This Latin letter of John XXIII appoints Cardinal Marcello Mimmi as papal legate to a Marian Congress in Buenos Aires, praising Marian devotion, extolling “peace” and “social justice,” and encouraging application of “Christian social doctrine” to the pressing social questions of South America, in order to promote concord between employers and workers under Mary’s patronage. In reality, this short text already displays the conciliatory, naturalistic, and proto-conciliar program by which the future Council’s spirit was smuggled in under Marian language to prepare the dismantling of the reign of Christ the King in society and the neutralization of integral Catholic faith.
Marian Rhetoric as a Vehicle of Humanistic Pacification
John XXIII’s missive, though brief, is not innocent. It is a programmatic fragment of the paradigm that would shortly culminate in the conciliar revolution: Marian solemnity as decor, social naturalism as substance.
He “joyfully” notes the forthcoming Marian Congress in Buenos Aires and the zeal with which it is prepared, then appoints Mimmi as his legate to represent his person and transmit his sentiments. The core themes he proposes for the Congress are:
– Opposition to “religionis et publicae salutis nocumenta” (harm to religion and public welfare).
– Emphasis on “pax,” presented as tranquillitas ordinis and supreme civic happiness.
– The demand that peace be founded on truth, justice, charity, social justice, right relations between employers and workers, and development of disciplines and arts.
– Invocation of the Immaculate Virgin as invincible help and “murus inexpugnabilis” in these endeavors.
– An exhortation that those who trust in Mary must adorn themselves with her virtues and become worthy children.
– A conclusion with Apostolic Benediction to the hierarchy, authorities, clergy, and faithful attending.
On the surface: pious, orthodox-sounding. In depth: a subtle displacement of the supernatural end of the Church into a socio-political program of conciliation and modernization, already infused with the same anthropocentric accents later systematized by the conciliar sect.
From Christ the King to Social Technician: Naturalistic Inversion of Ends
The most striking feature is the almost total horizontalization of purpose. The Marian Congress is framed primarily as an instrument:
– to oppose “religionis et publicae salutis nocumentis”;
– to build civic peace and order;
– to address the “social question,” especially in South America, through “Christian social doctrine” in terms of equitable distribution, social justice, and concord between labor and capital.
All of this, abstractly considered, can be placed within the pre-1958 Magisterial tradition of Leo XIII and Pius XI, who indeed dealt with social questions. However, those Popes anchored every social exhortation explicitly and uncompromisingly in the regnum Christi, the objective rights of God, the exclusive truth of the Catholic Church, and the primacy of grace and the sacraments.
By contrast, here we find:
– No explicit affirmation that peace is only authentic where Christ reigns socially as King and where states recognize His law and submit their legislation to it, as taught authoritatively in *Quas Primas*.
– No clear insistence that the “social question” is unsolvable without conversion to the Catholic Church, frequent worthy reception of the sacraments, and rejection of errors condemned in the *Syllabus* and *Lamentabili*.
– No mention that socialism, communism, and secret societies, especially Masonic and paramasonic powers, are sworn enemies of the Church and must be fought, not dialogued with (Pius IX, *Syllabus*; repeated condemnations of Freemasonry).
Instead, there is a soft, diplomatic vocabulary of “peace,” “social justice,” “progress of disciplines and arts,” as if harmony among classes and advancement of culture were quasi-autonomous goals, to be pursued parallel with religion, rather than subordinated to the sovereign dominion of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the rights of His Church.
This is a paradigmatic instance of *subreptio*: Catholic words, conciliar meaning. Marian devotion is used as a sentimental halo for a project of humanistic pacification. The letter’s silence about the absolute necessity of the Catholic faith and submission to the Church as the condition of true peace is not a minor omission; it is the decisive shift.
Pius XI had already taught, in the encyclical the conciliar sect dares not apply:
– Peace is only possible in the Kingdom of Christ (cf. *Quas Primas*).
– Civil authority must publicly recognize and honor Christ the King; the exclusion of Christ and His Church from public life destroys the foundations of law and order.
