In this brief Latin letter, John XXIII commemorates the fifth centenary of the canonization of St Catherine of Siena, addressing Michael Browne, Master General of the Dominicans. He praises Catherine’s virtues, her defence of the Roman Pontiff, her Eucharistic devotion, her charity and fortitude, and recalls the honours later Popes bestowed on her as patroness of Rome, of Italian Catholic women, of Italy, and of nursing sisters. He exhorts the Dominican Order and the faithful, especially Italians and the citizens of Siena, to celebrate the jubilee devoutly and invoke her intercession for a renewal of Christian life. From the standpoint of integral Catholic faith, however, this apparently pious text is a calculated exploitation of an authentic Saint to legitimize a nascent revolution and cloak John XXIII’s usurpation and the conciliar project with counterfeit “tradition.”
Instrumentalizing St Catherine to Crown the Conciliar Revolution
Pious Ornament as a Mask for Illegitimate Authority
At the factual level, the letter seems traditional: it recalls Pius II’s canonization of Catherine, extols her sanctity, cites Scripture, mentions her role in defending the Papacy and mediating peace, and highlights her Eucharistic and Passion-centred spirituality.
Yet precisely here lies the fundamental fraud.
1. John XXIII appears as if he were a lawful successor of those Popes whom St Catherine actually served. He writes as one more link in the same chain:
“Multa extinxit odia… Duobus Pontificibus Gregorio XI et Urbano VI acceptissima fuit…”
(She extinguished many hatreds… She was very pleasing to two Pontiffs, Gregory XI and Urban VI…).
He subtly inserts himself into that line, posing as a continuator of the very papal authority he is in fact preparing to subvert. This is the classic inversion: using a canonized defender of the Papacy to ornament the program of demolishing the Papacy’s doctrinal ramparts.
2. The letter’s theological content is strictly “safe,” in the sense that it does not openly contradict pre-1958 doctrine. That is precisely why it is so treacherous. It operates as a rhetorical antechamber to the conciliar upheaval: cumulative gestures of apparent tradition (saints, devotions, Latin, quotations) used to anaesthetize resistance while a different religion is architected in parallel.
3. The silent premise undergirding the entire document is: “John XXIII is Pope; his magisterial acts and commemorations are continuous with those of Pius II, Pius IX, St Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII.” This is the central unproven — indeed theologically untenable — assertion. Once this false premise is granted, every subsequent act (calling a council, changing ecclesial mentality, introducing new ecclesiology) is smuggled in under the aegis of a saint who in truth would have denounced such betrayal.
From the perspective of the unchanging papal doctrine before 1958 (cf. Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors; St Pius X, Pascendi and Lamentabili; Pius XI, Quas Primas), John XXIII’s regime inaugurates precisely that modernist, pseudo-ecclesial, democratic, and naturalistic orientation these Popes anathematized. Therefore, his self-presentation as heir of Pius II and friend of St Catherine is an abuse of sacred memory.
The Subtle Rhetoric of Sentimentalism and Political Utility
On the linguistic level, the letter is a study in controlled ambiguity and saccharine piety:
– The language is elegantly Latinate, respectful, apparently devout. But this decorum is devoid of doctrinal combativeness; Catherine is admired, not imitated in her severity.
– St Catherine is presented primarily as:
– an intercessor for peace,
– a reconciler of civil conflicts,
– a supporter of the Papacy’s return to Rome,
– a moral and affective inspiration.
All of this is true as far as it goes; but what is methodically occluded?
1. There is no evocation of Catherine’s uncompromising denunciations of corruption, simony, and laxity among clergy and prelates. She called them to repentance with terrifying clarity, not to “dialogue.” John XXIII’s letter quotes that she:
“arguebat peccatores… Dissidentes summo studio componebat”
(rebuked sinners… reconciled the discordant),
but immediately softens and sentimentalizes it: a harmless moral portrait dissociated from the concrete application to his own modernist milieu.
2. There is no doctrinal edge. Catherine’s entire supernatural realism — judgment, hell, the gravity of sin against Truth, obedience to the authentic Vicar of Christ, not to intruders — is silenced. This absence is not accidental. The conciliar sect is allergic to saints who speak of eternal damnation, divine wrath, and the necessity of submission to the integral faith.
3. Her mystical theology — profoundly Trinitarian, sacrificial, centred on the Most Holy Sacrifice and the Precious Blood — is reduced to a lyrical background. The letter notes her Eucharistic devotion and veneration for the Precious Blood, but does not draw the necessary doctrinal consequence: the absolute incompatibility between her spirit and any attempt to:
– dilute dogma in historical relativism,
– place human “rights” above the rights of Christ the King,
– fraternize with error in the name of “peace.”
The rhetoric thus domesticates Catherine. She is transformed from a prophetess of divine Truth into a spiritual mascot for an Italy-friendly, Papacy-friendly, but ultimately humanist and national-cultural Catholicism. This is congruent with the nascent program which, a few years later, would enthrone religious liberty, ecumenism, and the cult of man in the so-called “Council.”
