Venerable Caesar D’Amato is here congratulated by antipope John XXIII for preparing celebrations of the 19th centenary of the arrival of Saint Paul in Rome. The text recalls Paul’s desire to see Rome, praises the Roman faithful who went out to meet him, extols Rome’s unique glory as the city of Peter and Paul, and urges solemn ceremonies, scholarly talks, and pious commemorations so that Paul’s doctrine and martyrdom be more deeply known and honoured. It ends with a “blessing” upon all engaged in these observances.
Behind this seemingly devout rhetoric stands a calculated liturgical‑pastoral maneuver: the instrumentalization of Saint Paul to crown the nascent conciliar revolution, replacing the integral faith with an irenic, purely celebratory cult of the Apostle emptied of his doctrinal intransigence and subordinated to a usurped “Petrine” authority in open rupture with Catholic Tradition.
Saint Paul as a Banner for the Conciliar Revolution
From Apostolic Zeal to a Hollow Anniversary Cult
On the surface, the letter appears unobjectionable: it speaks of Saint Paul’s journey (Acts 28), of the Roman Christians meeting him at the Appian Way, of Rome’s singular privilege of the relics of Peter and Paul, of the need to know Paul’s doctrine more deeply, with a citation of Saint John Chrysostom.
Yet on the factual level, several elements reveal the underlying operation.
1. The choice of 1959:
– Dated 15 December 1959, shortly after John XXIII announced the council that would become Vatican II (25 January 1959), it is part of the same ideological horizon: an early attempt to present the “Apostle of the Gentiles” as patron of a new opening, a “pastoral” turning, preparatory to the erasure of the dogmatic militancy that characterized Paul and all true Popes.
– This synchrony is not accidental but symptomatic: the invocation of Paul prepares a reinterpretation of his universality as justification for ecumenism, religious liberty, and anthropocentric “dialogue” later solemnized by the conciliar and post‑conciliar usurpers.
2. The selective praise:
– The text lauds the Romans who went to meet Paul and exhorts contemporary Romans to honour him, but there is no call to imitate his *doctrinal severity*, his condemnations of heresy, his anathemas against false gospels (cf. Gal 1:8–9), his separation from enemies of the Cross (Phil 3:18–19).
– Paul is presented as a figure of “spiritual grace” and edification, not as an intransigent defender of the unique, exclusive truth of Christ and His Church.
3. The function of the commemorations:
– John XXIII urges celebrations, gatherings, conferences, the highlighting of the “honour and greatness” Rome received through Paul’s arrival.
– This is entirely horizontalized: historical prestige, cultural memory, “grand” anniversaries. Nowhere is there a call to public penance, to the social reign of Christ, to the condemnation of the modern apostasy condemned by Pius IX, Leo XIII, Saint Pius X, and Pius XI.
– The entire program reduces to a safe, irenic, museum‑like veneration of Paul, detached from the burning relevance of his doctrine against error in every age.
Already here the conciliar method is evident: retain devotional and biblical language, drain it of its dogmatic cutting edge, and deploy it as a pious façade for an ecclesial mutation.
Language of Piety Masking the Usurpation of Authority
On the linguistic level, the epistle is instructive. Its Latinity is formally correct, adorned, apparently traditional. Yet its rhetoric betrays a subtle redirection.
1. Controlled exaltation of Rome:
– The letter repeats that Rome is blessed because it received Peter and Paul and preserves their relics; this is clearly true in itself.
– But this emphasis functions here to confer symbolic legitimacy upon the very structures now occupied by a paramasonic, post‑1958 hierarchy: “this” Rome, managed by John XXIII, self‑identifies seamlessly with the Rome of Peter and Paul.
– There is no awareness, no warning, no discernment that the greatest attacks of the “synagogue of Satan” (Pius IX, Syllabus context) and freemasonry are directed precisely at seizing and inverting the Roman center. Instead, the occupiers clothe themselves in the names of the Apostles.