John XXIII reduces this supernatural doctrine to a more “neutral” formula: peace as tranquillitas ordinis, supported by virtues and social justice—but without the sharp, exclusive claim of the Catholic Church as the only ark of salvation and the only guarantor of true social order. This attenuation prepares precisely those “errors concerning the Church and her rights” condemned in the *Syllabus of Errors* (e.g., 19–21, 39–41, 55, 77–80).
Linguistic Softening: Pious Eloquence in Service of Ambiguity
The rhetoric of the letter is revealing:
– Repeated expressions of joy and benevolence.
– Emphasis on “pax,” “tranquillitas ordinis,” “felicitas civitatum,” “progressiones disciplinarum et artium.”
– Mary is presented as “invictissimum praesidium” and “murus inexpugnabilis,” but principally in relation to temporal and social goods: protecting society, ensuring fruitful congress results, stabilizing civic peace.
The language is intentionally irenic, non-combative, and delicately avoidant of hard doctrinal demarcations.
Note particularly:
1. Absence of doctrinal anathema:
– The letter never warns explicitly against socialism, communism, Freemasonry, religious indifferentism, or liberalism, although South America was already ravaged by all of these ideologies and Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII had thundered against them.
– The “social question” is mentioned, but without naming or condemning the anti-Christian systems responsible. This silencing of enemies is the signature of Modernism’s diplomacy.
2. Neutralization of Mary’s role:
– Mary is evoked as “Mater Salvatoris,” “Immaculata Virgo,” model of virtues, helper for peace and social harmony.
– Yet there is no word about her role in crushing heresies, humbling proud worldly powers, defending the exclusive rights of the Catholic Church—roles attested by the pre-1958 Magisterium and authentic liturgical tradition.
– This reduction of Marian mediation to a generalized patronage for temporal harmony drains her cult of its militant, anti-error character.
3. Subtle anthropocentrism:
– The letter glides from grace to nature: from Marian mediation to civic order, from supernatural to social without a clear hierarchy. The result is an implicit leveling: religion becoming chaplaincy of democracy and socio-economic equilibrium.
Such rhetorical choices are not accidental; they are systemic. They manifest the same spirit that will soon enthrone “dialogue,” “human dignity,” and religious liberty as practical absolutes, in defiance of the *Syllabus*’s condemnation of such ideas.
Doctrinal Dilution: Peace Without the Sword of Truth
The text briefly links peace with truth, justice, and charity—that in itself echoes Catholic doctrine. But precisely at the point where traditional teaching demands clarity, John XXIII’s letter falls into culpable vagueness.
He connects true peace to:
– piety toward God and reverence for His will,
– execution of Christian law,
– integrity of morals,
– growth of works of charity,
– “social justice,”
– fair relations between employers and workers,
– progress of sciences and arts,
– and the effort of the faithful as “sal terrae.”
However:
– He does not explicitly affirm that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation and therefore no true peace: *extra Ecclesiam nulla salus*.
– He does not state that the tolerance or recognition of false religions in public life, or state neutrality, is an error condemned by Pius IX (e.g., propositions 15–18, 77–80 of the *Syllabus*).
– He does not warn that “peace” without conversion is illusion; that any “pax” erected on religious pluralism and implicit denial of Christ’s rights is a counterfeit.
In *Quas Primas*, Pius XI made the necessary connections:
– The calamities of modern society come precisely from the fact that “very many have removed Jesus Christ and His most holy law from their customs, from private, family, and public life.”
– Lasting peace will not arise until individuals and states recognize the reign of Christ the King.
– Public apostasy through laicism is the root plague; the Church must condemn it, not adapt to it.
In contrast, this letter speaks of “religionis et publicae salutis nocumenta” but never names laicism, liberalism, or the denial of Christ’s social kingship as those “harms.” The effect: the diagnosis is emptied of its doctrinal content; “harm to religion” could mean almost anything—lack of generic religiosity, or merely moral decay—rather than formal opposition to the Catholic Church and her rights.
