In this Latin letter dated 29 November 1959, John XXIII replies to the collective correspondence of German hierarchy assembled at Fulda. He congratulates them on their pastoral initiatives, praises the exposition of the Holy Tunic of Trier and the forthcoming Munich International Eucharistic Congress, extols charitable and “Diaspora” works, encourages efforts toward those “separated” from the Church, links all this to his announced “ecumenical council,” and concludes with paternal exhortations and a blessing. Behind the pious phraseology and sentimental invocations of unity, this text already manifests the programmatic dissolution of the Catholic religion into a naturalistic, ecumenical, and conciliatory project preparing the conciliar revolution.
John XXIII’s Epistle as Programmatic Manifesto of the Coming Revolt
Pious Cosmetics Concealing a Radical Reorientation
This document must be read, not as an innocuous pastoral courtesy, but as a symptomatic piece issued on the eve of the so‑called Vatican II, revealing the mind of the initiator of the conciliar upheaval.
Key structural elements:
– Praise of German episcopal conferences gathered at Fulda, alongside the relics of St Boniface, to deliberate collectively on “common needs.”
– Enthusiastic approval of:
– the exposition of the Holy Tunic in Trier as a “sign” for unity;
– the planned International Eucharistic Congress in Munich;
– extensive social-charitable works and support for Catholics in the “Diaspora;”
– intensified activity toward those outside visible Catholic unity.
– Central placement of the projected “Oecumenical Synod,” whose future fruits are anticipated with unqualified optimism for “the entire world” and for “nations to be restored by Christ’s most salutary law.”
At first glance, the text appears orthodox. But under rigorous scrutiny according to *immutabilis doctrina* (unchanging doctrine) prior to 1958, it reveals:
– a subtle yet decisive shift from the supernatural, sacrificial, exclusive claims of the Church to a horizontal, dialogical, inclusivist project;
– a use of sacred themes (Christ the King, Eucharist, relics, missionary zeal) as rhetorical coverings for an ecumenical and proto-modernist agenda;
– a juridically and theologically dangerous promotion of episcopal “conferences” and collective action as quasi-subjects vis-à-vis Rome, undermining the monarchical constitution of the Church defined at Vatican I.
This text is one of the preparatory masks of the conciliar sect.
Factual Layer: Selective Narration and the Instrumentalization of Piety
1. Trier’s Holy Tunic and the Munich Eucharistic Congress
John XXIII commends the exposition of the Holy Tunic in Trier, stating that it led to conspicuous fruits of Catholic piety and highlighted both the majesty of Christ the King and the unity of the Church, of which the seamless garment is a figure.
He then focuses considerable praise on the planned International Eucharistic Congress in Munich as an event that will:
– inflame religious fervour “beyond measure” among the German people;
– attract pilgrims from the whole Catholic world;
– increase veneration of the Blessed Sacrament;
– serve as a banner inviting those “afar” to the threshold of the “maternal house.”
On the factual surface, none of these themes is heretical. The quasi-unanimous pre‑1958 Magisterium encourages Eucharistic congresses and devotions when rightly ordered. However:
– There is a conspicuous absence of any precise doctrinal warning concerning:
– the need for the faithful to receive Holy Communion only in the state of grace;
– the intrinsic connection of Eucharistic worship with full submission to the integral Catholic faith;
– the social Kingship of Christ as requiring the subordination of states to His law, as forcefully articulated by Pius XI in Quas primas.
– The Eucharist is described as a unifying “sign” and “banner” in terms easily assimilated to the later conciliar rhetoric, where sacramental worship is made a tool of ecumenical inclusivism and human fraternity, rather than the unbloody renewal of Calvary (*Sacrificium propitiatorium*).
Thus, supernatural realities are being rhetorically co-opted into an agenda aimed at mobilizing crowds, projecting a consoling image of “unity,” and preparing psychological acceptance of a council that will, in fact, dilute dogma, distort the Mass, and sanction religious liberty condemned by Pius IX’s Syllabus.
2. Glorification of the German “Diaspora” Pastoral Model
John XXIII exalts the episcopal care for Catholics in “Diaspora” regions, underlining:
– the provision of chapels and churches;
– the energetic efforts so that the faithful attend Mass and children receive Catholic instruction;
– the example of priests, religious, and faithful in minority situations.