2. Sweetened pastoralism:
– The text urges that Paul’s teaching be “known more deeply” and “as it were pressed into the very marrow of life” through celebrations.
– But it carefully avoids any concrete doctrinal content. There is no mention of:
– Paul’s condemnation of those who corrupt the Gospel.
– His vigorous discipline against immoral and scandalous members.
– His doctrine on the subordination of earthly powers to Christ.
– The tone is devotional but deliberately vague. This is quintessential conciliar rhetoric: pious atmospherics without dogmatic precision.
3. Absence of polemical edge:
– Classic papal documents regarding Saint Paul, composed in the spirit of *integral* doctrine, stress his role as *doctor gentium* who combats error and idols.
– Here, John XXIII avoids conflict, avoids denunciation of contemporary impiety, avoids naming modernism, communism, freemasonry, liberalism. One reads only of “celebrations” and “festivities” as if the world and Rome were not already sunk in apostasy—precisely what Pius X had called *Modernismus, omnium haeresum collectum* (“Modernism, the synthesis of all heresies”).
This gentle, harmonizing language is not innocent. *Verba mollia, opera dura* (soft words, hard deeds). While sounding Catholic, it prepares the faithful to accept a pseudo‑magisterium that will, shortly thereafter, authorize the greatest doctrinal and liturgical devastation in history.
Concealing Paul’s True Doctrine on the Church and the Gospel
The theological omissions are devastating. Measured against unchanging Catholic doctrine before 1958, the epistle is gravely deficient.
1. Silence on the absolute uniqueness of the Catholic Church:
– Saint Paul proclaims one Body, one Faith, one Baptism, one Lord (Eph 4:4–5).
– Saint Pius IX, in the Syllabus (propositions 15–18), condemns the notion that any religion can lead to salvation or that Protestantism is a mere form of the true religion.
– This letter, while addressed to a “bishop” and abbot of Saint Paul Outside the Walls, never explicitly asserts that Paul came to found, strengthen, and seal in blood the one exclusive Roman Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
– In 1959, amidst errors spread everywhere, to talk of Paul’s arrival without explicitly affirming *unica Ecclesia vere Christi* (the only true Church of Christ) is not “neutral”; it is an evasion.
2. No warning against modernist exegesis:
– Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi (Saint Pius X) had condemned:
– denial of inspiration,
– historicization and mythologizing of miracles,
– reduction of dogma to consciousness and experience.
– If John XXIII were acting as a true guardian of Paul’s memory, addressing a basilica dedicated to the Apostle, he would at least:
– recall that Paul’s epistles are divinely inspired, free from error,
– condemn those who distort Paul to justify liberalism, false ecumenism, denial of Church authority.
– Instead, nothing. The epistle praises “talks” and “lectures” (*acroases fiant*) without any doctrinal criteria. In the context of the late 1950s theological world, this functionally authorizes modernists to occupy Paul’s name and twist his teaching, which is precisely what happened at and after Vatican II.
3. No reminder of the primacy of the Cross and the state of grace:
– Saint Paul speaks obsessively of:
– justification by grace in Christ,
– the necessity of living in a state of grace,
– fear and trembling regarding salvation (Phil 2:12),
– the danger of damnation (1 Cor 6:9–10; Gal 5:19–21).
– The epistle reduces all this to a vague exhortation to “know Christian doctrines more deeply” and to consider Paul’s labours “for our profit.”
– Absent:
– the Four Last Things,
– the necessity of conversion from mortal sin,
– the gravity of heresy.
– Once more, this vacuum is not accidental. *Silentium de supernaturalibus*—silence about supernatural realities—is the gravest accusation: it reveals a naturalistic and sentimental religion at work.
4. No call to the social reign of Christ:
– Pius XI in *Quas Primas* teaches that there can be no peace until individuals and states recognize the reign of Christ the King and submit laws and institutions to His sceptre.
