This brief Latin letter of John XXIII to Benedict Aloisi Masella, on the 60th anniversary of Masella’s priestly ordination, offers congratulatory praise for his long service in various diplomatic and curial roles, invokes a generic blessing on his past and present offices (including as Prefect of the Congregation of the Discipline of the Sacraments and Archpriest of the Lateran Basilica), and ends with an “Apostolic Blessing” for him and those present at the celebration. It is a short, apparently benign panegyric whose suave courtesies, precisely in their apparent harmlessness, reveal the entire programmatic inversion of the Catholic priesthood and hierarchy that characterizes John XXIII and the conciliar revolution he inaugurated.
Sexaginta Annos: Panegyric as Manifesto of the Conciliar Usurpation
Celebration of a System: When Flattery Replaces the Cross
At the factual level, the letter appears simple:
“Sexaginta annos mox tibi celebraturo, ex quo iuvenili florens aetate ad sacri presbyteratus gradus evectus es…”
John XXIII congratulates Masella for:
– Six decades of priesthood.
– Diplomatic service as Apostolic Nuncio in Chile and Brazil.
– Service in the Roman Curia, especially as Prefect of the Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments.
– Holding the prestigious positions of Bishop of Palestrina and Archpriest of the Lateran Basilica.
– He calls down blessings so that all may turn out “salutariter et feliciter” and imparts his “Apostolic Blessing.”
On the surface: a polite note of esteem to an aging prelate.
But from the perspective of the unchanging pre-1958 Catholic faith, several essential points emerge:
1. This is not merely personal courtesy, but glorification of the very apparatus that was in the process of being weaponized to dismantle sacramental discipline, doctrine, and the visible marks of the Church.
2. The text is saturated with human respect, institutional self-congratulation, and naturalistic optimism, while completely silent about:
– The gravity of the priestly state.
– The account to be rendered before the judgment seat of Christ.
– The defense of the integrity of the sacraments against profanation.
– The reign of Christ the King in public life, so powerfully affirmed by Pius XI in Quas primas.
3. The letter confirms, in miniature, the essence of John XXIII’s project: to canonize the existing curial and diplomatic elite as trustworthy instruments of “renewal” precisely at the moment when they were preparing the aggiornamento that would enthrone religious liberty, false ecumenism, and the cult of man condemned by the pre-conciliar Magisterium.
Thus what appears as a pious note of congratulations functions as a quiet manifesto of continuity between an infiltrated pre-conciliar bureaucracy and the conciliar neo-church: a self-congratulatory litany of careers offered in place of the Cross, truth, and militancy against error.
Linguistic Cosmetics: Soft Latin as a Veil for Institutional Self-Worship
The rhetoric of the letter is short, but revealing.
1. Exaltation of careerism
The entire praise centers on offices, promotions, and diplomatic functions:
“Apostolicae Sedis muneribus addictus… in Chilia ac postea in Brasilia Apostolicus Nuntius… nunc vero Praefectus S. Congregationis disciplinae Sacramentorum… Episcopus Praenestinus, Archipresbyter Patriarchalis Basilicae Lateranensis…”
Not one word about:
– Defense of dogma against modernism.
– Protection of the Most Holy Sacrifice from profanation.
– Combat against Freemasonry and anti-Christian powers, so lucidly denounced by Pius IX in the Syllabus and by Leo XIII and Pius X.
– Zeal for the salvation of souls, conversion of heretics, or the condemnation of indifferentism.
The hierarchy is reduced to a cursus honorum. The letter breathes the mentality already condemned by St. Pius X: ecclesiastics as administrators and diplomats, not warriors against error.
2. Sentimentality without supernatural precision
The formula:
“id valde precamur, ut salutariter et feliciter omnia tibi cedant…”
is emblematic. “That all things may turn out for your salvation and happiness” sounds pious, but is theologically weightless:
– No call to perseverance in the *state of grace*.
– No mention of *finis ultimus* (the ultimate end), the fear of God, or the four last things.
– No reference to the objective demands of the priestly character: sacrifice of self, hatred of error, custody of the altar.
It is spiritualized well-wishing, not the clear paternal admonition of the pre-conciliar Popes, who did not hesitate to remind bishops and priests that unfaithful shepherds incur terrible judgment.
3. Silence as method
The most devastating expression in this letter is not written. The omissions are the message:
– Silence about modernism: this in 1962, when the errors condemned in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi had already colonized seminaries and faculties.
– Silence about secularism and the public rejection of the Kingship of Christ, so gravely diagnosed in Quas primas.
– Silence about the enemies of the Church, Freemasonry, and the “synagogue of Satan,” which Pius IX explicitly linked with the global assault on the Church.
– Silence about the duty of the Prefect of the Sacramental Congregation to guard the sacraments from innovation and profanation.
This is the rhetoric of anesthesia. The chosen vocabulary—smooth, honorific, generic—reveals a governing mentality allergic to conflict, allergic to precise denunciation of heresy, and therefore perfectly disposed to open the doors to the “renewal” that would codify every condemned error under the labels of “dialogue,” “collegiality,” and “religious liberty.”