Again: in itself, missionary care is Catholic. But here:
– The “Diaspora” model is praised without any doctrinal distinction from Protestant-majority or secular environments; it becomes a proto-conciliar paradigm of co-existence without calling for the conversion of false religions.
– The text omits the duty of Catholic states and rulers; it silently accepts the liberal, religiously fragmented order which Pius IX solemnly condemned (cf. Syllabus 55, rejection of separation of Church and State; 77–80, condemnation of liberal “progress” and religious indifferentism).
– The heroic efforts of the faithful are invoked but are directed toward sustaining a Catholic presence within an already accepted pluralist framework, aligning with the later “Dignitatis humanae” mentality.
What is narrated as pastoral success is, at the factual level, the normalization of the Church’s reduction to one confession among many.
Linguistic Layer: Sentimentalism, Equivocation, and Programmatic Optimism
The style and vocabulary are revelatory.
1. Sentimental and Irreproachable Tone as Shield
The entire letter is steeped in soft, consoling rhetoric: “paternal voice,” “sweet consolation,” “maternal house,” “most beloved sons,” “heavenly solace.” This affective, quasi-familial language:
– disarms rational vigilance and critical theological judgment;
– stands in sharp contrast with the virile clarity of Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, and Pius XI, who, while paternal, spoke with juridical and dogmatic precision against liberalism, Modernism, and false ecumenism.
It is the language of tranquilization, not of militant Catholicity.
2. Ambiguous Use of “Unity” and “Separated Brethren”
When referring to those outside the Church, John XXIII speaks of:
“disiuncti ab unico Christi ovili fratres”,
“brothers separated from the one fold of Christ,”
and later of those who are “afar” but of upright conscience and sincere desire for religious truth. Those working through writings, sermons, colloquies to present “the august face of the Catholic religion” to such persons are warmly praised.
Notice:
– The term “brothers” is applied indiscriminately to heretics and schismatics without any doctrinal clarification of their objective status outside the Church.
– There is no reminder of the dogma, defined by the Fourth Lateran Council and consistently taught, that outside the Church no one can be saved unless by explicit or implicit incorporation before death (*extra Ecclesiam nulla salus*).
– There is no insistence that the goal is their unconditional conversion to the one true Church and the renunciation of errors.
The rhetoric anticipates the corrosive language of the conciliar documents and the later paramasonic structure: speaking of “separated brethren,” “elements of sanctification,” and “partial communion,” which Pius IX and Pius X would have identified as classic Modernist ambiguity.
3. Programmatic Optimism: The Council as Universal Benefit
A central passage declares a “deeply fixed hope” that the announced “Oecumenical Synod” will be “in many ways and strongly” beneficial to the entire world and will help, once prejudices are overcome, to bring profit not only to individuals but even to “nations to be restored by Christ’s most salutary law.”
This is a linguistic fraud.
– No mention of the principal modern plague diagnosed by Pius X: Modernismus, omnium haereseon collectus (Modernism, synthesis of all heresies).
– No reference to the concrete doctrinal enemies: false ecumenism, religious liberty, laicism, socialism, Masonry, condemned repeatedly (as in the last sections of the Syllabus and numerous allocutions).
– The future council is portrayed as an almost automatic outpouring of grace and progress once “prejudices” are overcome – exactly the rhetoric that would later be used to impose novelties contra Tradition under a halo of inevitability and “renewal.”
The tone is one of humanistic optimism, not supernatural lucidity. It is the vocabulary of the conciliar sect germinating within the outward shell of Catholic forms.
Theological Layer: Subtle Betrayals of Immutable Doctrine
Measured by pre‑1958 magisterial teaching, several aspects of this letter are theologically pernicious—not through explicit doctrinal negation, but through calculated silence, disproportion, and positive valorization of tendencies condemned by true popes.
1. Silence on the Social Kingship of Christ as Judged by Quas Primas
John XXIII mentions Christ the King and the adoration of His Cross, but:
– He never draws the conclusion of Pius XI: that “the hope of lasting peace will not yet shine upon nations as long as individuals and states refuse to recognize and obey the reign of our Savior” (cf. Quas primas).
