In this Latin letter, antipope John XXIII congratulates Cardinal Carlos Maria de la Torre, archbishop of Quito, on the fiftieth anniversary of his episcopal consecration, recalling his nomination by Pope St. Pius X, praising his pastoral zeal, his defense of ecclesiastical rights, promotion of Catholic Action and social initiatives, foundation of schools and the Catholic University in Quito, and granting him the faculty to impart a plenary indulgence on this jubilee. Behind this apparently benign and deferential homage to an aged prelate stands the calculated instrumentalization of pre-1958 Catholic authority and names—above all Pius X—to legitimize the conciliar revolution and cloak its architects with the vestments of Tradition.

---

Laeti laetum: Pius X’s Name, John XXIII’s Programmed Betrayal

Exploiting Pius X While Dismantling His Anti-Modernist Legacy

The letter’s opening gesture—recalling that Carlos Maria de la Torre was consecrated bishop by St. Pius X—should be a solemn reminder of that Pope’s implacable war against Modernism.

Instead, John XXIII uses this fact as a decorative credential while he himself systematically inverts the very principles of Pius X.

Key facts:

– John XXIII (Angelo Roncalli) is the inaugurator of the conciliar upheaval culminating in Vatican II, the same upheaval which:
– Undermined the integral condemnation of Modernism enshrined in Lamentabili sane exitu (1907) and Pascendi Dominici gregis (1907), confirmed with excommunication for their opponents.
– Prepared the doctrinal and liturgical terrain for the neo-church’s relativism, false ecumenism, and cult of man.
– In the letter, he:
– Praises the recipient for defending the rights of the Church and promoting Catholic Action and social works.
– Highlights especially the foundation of a Catholic University in Quito, presenting it as a “brilliant star of hope” for religion and civil society.

What is suppressed:

– No reaffirmation of the integral anti-Modernist condemnations of Pius X.
– No insistence on guarding doctrine from the very errors Pius X anathematized.
– No warning against those currents of liberalism, laicism, naturalism, and masonic infiltration that Pius IX and Pius X explicitly unmasked.
– Instead, the tone is that of sleek diplomatic optimism, preparing minds to accept the aggiornamento—i.e., doctrinal dissolution.

Here operates the classic deceit of post-1958 post-conciliarism: invoke the saints of the past to canonize the program they explicitly condemned. Pius X bound the Church to reject every attempt to remodel dogma and the Church’s constitution to suit “modern thought”; John XXIII, under the same Roman roof, sets in motion precisely that program and uses pastoral panegyrics such as this to anesthetize resistance.

Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief): when even congratulatory letters are cleansed of doctrinal militancy and supernatural urgency, the faith is already being evacuated.

The Soft Language of Apostasy: Sentimental Optimism without Supernatural Combat

The linguistic register of this letter is revealing.

John XXIII writes in smooth, benign, courtly Latin: joy, festivity, gratitude, flourishing apostolic works, “spiritual presence,” “brilliant star of hope,” paternal wishes, and a plenary indulgence.

What is missing is decisive:

– No mention of:
– Sin,
– Heresy,
– Modernism,
– Masonic and liberal subversion of Church and state,
– The Four Last Things (death, judgment, heaven, hell),
– The absolute necessity of the *integral* Catholic faith for salvation.
– “Rights of the Church” are praised, yet:
– There is no reference to the concrete errors condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus Errorum, such as:
– the separation of Church and state (condemned thesis 55),
– religious indifferentism (15–18),
– and the lie that the Roman Pontiff must reconcile with “modern civilization” (80).
– There is no call for the public social kingship of Christ as reaffirmed in Pius XI’s Quas primas, which teaches that true peace and order are impossible unless states submit publicly to Christ the King and His Church.

Instead, we see:

– An anodyne praise for “Catholic Action and social action” without clarification against naturalistic humanitarianism.
– A rhetoric about the Catholic University’s benefit “for religious and civil life” in a way that subtly levels the supernatural to one factor among others in “public progress.”

This is the vocabulary of the conciliar sect’s pastoral revolution: emotional positivity, institutional celebration, and sociological flattery displacing supernatural clarity and militancy. The letter is not merely silent; its silence is structured. It trains bishops to think in terms of:

– “dialogue,”
– “academic progress,”
– “social initiatives,”

while muting the war against error. Yet Pius X had explicitly condemned this modernist posture:

– Lamentabili rejects the idea that the Magisterium cannot define the sense of Scripture (4), or that condemnations do not bind internal assent (7), and unmasks the false historicism and evolutionism that Roncalli’s council would, in practice, rehabilitate.

Thus, the letter’s vocabulary is not innocent; it is sympomatic: ecclesiastical bureaucracy wrapped in spiritual phrases, evacuating the sharp edges of Catholic dogma and discipline.

Praise of “Catholic Action” and Social Work as a Prelude to Naturalistic Reduction

John XXIII commends de la Torre for promoting Catholic Action and social initiatives, treating these as proof of pastoral excellence.