Theological Inversion: From Guarding Sacraments to Blessing Their Future Desecration
Measured against integral Catholic doctrine before 1958, this letter stands condemned not by what it asserts positively, but by what it presupposes and what it refuses to confess.
1. Misuse of Scriptural reference
The only Scriptural allusion cited is James 1:17:
“a Deo, a quo est omne datum optimum et omne donum perfectum (Iac. 1, 17)”
True enough in itself. But it is instrumentalized to ornament an institutional tribute rather than to recall:
– That the grace of priesthood is a fearful participation in the priesthood of Christ, demanding holiness and doctrinal integrity.
– That “every good and perfect gift” obliges to fidelity to the deposit of faith (*depositum custodi*, 1 Tim 6:20), not to accommodation with the world.
The pre-conciliar Magisterium repeatedly insists that sacred offices demand militant defense of the faith. Pius X, in Pascendi, brands modernists as the worst enemies of the Church precisely because they occupy ecclesiastical positions. Pius IX, in the Syllabus, condemns the subordination of the Church to civil or liberal ideology. Yet John XXIII praises Masella’s diplomatic and curial career without connecting it to this duty of doctrinal and disciplinary rigor.
2. Congregation of the Discipline of the Sacraments: praised as it approaches self-destruction
John XXIII lauds Masella as:
“Praefectus S. Congregationis disciplinae Sacramentorum praepositae”
At that precise historical moment:
– The conciliar forces are preparing the liturgical “reform” which would culminate in the destruction of the Roman Rite, the disfiguration of the theology of the Most Holy Sacrifice, and the practical dissolution of sacramental discipline (especially regarding the Eucharist, marriage, and penance).
– The Congregation that should resist innovations in sacramental form, matter, and discipline is instead integrated into the machine that will authorize and impose them.
The letter offers only praise, zero warning. From the standpoint of Catholic theology:
– Guardians of sacramental discipline must defend the sacraments against heterodox tampering. Canon 1257 and surrounding norms in the 1917 Code (and Canon 188.4 on loss of office by public defection from the faith) do not permit a “pastoral” tolerance of sacramental experimentation.
– The Church has always anathematized the idea that sacramental forms can be reshaped according to modern needs or ecumenical pragmatism.
Yet John XXIII’s epistle confirms and blesses a system poised to violate what previous Popes treated as untouchable. This is not neutral. It is complicit. It announces a Prefect of Sacramental Discipline as a man richly adorned with “meritis” precisely while the very concept of immovable sacramental discipline is being prepared for demolition.
3. Lateran Basilica: empty title in a betrayed symbolism
To call Masella Archpriest of the Lateran Basilica—“omnium urbis et orbis ecclesiarum mater et caput”—should, in Catholic theology, signify:
– Custody of the central Roman symbol of the true Church’s visible authority.
– Zealous manifestation that there is only one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation; the Lateran is not an interreligious hall, but the cathedral of the Vicar of Christ.
Under John XXIII (and his successors in the conciliar sect):
– This symbolism is progressively hollowed out.
– The Lateran’s prestige becomes ceremonial cover for a pseudo-magisterium that will embrace ecumenism, religious freedom, and humanism—all propositions explicitly condemned by Pius IX’s Syllabus (e.g., 15–18, 55, 77–80).
The letter’s sugary praise functions to baptize, in appearance, a hierarchy that has already ceased to act according to its divine mandate.
Symptoms of the Conciliar Disease: What This Letter Reveals About the Neo-Church
The brevity of the document does not diminish its symptomatic value. On the contrary, it perfectly manifests the inner logic of post-1958 post-conciliarism.
1. Naturalistic optimism and human respect
The tone presupposes that a long ecclesiastical career, obedience to the conciliar apparatus, and diplomatic successes are themselves unconditional goods to be blessed. There is:
– No call to examine fidelity to the anti-modernist oath (still in force in 1962).
– No reminder of the solemn condemnations of modern errors by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII.
– No hint that divine judgment on a bishop or prefect will be according to his defense of the flock against wolves, not according to his decorations.
This naturalistic optimism echoes precisely what the pre-conciliar Popes condemned:
– The reduction of supernatural mission to humanitarian, diplomatic, and sociological categories.
– The substitution of militant Catholicism with “benevolent” institutionalism.
2. Ecclesiastical self-referentiality as idolatry
By exalting titles and posts instead of the faith and the Cross, the letter exemplifies a self-referential cult of the ecclesiastical organism detached from its Head. The Church, in Catholic doctrine, is holy because:
– She confesses the true faith.
– She sanctifies by valid sacraments.
– She submits to Christ the King and condemns His enemies.
Once these notes are evacuated, the structure becomes a mere paramasonic system:
– Titles without mandate from Christ.
– Sacramental forms manipulated to fit ecumenism and anthropocentrism.