– He omits the duty of rulers to submit laws, education, and public life to Christ’s law; omits the condemnation of secularism and laicism that Pius XI explicitly calls a “plague.”
– He speaks instead of benefits to “nations” in vague terms, entirely compatible with the liberal nation-state and religious pluralism.
This amounts to a practical denial of the doctrine reaffirmed in 1925. The Kingship of Christ is reduced to interior devotion and symbolic unity, a prelude to the later conciliar capitulation where states are no longer bound publicly to the true religion.
2. Ecumenical Orientation Contradicting the Syllabus of Errors
The praise of efforts toward non-Catholics, devoid of any doctrinal exactness, implicitly leans toward positions condemned by Pius IX:
– Error 15–18 in the Syllabus condemn religious indifferentism and the idea that one may embrace any religion guided by reason or that Protestantism is just another form of true Christianity.
– Error 77–80 condemn the idea that the Catholic religion should not be the only religion of the state, that public worship of all religions is beneficial, and that the Roman Pontiff must reconcile with “progress, liberalism, and modern civilization.”
In the letter:
– There is no reaffirmation of the exclusive truth of the Catholic Church.
– There is a sympathetic highlighting of “upright conscience” and “sincere search,” terms that will later be weaponized to justify treating heretics and infidels as quasi-members.
– There is enthusiastic approval of “apostolic” initiatives that, in practice, will evolve into the ecumenical dialogues of the conciliar sect, where conversion is muted and mutual recognition presumed.
By omission and tone, the letter systematically undercuts the doctrinal line of the *Syllabus* and Mortalium animos (Pius XI’s encyclical condemning interconfessional “unity” movements).
3. Collegial and National Structures Undermining Papal Monarchy
The letter is addressed to the German hierarchy as a collective body; it commends their annual Fulda meeting; it praises the establishment of three councils of German bishops to contribute to the coming “Oecumenical Synod.”
This is not yet explicit heresy, but it inaugurates a praxis:
– Episkopal conferences and collective organs as co-responsible subjects alongside the Roman See.
– Systemic valorization of national structures, which will later relativize universal Roman authority and fracture doctrinal unity.
This stands in tension with Vatican I’s definition of the primacy and immediacy of Roman jurisdiction (*Pastor aeternus*). The seeds of collegialist subversion are blessed in this letter and soon will be institutionalized by the conciliar sect to dilute papal monarchy into a parliamentary pseudo-church.
4. The Council as Pastoral Panacea and the Absence of Modernism’s Condemnation
From Pius X’s Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi to Pius XII, the true Magisterium:
– exposes Modernism’s method: to retain Catholic words while infusing them with novel, immanentist, evolutionist meanings;
– commands vigilance, condemnation of error, and refusal of compromises.
In this letter:
– There is zero mention of Modernism as danger.
– The “Oecumenical Synod” is proposed without an agenda of condemning errors; instead, the goal is vaguely set as overcoming “prejudices” so that its decisions benefit all, including nations.
– This anticipates the “pastoral, not dogmatic; open to the world; dialogical” orientation that defined the pseudo-council and directly contradicts the defensive, doctrinally precise function of true ecumenical councils.
By theological criteria, this is the psychology of revolution: shift from anathematizing errors to cultivating sympathy, from guarding depositum fidei to adjusting it to “needs” of the world.
Symptomatic Layer: Manifestation of the Conciliar Sect’s DNA
Read as a symptom of the post-1958 apostasy, this letter exhibits several constants of the later conciliar structure.
1. Instrumentalization of Traditional Devotions
Relics, Eucharistic congresses, Marian shrines, St Boniface, and apostolic zeal are all invoked—but in order to:
– build consensus and enthusiasm for the future council;
– mask the introduction of a new ecclesiology: Church as open, dialogical, service-oriented body within pluralistic society;
– detach devotions from their dogmatic backbone and re-inscribe them into a horizontal narrative of “unity,” “peace,” and “universal benefit.”
This is precisely how the conciliar sect would later treat Corpus Christi, Christ the King, Marian feasts: emptied of claims over states, reinterpreted as symbols of human fraternity and conscience.