From an integral Catholic point of view:

– Authentic Catholic Action, as understood by Pius XI and Pius XII in their pre-1958 sense, is ordered to the explicit restoration of all things in Christ, subjugating temporal affairs to the reign of Christ the King.
– However, once detached from doctrinal intransigence and the condemnation of liberalism and indifferentism, “Catholic Action” degenerates into a baptized NGO—precisely what the conciliar sect has universalized.

This letter:

– Does not explicitly deny doctrine.
– But redefines ecclesial excellence as:
– institutional expansion,
– educational projects,
– social activism,
– harmony with civil society,
all without a word about the absolute incompatibility of liberal errors with the reign of Christ.

Pius XI, in Quas primas, insists that:

– Peace, justice, and order are possible only when states and societies acknowledge and submit to Christ’s kingship; secularism is called a “plague” poisoning society.
– He denounces the exclusion of Christ from public life and insists that rulers and laws are bound to the law of God.

John XXIII’s letter, by contrast:

– Applauds a Catholic University as a “star of hope” for both religion and the republic, without asserting the obligation of that republic to recognize the true religion, nor warning against laicist encroachment.
– This balanced, diplomatic phrasing converges with the liberal thesis explicitly condemned by Pius IX (Syllabus 77–80): treating the Catholic religion as a respected partner rather than the one true religion to which the state is bound.

The result: the recipient is encouraged in precisely those activities that, under conciliar influence, would be co-opted into the neo-church’s vision—exterior Catholicity, interior surrender.

Instrumentalizing a Faithful Bishop to Legitimize the Conciliar Project

John XXIII carefully frames Carlos Maria de la Torre as:

– a defender of sacred ecclesial rights,
– a teacher of Catholic truth,
– a promoter of formation.

But the deeper strategy is:

– To drape the coming revolution (Vatican II had already opened in 1962) in the authority and prestige of older, pre-conciliar bishops.
– To create the impression:
– that nothing essential is changing;
– that the same Church, with the same Pius X lineage, is merely “continuing” and “updating” its mission.

This is the essence of the so-called “hermeneutic of continuity,” already operative in nuce:

– Use men consecrated in the old rites, once formed in sound doctrine, as living icons to sell the very break they would never have consciously endorsed.
– Celebrate their careers, but not their obligation to resist error; praise their labors, but not the anti-modernist oaths that bound them.

Crucially absent:

– No reminder of the Anti-Modernist Oath instituted by Pius X (1910), which every bishop of that era was bound to take.
– No exhortation that this oath be kept inviolate against the new theological fashions.

So the letter becomes:

– a subtle co-optation of an episcopate formed by Pius X into the service of a paramasonic structure intent on neutralizing Pius X’s doctrinal militancy.

Simulata sanctitas duplex iniquitas (simulated holiness is a double iniquity): to invoke the name of Pius X while preparing to dissolve his work is not mere irony; it is moral fraud.

The Grant of Indulgence: Sacramental Language in a Structure of Usurpation

John XXIII grants to the jubilarian:

“Ut…Nostro nomine Nostraque auctoritate adstantibus christifidelibus benedicas, Indulgentia plenaria rite proposita.”

(“That…in Our name and by Our authority you may bless the faithful present, with the plenary indulgence duly proposed.”)

From the perspective of the integral Catholic faith and the doctrine on heretical or usurping popes:

– The 1917 Code (can. 188.4) affirms that public defection from the faith vacates ecclesiastical office by the fact itself.
– Theological tradition (e.g., summarized by St. Robert Bellarmine) states:
– A manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church, as he is no longer a member.
– The Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio of Paul IV declares:
– the elevation of one who has deviated from the faith to the papacy is null and void.

Applied here:

– The authority claimed by Roncalli to grant indulgences and to speak “in the name of” Peter is itself in question, because:
– the conciliar program he launched is objectively irreconcilable with the anti-liberal, anti-modernist, anti-ecumenist Magisterium prior to 1958.
– non datur potestas contra veritatem (no authority is given against the truth).

Thus, the pious mention of a plenary indulgence, far from being a guarantee of supernatural good, underlines the problem:

– Sacramental and canonical language is being used to reinforce obedience to a structure that prepares doctrinal betrayal.
– This is precisely how the conciliar sect disguises its rupture: retaining Catholic words as empty shells while infusing them with contrary principles.

Silencing the Kingship of Christ: From Quas Primas to Democratic Neutrality

The letter’s praise of the Catholic University and social initiatives in the capital of Ecuador offers a test case for fidelity to Pius XI’s Quas primas:

– Pius XI solemnly teaches:
– Christ’s reign is not merely private or spiritual; rulers and nations are bound to recognize and honor Him publicly.
– Secularism and laicism are condemned as a “plague”; only in Christ’s social kingship can there be true order: laws, education, culture must be subject to His law.