This is typical Modernist technique: preserve Catholic vocabulary, amputate its dogmatic teeth. Such a method is directly rejected by St. Pius X in *Pascendi* and *Lamentabili*, where he unmasks the project of transforming dogma into adaptable symbols for evolving consciousness. The non-combative, deliberately ambiguous presentation in this letter coheres more with Modernist pastoralism than with the virile clarity of the pre-1958 Pontiffs.
Silence on Apostasy and Modernism: Omission as Accusation
One must attend above all to what this text does not say.
At the very moment when:
– Modernism, condemned as “the synthesis of all heresies” by Pius X, continued its infiltration.
– Laicism and socialism, denounced repeatedly by previous Popes, were advancing in Latin America.
– Masonic and paramasonic powers were actively attacking the Church’s rights (as Pius IX explicitly described, exposing the “synagogue of Satan” and secret sects waging war on the Church).
John XXIII chooses, in an official letter on a continental Marian Congress:
– Not to mention Modernism.
– Not to mention Freemasonry.
– Not to mention socialism or communism explicitly in their doctrinal opposition to the Church.
– Not to call for doctrinal combat, catechetical restoration, or disciplinary severity.
– Not to warn about internal enemies, faithless clergy, or the doctrinal corruption within seminaries and universities.
Instead, he speaks of “social question,” “equitable relations,” “progress,” and a generic Christian social doctrine open to broad interpretation.
This silence is not neutral. It functions as a strategic eclipse of the true enemy: the apostasy within. By refusing to identify the primary danger as Modernism and internal betrayal—exactly what St. Pius X had emphasized in *Pascendi* and what Pius IX had indicated concerning secret sects infiltrating states and societies—John XXIII shifts the focus to technical social management, as if Catholicism’s central task were to moderate socio-economic tensions under Marian patronage.
The instruction contained in the provided dossier on the “False Fatima Apparitions” underlines an analogous mechanism: distraction from internal apostasy toward external threats or sentimental devotions. In a similar way, this letter uses Marian rhetoric to avoid confronting the neo-modernist decomposition already active in the hierarchy and theology faculties. It is thus symptomatic of the larger project: transform the Church into a humanitarian, pacifying agency inside a pluralistic world.
Conciliar Germ: Social Pacification as Prelude to Religious Liberty
The social doctrine vocabulary employed—“social question,” “social justice,” relations between employers and workers, the importance of arts and sciences—could have been framed within the robust condemnations and doctrinal affirmations of Leo XIII’s *Rerum Novarum* or Pius XI’s *Quadragesimo Anno*. But here:
– The emphasis is on harmonious adjustment rather than conflict with anti-Christian ideologies.
– There is no reminder that the condemned errors of liberalism, socialism, and religious indifferentism remain condemned and incompatible with Catholic faith.
– There is no explicit insistence that Catholic social doctrine presupposes recognized authority of the Church over morals, education, and public order, contrary to the propositions condemned in the *Syllabus* (e.g., 39–41, 45–48, 55).
This attenuation prefigures the shift that will be codified by the structures occupying the Vatican in their later texts on religious freedom and on the Church in the modern world: the acceptance of pluralism, the relocation of the Church’s mission from the public assertion of Christ’s rights to a saccharine promotion of human dignity, development, and “peaceful coexistence.”
Thus, this letter is not a marginal ceremonial ornament; it is a micro-manifesto of the new orientation:
– from triumphal proclamation of the exclusive truth of the Catholic Church
– to “service” of a generic human peace and social justice,
– with Marian language enlisted as emotional lubricant for acceptance.
Such a trajectory collides frontally with Pius IX’s condemnation of the notion that the Roman Pontiff “ought to come to terms with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization” (Syllabus, 80). The mentality expressed here is precisely that condemned thesis, softly repackaged.
Marian Congress Without Call to Conversion: A Sterile Sentimentalism
A genuine Marian apostolate, grounded in pre-1958 doctrine, must:
– Lead souls to repentance, confession, and amendment of life.
– Proclaim the uniqueness of the Catholic Church and the horror of heresy and schism.
– Exhort to modesty, penance, reparation for sin, and militant rejection of errors undermining the faith.
– Expose and anathematize errors that attack Mary’s prerogatives or the Church’s rights.
