958 pontiffs constantly warned bishops:
– to guard seminaries from modernist infection;
– to combat secret societies;
– to defend Catholic schools from state usurpation.
In this letter:
– None of that appears.
– The seminary is praised merely because it was “refreshed” for forming “alumni for the Church’s hope,” without mentioning doctrinal rigor against modernism.
– Works of education are extolled, but there is no insistence that education must be strictly and integrally Catholic, opposed to liberal laicist norms condemned by Pius IX.
– There is no exhortation to resist secular state encroachments or Masonic influence; instead there is praise that Castaldo’s works were “even publicly recognized” – as if alignment with secular applause were a mark of ecclesial success.
This omission aligns perfectly with the conciliar project that would soon:
– stop speaking about Freemasonry as the “synagogue of Satan” organizing war on the Church (language firmly grounded in the pre-1958 Magisterium),
– cease condemning liberal states that separate Church and State,
– embrace religious liberty, ecumenism, and dialogue as principles.
The letter thus functions as a preparatory catechism in cowardice: the bishop is lauded as successful precisely insofar as he fits the expectations of the world that hates the Kingship of Christ.
Dilution of the Office: From Watchman of Dogma to Sentimental Patron
The theology of the episcopate presupposed by this text is already deformed.
Traditional doctrine (e.g. St. Cyprian, St. Augustine, the Council of Trent) understands the bishop as:
– successor of the Apostles,
– charged to:
– guard the deposit,
– condemn heresies,
– excommunicate obstinate corrupters of faith and morals,
– govern with real jurisdiction.
This letter, in stark contrast:
– Never mentions:
– the bishop’s duty to teach with authority against error,
– the obligation to discipline,
– the possibility of scandal or betrayal among clergy,
– the supernatural warfare with the world, the flesh, and the devil.
– Frames the bishop’s “great achievements” almost exclusively as:
– social charity,
– organizational efficiency,
– educational initiatives,
– popularity with “all sensible men” who “regard you with admiration.”
This is the precise inversion denounced by Pius X in *Pascendi*: the sacred hierarchy is transformed into a functional leadership of a religious-ethical association, whose authority flows upward from the “experience” and admiration of the community.
The Augustinian quote is neutered:
– Where Augustine trembles before his responsibility for souls and begs to be helped by the obedience of a flock he must lead to heaven through hard truth,
– John XXIII uses the line merely to depict a mild, sympathetic overseer whose “service” harmonizes with democratic sensitivities.
The result:
– The bishop ceases to be a thorn in the side of the world and becomes its honored collaborator.
Conciliar Fruits Enfolded in a Brief Letter
Seen symptomatically, this 1959 text already contains the essential DNA of the conciliar sect:
1. Anthropocentric focus:
– The central figure is not Christ the King demanding public submission, nor the faithful’s salvation from eternal damnation, but the celebrated human prelate and his social works.
2. Naturalistic reduction:
– Merit is measured by visible, natural fruits appreciated by the world.
– Supernatural realities (grace, dogma, sin) are left in the shadows.
3. Appeal to worldly approval:
– The letter rejoices that the bishop’s merits are recognized even publicly.
– No warning that friendship with this world is enmity with God.
4. Hollow sacramental language:
– “Papal blessing” and “plenary indulgence” are used as ornaments on a humanistic celebration, not as summons to repentance and doctrinal fidelity.
5. Total silence regarding condemned modern errors:
– The bishop is not urged to resist:
– modernism,
– democratic relativism,
– false religious liberty,
– masonic influence.
– This silence is aligned with the soon-to-be-launched program that would declare “opening to the world” as virtuous.
6. Softening of the notion of authority:
– Authority is depicted primarily in terms of benevolent service without doctrinal sharpness.
– This prepares the shift toward collegiality and the democratization of ecclesial structures.
In light of the unchanging pre-1958 Catholic doctrine, such a letter cannot be read as a harmless homage. It is an ideological text: a gentle mask covering the demolition of the episcopal office and of the public Kingship of Christ.
Conclusion: A Mirror of the Neo-Church’s Spiritual Emptiness
This short epistle confirms, in miniature, the spiritual bankruptcy of the emerging neo-church:
– It replaces the supernatural drama of salvation and judgment with human success narratives.
– It replaces vigilant guardians of the faith with celebrated administrators and social benefactors.
– It replaces militant confession of Christ’s sovereign rights with comfortable coexistence and desire for applause.
– It uses pious formulas and indulgence grants as cosmetic cover for this substitution.
Measured against the constant teaching crystallized in documents such as the *Syllabus of Errors*, *Quas primas*, and *Lamentabili*, this letter stands not in organic continuity, but in serene contradiction by omission: it silently repudiates what those documents insist upon – the primacy of dogma, the duty to condemn error, and the reign of Christ over all social and political life.
What appears here as courteous Latin praise is in truth a sign that the shepherds of the conciliar structure have already ceased to speak and act as Catholic bishops. The poison works not only through direct heresy, but also through the calculated absence of the very truths by which the faithful are saved.
Source:
Initi a te Episcopalis – Ad Alfonsum Tit. S. Calixti S. R. E. presbyterum Cardinalem Castaldo, Archiepiscopum Neapolitanum, Episcopum Puteolanum, quina lustra a suscepto episcopatu celebraturum (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025