John XXIII’s text:

– speaks of the University as serving “religious and civil” advancement, but:
– does not affirm the obligation that civil order and academic life must submit to the doctrinal and moral authority of the Church as the one true society founded by Christ.
– does not denounce the liberal principle that treats the Church as one voice among many in pluralist society.

This omission is not accidental; it is programmatic:

– It aligns with the later conciliar endorsement of “religious freedom” and “dialogue” in a naturalistic key.
– It prefigures the abandonment of thesis 77–80 of the Syllabus and the effective shelving of Quas primas’ claim that states must recognize the true religion.

Thus, with flowery compliments to a university, the letter habituates Catholic leadership to think of collaboration with the modern state without asserting Christ’s juridical rights over that state. Such silence is itself a denial in practice.

From Anti-Modernist Watchfulness to Conciliar Sentimentality

On the theological level, several symptomatic shifts emerge:

1. Replacement of doctrinal militancy with vague spirituality:
– The letter sends “spiritual presence” and “ardent wishes” without reminding the bishop of his grave duty to:
– protect the flock from error,
– enforce doctrinal discipline,
– combat liberal and masonic infiltration.

2. Elevation of pastoral activism and institutional expansion as sufficient:
– Schools, associations, and universities are praised as proof of success.
– Yet Pius X and Pius IX insist that:
– institutions severed from doctrinal rigor become channels of error.
– “progress” without subordination to Revelation is destructive.

3. Absence of any mention of the modernist crisis:
– By 1962, Modernism was not extinct; it had simply gone underground, as Pius X warned.
– A faithful successor of Pius X would:
– make every episcopal jubilee an occasion to exhort perseverance in the anti-modernist struggle.
– John XXIII’s silence proclaims either blindness or complicity.

This is the conciliar method:

– Theological evolutionism and ecumenism are not first imposed by blunt contradiction, but by suffocating pre-existing clarity with sentimental verbiage and “pastoral” optimism; doctrine is relativized by omission.

Qui tacet consentire videtur (he who is silent is seen to consent): persistent silence on condemned errors in solemn communications betrays practical acceptance of those very errors.

Conciliar Sect DNA: Co-opting Hierarchy, Emptying Doctrine, Preparing Rupture

This short letter, when read through the lens of unchanging pre-1958 doctrine, manifests core traits of the conciliar sect:

– Appropriation of Catholic symbols:
– Mention of Pius X, episcopal jubilee, indulgence, Catholic University—all classical elements.
– Systematic undercutting of Catholic content:
– No reiteration of the Anti-Modernist Oath.
– No defense of the Syllabuses’ doctrinal demands.
– No insistence on Christ’s social kingship.
– Reframing mission in horizontal terms:
– Stress on social action, education, civil advancement.
– The Church appears as a partner of the republic, not its supernatural superior in faith and morals.

The continuity claimed is, therefore, rhetorical only. Substantively:

– John XXIII venerates the name of Pius X while inaugurating a course that neutralizes Pius X’s most solemn acts.
– The praise of de la Torre’s fidelity becomes a tool for drawing pre-conciliar authority into the orbit of a post-conciliar program.

Such usage of venerable bishops and pious language is not harmless diplomacy. It is part of a strategy:

– to keep the external forms of Catholicism,
– while altering its inner principle from submission to divine Revelation to accommodation with modern thought.

Conclusion: A Gentle Mask over the Machinery of Revolution

Laeti laetum, taken in isolation, could seem like a simple congratulatory message. However, measured against:

– the immutable condemnations of Modernism by Pius X,
– the anti-liberal teaching of Pius IX’s Syllabus,
– the doctrine of Christ’s social kingship reaffirmed by Pius XI,

its omissions and tone become damning.

Key points of exposure:

– It exploits Pius X’s authority while silencing his binding anti-modernist program.
– It trains hierarchy to glory in institutional, educational, and social accomplishments stripped of explicit doctrinal combat.
– It adorns the impending conciliar upheaval with the appearance of harmonious continuity.
– It uses sacramental language (indulgence, apostolic blessing) to reinforce obedience to a structure that will soon enthrone religious liberty, ecumenism, and anthropocentric worship—precisely what earlier popes had unambiguously condemned.

Thus, this brief letter stands as a refined example of how the post-1958 neo-church began to operate: not by open repudiation at first, but by serene documents that celebrate everything except the one thing necessary—uncompromising fidelity to the integral Catholic doctrine and its militant defense against the world, the flesh, the devil, and the sectarian conspiracies repeatedly denounced by true Roman pontiffs.

---

Source:
Laeti laetum – Ad Carolum Mariam Tit. S. Mariae in Aquiro S. R. E. Presb. Cardinalem de la Torre, Archiepiscopum Quitensem, quinquagesimo a suscepto episcopatu exeunte anno, d. 5 m. Aprilis a. 1962, I…   (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025