Pius X’s centenary letter by John XXIII praises the “sweet image” of Pius X, approves and extols the solemn translation of his relics from St Peter’s Basilica to St Mark’s in Venice, appoints Giovanni Urbani as personal legate to preside in his name, and grants a plenary indulgence under usual conditions to the faithful participating in those celebrations. The entire text wraps genuine Catholic elements (veneration of a pre-conciliar pope, indulgences, liturgical solemnity) in the authority-claim and signature of the man who inaugurates the conciliar revolution, thereby turning the memory of the great antimodernist pope into a façade for the nascent neo-church and its systemic betrayal of his doctrine.
St. Pius X Instrumentalized: Modernist Usurper Cloaked in Antimodernist Vestments
Elevation of a Modernist Usurper over the Tomb of an Antimodernist Pope
At the factual level, the letter is brief and seemingly benign:
“Prima exacto saeculo postquam Decessor Noster tam veneratae memoriae, Sanctus Pius X, sacerdotalem ordinationem auspicato recepit, peropportunum initum est consilium transferendi urnam … a Basilica Vaticana ad Patriarchalem Venetiarum Basilicam Sancti Marci, ibique … praeclara sollemnia celebrandi.”
John XXIII (Angelo Roncalli), already a public suspect of modernist sympathies before 1958 and the one who would soon convoke the catastrophic Vatican II, presents himself as “Successor” of Pius X, praising the very Pontiff who solemnly condemned *Modernismus* as omnium haeresum collectum (“the synthesis of all heresies” – Pius X, Pascendi, 1907). This juxtaposition is not anodyne; it is the key.
Facts:
– Roncalli uses the centenary of Pius X’s priestly ordination (1858–1958/59) to:
– Sanction public veneration: transfer and exposition of the relics.
– Appoint Giovanni Urbani, Patriarch of Venice, as legate “carrying” his person.
– Attach a plenary indulgence to the celebrations.
– All these juridical-ritual elements presuppose what, from integral Catholic doctrine, is untenable:
– That Roncalli is a true Roman Pontiff.
– That his acts of jurisdiction are acts of the Church.
– That his liturgical and disciplinary dispositions flow from the same authority that armed Pius X against modernism.
This is the core contradiction: the letter attempts to wrap Roncalli’s usurped authority in the prestige of Pius X, while his entire project (already then, and manifest shortly after) stands in direct opposition to what Pius X fought, condemned, and anathematized.
From the perspective of unchanging pre-1958 doctrine:
– A manifest modernist cannot hold papal authority.
– As recalled in the supplied sedevacantist documentation: Bellarmine, Wernz–Vidal, and the 1917 Code (can. 188.4) indicate that public defection from the faith or notorious heresy severs one from ecclesiastical office ipso facto.
– Pius X himself, approving Lamentabili sane exitu and issuing Pascendi, established that modernism is incompatible not only with orthodoxy but with Christian membership itself.
Thus, the first and gravest fact is this: the letter is an act of self-legitimization by a modernist usurper invoking the name and relics of the chief antimodernist pope to cover the coming revolution.
Bland Sweetness and Calculated Silence: Linguistic Masking of Apostasy
The language of the letter is deliberately saccharine, sentimental, and non-doctrinal. Consider:
“Nos autem, qui, quoties subit mentem imago suavissima sancti Nostri Praedecessoris, antea in Sede ista Patriarchali, nunc in Cathedra beati Petri, ineffabili animi commotione perfundimur…”
Translation: “We, moreover, whenever the most sweet image of Our holy Predecessor comes to mind, formerly on this Patriarchal See, now on the Chair of blessed Peter, are filled with inexpressible emotion of soul…”
This phrase reveals several symptomatic features:
– Sentimentalism over doctrine. Pius X is reduced to an “image suavissima” – a “most sweet image” – an emotional icon. Nothing is said here of:
– His crushing condemnation of modernism in Pascendi Dominici Gregis.
– His approval of Lamentabili sane exitu, anathematizing precisely the ideas that Vatican II and the conciliar sect later enthroned.
– His uncompromising defense of the rights of Christ the King and the Church against liberalism and laicism.
– Self-legitimation formula. The clause “nunc in Cathedra beati Petri” (“now on the Chair of blessed Peter”) is slipped in without proof, as a self-referential assertion:
– It assumes that continuity of office is guaranteed by sentiment and historical succession, not by fidelity to the deposit of faith.