– Saint Paul’s preaching in the Acts and his Epistles undermines idolatrous states and demands Christ’s primacy over all.
– John XXIII’s letter, addressed to the city where political secularism and Masonic powers are entrenched, says nothing of Christ’s rights over society, nothing of the duty of Rome’s authorities to honour Christ and His Apostle, nothing of state sin and legislative apostasy.
– The Apostle is turned into a neutral “spiritual” figure, not the destructor of paganism and father of Christian civilization.
In sum, the letter’s theological content is not false by explicit heresy; it is corrupted by omissions that, in the historical context, serve the modernist project condemned by Saint Pius X and Pius IX: the reduction of dogma to inspirational background music for a new religion.
Symptom of a Deeper Apostasy: Paul Pressed into Service of the Neo-Church
From a symptomatic perspective, this short epistle prefigures and exemplifies the conciliar sect’s method:
1. Appropriation of Apostolic authority:
– The usurper John XXIII speaks as if seamlessly continuing the line of true Popes, using traditional formulas and invoking Saint Paul.
– Yet by 1959, he is already preparing the council that will:
– dilute the doctrine of the one true Church,
– extol “religious liberty” in the liberal sense condemned by the Syllabus,
– inaugurate false ecumenism with heretics and schismatics as if they shared a common baptismal “communion,”
– relativize the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff as defined by Vatican I.
– This letter is part of that psychological preparation: it habituates Catholics to accept teaching from his mouth clothed in apostolic references, so that when the revolutionary texts arrive, they appear as “development.”
2. Celebration without conversion:
– The call for solemn celebrations, academic lectures, and religious gatherings is thoroughly horizontal.
– There is no requirement for:
– public acts of reparation,
– condemnation of modernist theology,
– legislative correction by Catholic rulers (where they still exist),
– renewal of obedience to the pre‑1958 magisterium.
– This is precisely the mentality later denounced by integral doctrine: anniversaries, congresses, “years” and “jubilees” without doctrinal clarity and moral reform are spiritual narcotics.
3. Neutralization of Paul’s anti-modernist force:
– Saint Paul is the Apostle who:
– anathematizes any “other gospel” (Gal 1),
– orders separation from obstinate heretics (Tit 3:10–11),
– commands that immoral members be excluded (1 Cor 5),
– teaches the headship of Christ over the Church and over all creation (Col 1).
– These texts are a direct condemnation of the conciliar program:
– “hermeneutic of continuity” which masks rupture,
– religious indifferentism,
– democratization of authority,
– human‑centered liturgy.
– Therefore, to implement this revolution, the conciliar sect must keep Paul’s name but sever his doctrine from its real content; this letter is a mild but telling example of that neutralization.
4. The paramasonic background:
– Pius IX, in the Syllabus and related discourses, unmasks the role of Masonic sects as *synagoga Satanae* (synagogue of Satan) seeking to subjugate or abolish the Church.
– By the mid‑20th century, these forces had penetrated deeply into ecclesiastical structures.
– The letter contains not a single word of vigilance against these enemies who, historically, are most active in Rome and against the basilicas of Peter and Paul.
– The silence functions as practical complicity: instead of warning the faithful against the Masonic projects, the usurper confirms a serene narrative in which all is continuity and peace.
The Gravity of Omissions: When Silence Speaks Apostasy
In a short document, what is not said often reveals more than what is said. Measured against pre‑1958 magisterial teaching:
1. No reference to:
– The necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church as the Ark of Salvation (cf. repeated teachings of Popes and Councils).
– The condemnation of liberalism, indifferentism, socialism, communism, and laicism (cf. Syllabus of Errors; Leo XIII, Pius XI).
– The condemnation of Modernism (Lamentabili, Pascendi) and its methods of biblical “criticism.”
– The rights of Christ the King over states (Quas Primas).