Divergence from Pre-1958 Papal Doctrine on the Kingship of Christ
A proper reading in light of authentic Magisterium exposes the deep dissonance.
1. Pius XI in Quas Primas taught unambiguously that:
– Peace and order in nations depend upon the public, juridical recognition of the social Kingship of Christ.
– Laicism and secularism are a “plague” to be condemned, not courted.
2. Pius IX in the Syllabus condemned as errors:
– the equality of all religions before the law (prop. 15, 77–80 as listed),
– separation of Church and State (prop. 55),
– religious indifferentism and liberalism.
3. St Pius X in Pascendi and Lamentabili:
– identified Modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies,”
– condemned the denial of immutable dogma, the historicization of truth, and subjectivist exegesis.
Now examine how John XXIII’s letter uses Catherine:
– She is invoked as patroness of Italy, of Roman order, of Catholics in civic life.
– The focus is on “happy times” for society:
“…ut, vitiis et erroribus repulsis, mitis aevi felicia tempora illucescant.”
(that, vices and errors being repelled, the happy days of a mild age may dawn.)
This language, taken alone, could be harmless. But within the broader historical trajectory of John XXIII — who within months convoked the council that would enthrone precisely what Pius IX and St Pius X condemned — it becomes clear:
– “Repulsing vices and errors” is left undefined, while the subsequent conciliar praxis will:
– embrace false religions in “dialogue,”
– mute condemnations of liberalism and Freemasonry,
– dissolve the public Kingship of Christ into vague universal brotherhood.
Here the silence is the accusation. There is no insistence that nations, particularly Italy, must submit legally and socially to Christ’s reign, as demanded by Quas Primas. No reminder that secularist States are in objective rebellion and must return to obedience. Instead, we receive a gentle wish for “felicia tempora” — a softened, naturalistic hope entirely compatible with democratic laicism.
Such omission, given the magisterial corpus available and binding before 1958, is not neutral. It signals the shift from supernatural, hierarchical, Christocentric order to anthropocentric optimism. The Saint of fire and blood is recruited as a patroness of sentimental “renewal” divorced from the militancy of Catholic dogma.
Sanctity Pressed into the Service of a Counterfeit Ecclesiology
The theological level exposes an even deeper subversion.
1. Catherine is praised for:
– defending the Apostolic See,
– urging the true Pope to return from Avignon to Rome,
– acting as peacemaker in civil wars,
– inspiring souls through her writings.
These deeds presuppose:
– a visible, unitary, monarchical Church;
– an objective papal office, not subject to popular negotiation;
– the conviction that separation of the Pope from his rightful place is a grave wound to Christendom.
2. John XXIII exploits this to retroactively canonize his own authority:
– By aligning himself within the series of “Roman Pontiffs” to whom Catherine is allegedly attached in one continuous line.
– By framing loyalty to “the Pope” in such generic terms that any occupant of Rome, even if preaching novelties condemned by prior Popes, must be received as Catherine received Gregory XI.
This is theological sleight of hand. The Fathers and Doctors (e.g., St Robert Bellarmine as summarized in pre-Conciliar theology; see Defense of Sedevacantism file) are explicit that a manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church, because he is no member of the Church:
non potest esse caput qui non est membrum (he cannot be head who is not a member).
– True obedience is owed only to a true Pope professing the same integral faith.
– St Catherine’s obedience to Gregory XI is obedience to a Catholic Pontiff, not slavish submission to an infiltrated, apostate apparatus.
By invoking her without reaffirming the conditions of legitimate papal authority — adherence to the prior Magisterium, rejection of condemned errors — John XXIII effectively catechizes the faithful into unconditional obedience to the conciliar machinery. This is a direct inversion of Catholic teaching.
3. Moreover, the letter’s concluding exhortation:
“ut haec omnia in catholicae fidei incrementum et profectum…”
(that all these things may be wisely conceived and effectively carried out for the increase and progress of the Catholic faith)
introduces a poisoned term: “progress” of the faith, left undefined.
– In orthodox usage, *profectus fidei* (growth of faith) means deeper penetration into the same immutable deposit (*eodem sensu eademque sententia* — in the same sense and same meaning, as Vatican I and St Pius X insist).
– In modernist usage, “progress” prepares for mutation: adaptation of dogma, pastoral revolution, “aggiornamento.”
Without clarification, in the mouth of John XXIII this language becomes a bridge-word linking true development to conciliar deformation.
Symptoms of the Conciliar Sect’s Strategy: Canonical Saints, Modernist Ends
On the symptomatic level, this letter is one tile in the mosaic of a global strategy:
1. The conciliar sect, the “Church of the New Advent,” cannot construct legitimacy solely on novelty. Hence it performs a continuous operation of:
– annexing pre-1958 saints,
– reciting orthodox formulae in safe, non-combative settings,
– showcasing attachment to venerable devotions,
while,
– dismantling in practice the doctrinal edifice those saints and devotions presuppose.
2. St Catherine, an authentic saint canonized by a true Pope, is thus recruited into the propaganda of a paramasonic structure occupying the Vatican:
– Her calls for reform become a pretext for “renewal” that in reality overturns dogma.