– A hierarchy that uses the vestments of authority to promote the very doctrines previously anathematized.
This letter, by serenely confirming that hierarchy at the moment of rupture—with no condition, no doctrinal exhortation, no anti-modernist vigilance—acts as a micro-seal of that usurpation.
3. Continuity in personnel, rupture in faith
One of the deepest deceptions of the Church of the New Advent is its use of apparent continuity:
– The same palaces, basilicas, and offices.
– The same Latin flourishes and blessings.
– The same faces moving from pre-1958 roles into post-conciliar power.
Yet the criterion of Catholic theology is not sociological continuity but doctrinal: *lex credendi, lex orandi, lex vivendi*.
Before 1958:
– Modernism, religious liberty (in the liberal sense), indifferentism, the subordination of the Church to the secular state, and all forms of dogmatic evolutionism were explicitly condemned.
– The hierarchy was commanded to resist these currents with uncompromising firmness.
After John XXIII:
– The same currents are not merely tolerated; they are elevated into “pastoral norms” and magisterial orientations.
– The individuals who preside over sacramental congregations and major basilicas become functionaries of innovation.
This letter, by blessing Masella’s authority at the Sacramental Congregation and the Lateran without tethering it to anti-modernist fidelity, implicitly ratifies authority cut loose from its doctrinal conditions. In Catholic terms, *auctoritas sine veritate* (authority without truth) is no authority in the Church of Christ.
Contrast with Pre-1958 Magisterium: The Condemnations Silenced
To expose fully the bankruptcy of the mentality enshrined in this letter, we must contrast it with the explicit teaching of the true Papal Magisterium before 1958.
1. Pius IX and the Syllabus of Errors
Pius IX unequivocally condemns:
– The equality of all religions and the idea that man is free to embrace any religion by reason alone (15–16).
– The separation of Church and state (55).
– The reconciliation of Catholicism with liberalism and modern civilization understood as emancipation from the Kingship of Christ (80).
The letter of John XXIII offers no reminder of these truths to a leading prelate. Rather, it exists comfortably in a diplomatic and bureaucratic horizon that will very soon endorse precisely what the Syllabus condemns. The absence of any anti-liberal or anti-modernist note is not accidental; it is programmatic.
2. St. Pius X, Lamentabili and Pascendi
St. Pius X:
– Identifies modernists as the worst enemies of the Church because they operate “intra ipsam Ecclesiam.”
– Condemns the notion of evolving dogma, historical relativism of doctrine, reduction of sacraments to community symbols, and subjection of Scripture and dogma to modern criticism.
The letter of John XXIII to Masella:
– Never recalls the obligation to defend against modernism.
– Praises a Prefect of the Sacramental Congregation without binding him to the anti-modernist norm.
– Exemplifies precisely the ecclesiastical culture that allowed modernists to thrive under a cloak of respectability.
3. Pius XI, Quas primas
Pius XI solemnly teaches that:
– Peace and order can exist only under the public and private reign of Christ the King.
– States and rulers must submit to Christ’s law.
– Secularism and laicism are a “plague” that must be opposed.
In the John XXIII letter:
– No appeal to the Kingship of Christ.
– No reminder that an Apostolic Nuncio must defend the rights of Christ the King in public life.
– The priestly and episcopal dignity is not linked to the public assertion of Christ’s royal rights, but to courteous service to the post-conciliar apparatus.
In each of these contrasts, the letter’s silence functions as tacit repudiation of the integral doctrine.
Conclusion: A Tiny Document as a Total Indictment
This epistle is short, but theologically and spiritually it is revealing in three decisive ways:
1. It reveals an ecclesiastical mentality intoxicated with careers, titles, and bureaucratic continuity, replacing the supernatural seriousness of the priesthood and episcopate with mutual congratulation.
2. It exemplifies the method of the conciliar revolution: preserve the external language of piety and blessing while evacuating precise dogmatic content and the militant opposition to error demanded by the true Magisterium.
3. It confirms the structural apostasy of the post-1958 hierarchy: those occupying the Vatican bless and promote men and organs which will soon participate in the subversion of the sacraments and the Faith, without any concern for the conditions under which ecclesiastical office is valid and pleasing to God.
A document that should have echoed the grave warnings of Pius IX, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII instead offers smooth phrases, institutional self-approval, and an “apostolic blessing” poured out indiscriminately upon a system which was already, and would soon manifestly become, an instrument of doctrinal dissolution.
In this sense, the letter “Sexaginta annos” stands as a polished stone in the foundation wall of the neo-church: externally inscribed with Latin courtesy, internally hollowed of faith, preparing to enthrone not the Crucified King, but the sovereignty of man, dialogue, and sacramental desecration.
Source:
Sexaginta annos – Ad Benedictum S. R. E. Cardinalem Aloisi Masella, Episcopum Praenestinum, Patriarchalis Basilicae Lateranensis Archipresbyterum atque S. Congregationis de disciplina Sacramentorum Pr… (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025