2. Yet the letter is dated, public, and explicitly directed to the guardian of Saint Paul’s basilica, precisely where the Apostle’s memory is formative for doctrine and worship.
3. Thus:
– *Qui tacet consentire videtur* (he who is silent is seen to consent): by avoiding all reference to the doctrinal and moral battles raging at that time, John XXIII implicitly accepts the modernist infiltration and prepares the faithful to coexist peacefully with it.
– The letter’s “celebratory” tone, devoid of combativeness, is radically opposed to Saint Paul’s own spirit and to the papal tradition of forthright denunciation.
This is why the text’s theological and spiritual value is bankrupt: it instrumentalizes Catholic piety to feed an anti‑Catholic project while preserving an appearance of continuity.
Saint Paul’s Authentic Witness against the Neo-Church
To unmask the discordance, it suffices to recall key elements of Saint Paul’s teaching, in the light of pre‑1958 doctrine:
– Paul’s exclusivity of truth:
– He curses any other gospel, “even if an angel from heaven” preach it.
– The conciliar sect’s “new orientation” in faith and worship is precisely such “other gospel,” anthropocentric and liberal.
– Paul’s ecclesiology:
– One visible, hierarchical Body; not a federation of communities, not a vague “People of God” wherein all religions find a place.
– This stands against the post‑conciliar, ecumenical, interreligious confusion.
– Paul’s moral rigor:
– He commands exclusion of public fornicators, idolaters, heretics.
– The neo‑church tolerates, blesses, and promotes public sin and doctrinal aberration.
– Paul’s supernatural realism:
– Constant appeal to grace, to spiritual warfare, to the danger of damnation.
– The conciliar pastoral tone systematically evades these themes in favour of “dialogue,” optimism, human dignity without Christ’s kingship.
A genuine Catholic commemoration of the 19th centenary of Paul’s arrival in Rome, faithful to the Magisterium of Pius IX, Leo XIII, Saint Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII, would have:
– called Rome and the world to repentance,
– condemned the errors ravaging theology and morals,
– proclaimed anew that outside the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation,
– exalted the social reign of Christ the King,
– warned against the snares of liberalism, socialism, communism, and freemasonry,
– urged clergy and faithful to cling to the unaltered deposit of faith.
John XXIII’s letter does none of this. Its omissions, in its time and context, are not neutral—they are the velvet glove of a hand already engaged in dismantling the visible structures of the true Church to erect the Church of the New Advent.
Conclusion: The Apostle Cannot Be Claimed by the Usurpers
This epistle to Caesar D’Amato is a minor but revealing document of the conciliar revolution’s early phase. It shows:
– the exploitation of venerable devotions and apostolic figures,
– the controlled use of traditional language without traditional content,
– the systematic silence regarding the doctrinal and moral crisis,
– the implicit self‑legitimation of a hierarchy already deviating from the integral Magisterium.
Against this counterfeit, Saint Paul himself stands as an accuser:
– he anathematizes the innovators;
– he commands separation from heresy;
– he proclaims the absolute lordship of Christ and the unity of His Church.
Any structure, however Roman in façade, that refuses his full doctrine, that suppresses the condemnations of the Syllabus and Lamentabili, that dethrones Christ the King in society, has no right to cloak itself in his name.
Therefore, this letter, far from being a luminous homage to the Apostle of the Gentiles, is a subtle stage prop in the theater of the neo‑church, where Saint Paul’s image is paraded while his voice is muzzled. It must be read as one more piece of evidence that the post‑1958 paramasonic structure occupying Rome has no continuity with the Roman Catholic Church sanctified by the blood of Peter and Paul, but only parasitically exploits their memory to advance its own apostasy.
Source:
S. Paulus Apostolus – Ad Caesarium D'amato, Episcopum Tit. Sebastenum in Cilicia ac S. Pauli de urbe Abbatem, undevicesimo revoluto saeculo ex quo Sanctus Paulus Apostolus Romam venit, die 15 m. … (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025