– Her obedience is leveraged to demand submission to usurpers.
– Her love for the Papacy is invoked to silence any doctrinal discernment about the occupant’s faith.
3. This use of saints is congruent with the broader method already exposed by pre-Conciliar Popes:
– Pius IX and Leo XIII repeatedly unmasked secret societies and liberal Catholic networks which speak of “progress,” “human dignity,” “peace” while undermining the Church’s divine constitution (see Syllabus; the condemnations of Freemasonry).
– St Pius X in Pascendi described Modernists as those who hide their errors under Catholic vocabulary, infiltrating institutions, aspiring to reform everything.
This 1961 letter perfectly matches that description. No crude heresy is stated. The poison lies in what is omitted, in the re-framing, in the slow preparation of mentality: Catherine is safe, John XXIII appears Catholic, “progress” is blessed, obedience is romanticized, and the faithful are disarmed on the eve of the revolution.
Silence on Judgment, Grace, and the Authentic Sacrifice
The gravest indictment is theological silence.
Authentic Catholic spirituality — particularly that of St Catherine — revolves around:
– the state of grace versus mortal sin,
– the necessity of conversion under pain of eternal loss,
– the centrality of the Most Holy Sacrifice as propitiation,
– the absolute uniqueness of the Catholic Church as Ark of Salvation,
– the primacy of divine law over all human structures.
This letter, while mentioning Catherine’s devotion to the Eucharist, the Passion, and the Precious Blood, never passes from description to doctrinal assertion aimed at the contemporary crisis:
– No warning that salvation is found only in the one true Church, against the errors condemned by Pius IX (indifferentism, liberalism).
– No reiteration that civil society must publicly honour and submit to Christ the King, as taught by Pius XI.
– No condemnation of the liberal and masonic powers already devouring Christian Italy and persecuting the Church.
– No call to clergy to oppose modern errors with Catherine’s virile courage.
Instead:
– A vague hope in “happy times.”
– A national and affective veneration of a “patroness of Italy.”
– An invitation to commemorate, not to fight.
In the early 1960s, at the threshold of the “abomination of desolation” in liturgy and doctrine, such omissions are not innocent. They reveal a hierarchy already inwardly surrendered to the world, incapable or unwilling to speak like Pius IX, St Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII. The supernatural note is softened, the eschatological urgency muted, sin and heresy are unnamed. The letter thus participates in that “silence about supernatural matters” which is itself a betrayal.
The Contradiction: Catherine’s Spirit versus the Conciliar Program
If we confront Catherine herself — as known from her authentic writings and the Bull of canonization cited even in this letter — with the conciliar and post-conciliar trajectory, an irreconcilable contradiction emerges:
– She urged the true Pope to assume his authority and to wield it firmly for the reform of morals and extirpation of abuses.
– She despised cowardice in pastors; she demanded blood, sacrifice, fidelity unto death.
– She saw no “value” in false religions; she lived entirely for the one true Faith and the salvation of souls in that Faith.
To use such a saint as spiritual patron for a council and a regime which:
– exalts religious liberty condemned by Pius IX,
– legitimizes ecumenism with schismatics and infidels,
– dethrones Christ from the public order,
– fosters a new liturgical rite that evacuates the propitiatory and sacrificial character of the Mass,
is to mock her. It is to crown the revolution with a halo stolen from one of its would-be fiercest opponents.
Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief): once the Most Holy Sacrifice is replaced in the neo-church by a community meal, once dogma is relativized, once worldly structures dictate terms to what calls itself “Church,” invoking St Catherine or any saint becomes a hollow theatrical act.
Conclusion: A Decorative Saint in the Vestibule of Apostasy
This letter on the fifth centenary of St Catherine’s canonization is not, in itself, a catalogue of explicit doctrinal errors. Its significance lies elsewhere:
– It is an early, paradigmatic exercise in the conciliar sect’s technique:
– adopt traditional language;
– praise unimpeachable saints;
– suppress their hard edges;
– replace doctrinal militancy with pious generalities;
– insinuate a concept of “progress” that will soon serve to justify rupture.
Measured by the unchanging pre-1958 Magisterium, the text’s omissions, tonal choices, and implicit claims expose its function as ideological camouflage: sanctity pressed into service of an illegitimate authority and a coming doctrinal upheaval.
An integral Catholic reading must therefore:
– refuse to accept John XXIII’s self-presentation as lawful successor in continuity with Pius II or St Pius X;
– reclaim St Catherine of Siena as a witness for the immutable Faith against modernist infiltration, not as a tame emblem for “aggiornamento”;
– unmask the sentimental rhetoric which veils the preparatory steps of a systemic apostasy.
Anything less would be to participate in the manipulation of a great saint’s memory to adorn the throne of a revolution she would have scourged with the fiery charity of divine Truth.
Source:
Hoc anno – Ad Michaëlem Browne, Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Moderatorem Generalem, quinto exeunte saeculo, ex quo Sanctorum Caelitum honores Pius Pp. II S. Catharinae Senensi decrevit, d. 20 m. Iuli… (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025