2. Naturalistic and Human-Centered Emphasis
Though clothed in pious formulas, the text:
– downplays final judgment, hell, the need for repentance;
– says nothing about the mortal danger of heresy, Freemasonry, socialism, and laicism, despite Pius IX’s explicit recognition of masonic machinations against the Church;
– is dominated by concern for social works, mutual understanding, encouragement, and optimistic hopes.
The supernatural order is presupposed verbally but not allowed to judge concrete modern errors. This practical naturalism is the core of the conciliar deformation: the cult of man under the thin veil of Christian vocabulary.
3. Proto-Ecumenism and the Demolition of Missionary Exclusivity
By praising in undifferentiated terms all efforts that expose non-Catholics to the “august face of the Catholic religion,” without reiterating the necessity of abjuration of errors and formal conversion, John XXIII helps invert the missionary mandate:
– from “convert and baptize all nations” to “dialogue and share experiences with all religions.”
Later, this would culminate in the scandalous interreligious spectacles and public recognitions of false cults by the conciliar sect, in open contempt of the pre‑1958 Magisterium.
4. The Cult of Consensus: Prefiguration of Synodalism
The letter’s praise of collective consultations at Fulda and the appointment of councils of experts to prepare the larger “Synod” prefigures the synodalist, parliamentary orientation of the neo-church:
– The true hierarchical, monarchic constitution is psychologically replaced by processes, commissions, “people of God” language.
– Authority becomes “listening,” “coordinating,” and “encouraging,” not teaching with sovereign, binding definitions against the world.
This is already perceptible in the courteous, non-judgmental, consultative tone of the letter. It marks a departure from the authoritative letters of Pius IX, who directly denounced governments, sects, and false doctrines by name and declared unjust laws null and void.
Gravest Omission: No Warning Against the Conciliar Deluge Being Prepared
The most damning aspect of this document is not an isolated phrase, but its entire horizon.
What an integral Catholic reading must underline:
– No admonition that the faithful must cling to traditional doctrine and liturgy, reject novelties, and mistrust the world’s flattery.
– No explicit reaffirmation of:
– the inerrancy of Scripture against historical criticism condemned in Lamentabili;
– the immutability of dogma against evolutionism;
– the exclusive salvific necessity of the Catholic Church.
– No condemnation of the already rampant errors in German-speaking lands: liturgical experimentation, biblical Modernism, false “ecumenical” organizations.
Instead, there is:
– Confidence in a coming council serving the “whole world”;
– Praise for structures and emphases that would become the very vehicles of doctrinal devastation: episcopal conferences, international congresses misused for spectacle, “Diaspora pastoral” turned into relativism, and “ecumenical” openings.
Thus the letter works as a soft manifesto preparing acceptance of the conciliar revolution. Its apparent orthodoxy is precisely the Modernist method exposed by Pius X: retaining formulas while altering their spirit and context.
Conclusion: The Document as Early Charter of the Neo-Church
Judged solely by the immutable Catholic doctrine prior to 1958, this epistle is:
– theologically deficient by calculated silence on condemned modern errors;
– linguistically constructed to anesthetize and seduce rather than to arm and warn;
– ecclesiologically corrosive in its praise of collective, national, and dialogical forms that relativize Roman primacy and the Church’s exclusive claims;
– symptomatically aligned with the later conciliar sect’s program: sentimental humanitarianism, ecumenical ambiguity, accommodation to liberal states, and reduction of Christ’s Kingship to an interior sentiment.
Beneath its devotional surface, it is not a beacon of Catholic restoration, but an antechamber of the abomination that would soon occupy Roman structures: a paramasonic, anthropocentric pseudo-church that dares to use the vocabulary of Tradition while betraying its substance.
The only Catholic response is to measure such texts rigorously by the pre‑1958 Magisterium, to reject their modernist presuppositions, and to hold fast to the perennial Faith, in which Christ truly reigns as King over individuals, families, and nations, and outside of which there is no salvation, no true unity, and no peace.
Source:
Apostolici Muneris – Ad Iosephum S. R. E. Card. Frings, Archiepiscopum Coloniensem; Iosephum S. R. E. Card. Wendel, Archiepiscopum Monacensem et Frisingensem; Iulium S. R. E. Card. Doepfner, Episcopum… (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025