In this letter:
– There is no call to public penance.
– No mention of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass or the centrality of the sacraments as the means of sanctification and the heart of Marian devotion.
– No confrontation with the sins of impurity, contraception, atheism, practical materialism, or doctrinal relativism corroding society.
– Mary is presented as a patroness of “peace” and “social” fruits, but the demands of true Marian devotion—radical renunciation of the world, war against error, restoration of Catholic modesty and discipline—are not articulated.
The reduction is subtle but real: Mary as a symbol of unity, sweetness, and shared values, rather than the terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata (terrible as an army set in battle array) against heresy and apostasy. That Marian profile is incompatible with the conciliatory policy John XXIII was already implementing.
Such sentimental Marianism, emptied of doctrinal edge, serves as an ideal instrument for the conciliar sect: it moves emotions, gathers crowds, but does not threaten the liberal, Masonic, and modernist consensus. It is the cult of Mary without the sword that defends her Son’s kingship.
Systemic Apostasy: A Fragment of the Larger Usurpation
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, the letter’s author, John XXIII, stands at the beginning of the series of usurpers whose “pontificate” marks the visible enthronement of post-conciliarism. This text functions as:
– A preparatory catechesis for a horizontal, naturalistic Catholicism.
– A showcase of the rhetorical strategy: Marian and biblical language woven with socio-political themes, carefully avoiding condemnation of modern errors.
– An early expression of that openness to “modern civilization” and “progress” directly proscribed in the *Syllabus*.
The deeper symptom:
– The Church, defined infallibly as a perfect society with rights over nations (Pius IX, *Syllabus*, condemned proposition 19), is here practically presented as one moral voice contributing to peace and social development.
– The explicit assertion of her juridical and doctrinal supremacy is displaced by soft encouragements and appeals to common values.
In light of the binding pre-1958 Magisterium (Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII), the theological orientation manifested in this letter cannot be harmonized with the constant teaching. It illustrates that “hermeneutic of continuity” is a fiction: the mentality has changed, the priorities reversed, the supernatural subordinated to the temporal.
The authentic Church speaks as Mater et Magistra in the strict sense: commanding, defining, condemning, teaching with clarity, subordinating all earthly realities to Christ the King. The conciliar sect speaks as facilitator: suggesting, encouraging, dialoguing, blessing “processes” and “congresses,” while evading the divisive exclusivity of dogma. This letter is firmly of the latter type.
Conclusion: Marian Congress Under a Humanistic Banner
The Buenos Aires Marian Congress, as envisaged in this letter, is not ordered first and foremost to the restoration of the rights of God and the Catholic Church, but to:
– generic resistance to “harms” vaguely defined,
– promotion of an idealized “peace” anchored in socio-economic balance,
– affirmation of cultural and scientific progress blessed by Marian sentiment.
The supernatural is invoked, but primarily to underwrite temporal objectives. The sharp doctrines that alone safeguard true peace—condemnation of liberalism, socialism, religious indifferentism, and Modernism; proclamation of the social reign of Christ the King; insistence on the necessity of the Catholic Church—are conspicuously absent.
This selective silence, this pious but defanged rhetoric, reveals the profound bankruptcy at work: an incipient religion of man under Marian colors. Where the pre-1958 Papal Magisterium wielded clear anathema against modern errors and summoned nations to submit publicly to Christ, this letter inaugurates a new tone—conciliatory, diplomatic, horizontally preoccupied—that leads straight to the neo-church’s systematic subversion.
True Marian fidelity demands the opposite: uncompromising confession of the one true Faith, militant defense of Christ’s Kingship in public and private life, and fearless denunciation of every attempt—whether laic, masonic, or para-ecclesial—to reduce the Church to a mere servant of earthly peace. In this light, the text stands condemned by the very pre-conciliar doctrine it pretends to continue.
Source:
Libenter mox – Epistula ad Marcellum S. R. E. Cardinalem Mimmi, Episcopum sarinensem et mandelensem ac Sacrae Congregationis Consistorialis a secretis, quem Legatum mittit ad Marialem Conventum in urb… (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025