– It begs the question that the same See can be occupied by one who softens, in practice denies, and then systematically overturns the condemnations of his “Predecessor.”
Notably absent is any mention of:
– The fight against modernism.
– The need to uphold doctrinal condemnations.
– The intrinsic incompatibility between Catholic dogma and liberal, masonic, and ecumenist principles.
The rhetoric is carefully “pious,” but the omissions are thunderous. The classic modernist method denounced by Pius X is visible: speak reverently, act subversively; praise the saints while undermining their doctrine.
Silentium de maximis est maxima accusatio (“Silence about the greatest matters is the greatest accusation”). The more John XXIII emotes about Pius X, the more damning becomes his total silence about what made Pius X a saintly Pontiff: his war against precisely the system Roncalli was about to enthrone.
Theological Subversion: Indulgences and Relics under a Counterfeit Authority
The letter grants to Urbani:
“Tibi praeterea facultatem largimur, ut … adstantibus fidelibus nomine Nostro benedicas, plenariam indulgentiam iisdem proponens, usitatis Ecclesiae condicionibus lucrandam.”
He thus claims power:
– To delegate, in his “person,” jurisdiction to impart a plenary indulgence.
– To bind this grace to participation in solemnities organized under his authority.
From pre-1958 Catholic theology:
– The power of the keys belongs to the true Roman Pontiff and bishops in communion with him.
– Indulgences are juridical acts of the Church’s treasury of merits, presupposing:
– A true Pope.
– True jurisdiction.
– Intention to apply Catholic doctrine, not to confirm a new religion.
If Roncalli is a manifest modernist (which his subsequent acts, teachings, and the council he convoked empirically confirm), then according to the classical doctrine recalled in the provided sources:
– A manifest heretic cannot hold papal office because he is not a member of the Church.
– A non-member cannot be head; non potest esse caput qui non est membrum.
– Therefore, his claimed indulgences, appointments, and legations lack the authority of Christ.
Theologically, this has two dimensions of subversion:
1. Abuse of Pius X’s relics to endorse a nascent false magisterium.
– The faithful are invited to honors for Pius X under the aegis of one who will soon dismantle his antimodernist fortifications.
– The emotional cult around Pius X is turned into a psychological bridge: “the same Church,” “the same holiness,” while doctrine mutates.
2. Blasphemous pretense of using the Church’s treasury to ratify an incipient apostasy.
– The indulgence here is not an isolated abuse; it is part of a pattern where sacramentals, liturgy, and juridical forms are gradually hollowed out and reoriented toward the conciliar revolution.
– Precisely as Quas Primas warned against laicism and the dethronement of Christ the King, Roncalli initiates the process that will replace the social reign of Christ with the cult of religious liberty and human rights.
In integral Catholic terms: the act simulates Catholicity while objectively functioning as an instrument to cloak the transfer of visible structures into the hands of modernists.
Cosmetic Continuity as the Engine of the Conciliar Revolution
This letter is a microcosm of the conciliar sect’s whole method: apparent continuity masking substantive rupture.
Compare:
– Pius X:
– Condemns the thesis that doctrine evolves according to modern consciousness.
– Reprobates the reduction of dogma, sacraments, and hierarchy to historical products (*Lamentabili* 52–55, 58–65).
– Imposes an anti-modernist oath, demanding absolute adherence to the immutable sense of dogma.
– John XXIII:
– Within a few years convokes a council whose documents and “spirit” promote:
– Religious liberty in opposition to the Syllabus of Pius IX.
– Ecumenism in contradiction to the dogma of the one Church and the exclusive salvific nature of the Catholic religion.
– Collegiality and democratization of government which relativize the primacy and usher in a parliamentary ecclesiology.
– Opens wide the doors to precisely those theologians whom Pius X foresaw and condemned.
In this light, the letter’s stylistic traits become theological symptoms:
– Emphasis on “celebration,” “solemnities,” and external piety.
– Absence of doctrinal precision, condemnations, or warnings.
– Sentimental glorification of Pius X without a single reference to:
– Pascendi Dominici Gregis.
– Lamentabili sane exitu.
– The Syllabus of Errors and the fight against liberalism and freemasonry.
– Use of Pius X’s sanctity as an ornamental legitimation of Roncalli’s own pretense to the Cathedra.
This is the hermeneutics not of continuity, but of camouflage. It is an early instance of what would become systematic: quote or honor pre-conciliar figures while in practice neutralizing their doctrine.
The Fathers and pre-1958 Magisterium had already judged such tactics:
– Pius XI in Quas Primas insists that true peace and order require public submission of states to Christ the King and to His Church. Any attempt to build a new order on naturalistic foundations, even clothed in Christian language, is rebellion against His rights.
– Pius IX in the Syllabus condemns religious indifferentism, freedom of public cults of all religions, and reconciliation of the Church with liberalism and modern “civilization” (propositions 15–18, 77–80).
– Pius X condemns the notion that dogma adapts or that the Church can reconcile herself to modernist philosophy (see especially *Lamentabili* 58–65).
Roncalli’s gentle tone and aesthetic devotion are thus not neutral; they are the sugar-coating of a pill prepared to dissolve exactly these condemnations.
From Authentic Catholic Devotion to Cultic Manipulation
The translation and exposition of relics, and the attachment of indulgences, are, in themselves, thoroughly Catholic practices when enacted by the true Church.
In this letter, however, several deviations appear:
1. Devotion severed from doctrine.
– The faithful are invited to honor Pius X, but not to imitate his intransigence against modernism.
– The relics become relics of a neutralized mascot, not of a militant pope who anathematized what Roncalli would endorse.
2. Indulgence attached to participation in a constructed narrative of “continuity.”
– The condition is not explicit adherence to Pius X’s doctrinal legacy, but participation in a solemnity effectively orchestrated by those preparing to overthrow his principles.
– The act manufactures an emotional equation: Pius X loved → Roncalli loves Pius X → Roncalli is Pius X’s legitimate successor. This is psychological, not theological.
3. Clericalization of the revolution.
– Urbani is adorned with “coruscanti purpura Romana” and delegated as legate.
– This underlines a continuity of personnel and pomp, while the faith beneath is being evacuated.
– Far from criticizing modernist “clerics,” Roncalli here elevates those who would, together with him, pilot dioceses into the conciliar sect.
Pre-1958 Catholic teaching demands that:
– Saints be honored precisely as defenders of the integral faith.
– Indulgences reinforce, not relativize, the binding doctrinal condemnations of their time.
– Authority be recognized only where there is adherence to the faith semper, ubique, ab omnibus (“always, everywhere, by all”) in its objective content.
By contrast, here we see the external mechanisms of devotion enlisted into the service of what would become the structures occupying the Vatican.
Systemic Apostasy: This Letter as Seed of the Occupying Structures
Viewed symptomatically, this epistle is not an isolated ceremonial text; it is:
– An early public self-declaration of Roncalli as “Pope” in continuity with Pius X.
– A deployment of Pius X’s venerated memory to anesthetize resistance among clergy and laity:
– “How could anything be wrong? The new ‘Pope’ loves Pius X, grants indulgences, sends legates, writes in Latin…”
– A demonstration of the paramasonic method:
– Preserve outward form.
– Evacuate doctrinal substance.
– Use symbols of the old order to usher in the new order.
This is exactly what Pius IX described when exposing the masonic and liberal war against the Church, and what he and Pius X saw as satanic cunning: infiltration, simulation, and corruption from within.
Given the doctrinal standards summarized in the pre-1958 magisterial texts and the principles restated in the provided sedevacantist sources:
– This letter cannot be received as a legitimate papal act.
– It is part of the documentary body of the conciliar sect, whereby a modernist usurper strategically exploits the authority and relics of Pius X to underpin the illusion of uninterrupted continuity while preparing the most radical discontinuity in doctrine, liturgy, and discipline since the foundation of the Church.
Authentic Catholic response:
– Venerate Pius X by clinging to his condemnations of modernism, not by accepting those who undermine them while praising him.
– Recognize that the true Church cannot contradict herself:
– The Church of Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII cannot suddenly legitimize religious liberty, ecumenism, the evolution of dogma, and the democratization of divine authority.
– Acknowledge, in line with classical theology, that a structure teaching and enforcing such novelties cannot be the Mystical Body of Christ, but a counterfeit parasitically occupying her visible organs.
Thus, this apparently “pious” 1959 letter stands as an emblem of that counterfeit: elegant Latin, devout tone, external honors to a true saint, all pressed into the service of an emerging neo-church that Pius X himself had prophetically unmasked and anathematized.
Source:
Primo exacto – Ad Ioannem Tit. Sanctae Priscae S. R. E. presbyterum Cardinalem Urbani, Venetiarum Patriarcham, qui legatus deligitur ad Sollemnia in honorem S. Pii Papae X celebranda, sacris eius exuv… (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025