John XXIII’s letter “S. Paulus Apostolus” (15 December 1959) is a brief exhortation addressed to Caesarius D’Amato, encouraging commemorations of the 19th centenary of Saint Paul’s arrival in Rome. It praises the Roman faithful who welcomed the Apostle, urges solemn celebrations and conferences to honour Paul’s person, doctrine, and martyrdom, and stresses Rome’s unique glory in having Peter and Paul as its teachers and relics. It calls it “immane et vituperabile” (enormous and blameworthy) to oppose or despise the light of the Catholic faith brought by Paul, and concludes with a benign wish that these festivities deepen Christian life and devotion.
This apparently pious text is, however, a paradigmatic specimen of the conciliar sect’s method: selective citation, sentimental rhetoric, and studied omissions used to cloak an already operative revolution in the Church’s very foundations.
Pauline Commemoration as a Veil for Pauline Betrayal
Factual Inversion: Praising Paul While Dismantling His Church
The letter moves within incontestable historical data: Saint Paul ardently desired to see Rome (Rom 1:11-12), arrived there after many trials (Acts 28), and was received with filial devotion by the faithful coming out to meet him on the Via Appia and at Tres Tabernae. John XXIII recounts the scene:
“And from there, when the brethren heard about us, they came as far as the Forum of Appius and Three Taverns to meet us. On seeing them, Paul gave thanks to God and took courage.”
“Et inde, cum audissent fratres, occurrerunt nobis usque ad Appii Forum ac Tres Tabernas; quos cum vidisset Paulus, gratias agens Deo accepit fiduciam.”
He then exhorts that this welcoming spirit be imitated: assemblies, lectures, solemnities so that the greatness of Paul’s coming to Rome be placed “in the clearest light,” glorifying the City that possesses the bodies of Peter and Paul.
All this would be laudable—if it were not written by the very man who, as the first visible head of the conciliar usurpation, set in motion the process that subverted exactly what Paul preached: the exclusivity of the one true Faith, the divine constitution of the Church, the non-negotiable primacy of revealed truth over human opinion, and the public kingship of Christ.
From the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine prior to 1958, this letter is not innocently commemorative. It is a maneuver of *pious cosmetics* covering the inception of an apostasy which Saint Paul himself anathematized (*Gal 1:8-9*). John XXIII appropriates the Apostle’s name while silently preparing to contradict his doctrine in principle and in practice.
Pious Language as a Screen for Naturalistic Humanism
At the linguistic level, the letter appears classically ecclesiastical: references to *gratia spiritualis*, *communis fides*, *sacra sollemnia*, admiration for Roman fidelity, praise of Paul’s “heavenly doctrine” and “glorious martyrdom.” It cites Saint John Chrysostom’s exalted panegyric to Paul’s soul as a “spiritual paradise.”
However, what is most revealing in such texts is not the presence of orthodox vocabulary, but the strategic absences and the subtle redirection of emphasis. Note:
– There is no mention of:
– the necessity of belonging to the one visible Catholic Church for salvation;
– the danger of heresy and schism eating into the very structures occupying Rome;
– the binding doctrinal condemnations of the Syllabus of Errors (Pius IX) against liberalism and false religious liberty;
– the anathemas of Vatican I on modernist conceptions of revelation and ecclesial authority;
– the mortal gravity of tampering with the liturgy and sacraments;
– the duty of nations and rulers to recognize the social Kingship of Christ (as taught shortly before by Pius XI in *Quas Primas*).
Instead, the Apostle of the Nations is invoked in a way that is safely “cultural,” celebratory, museum-like—perfectly acceptable to a world already soaked in laicism and to elites intent on translating Catholicism into a harmless moral inspiration.
This is precisely the naturalistic method condemned by the pre-1958 Magisterium:
– Pius IX, in the Syllabus, rejects the proposition that the Church must reconcile herself with “progress, liberalism and modern civilization” understood as emancipation from revealed truth (Syllabus, prop. 80).
– Pius X in *Lamentabili sane exitu* and *Pascendi* exposes Modernism’s tactic of retaining Christian words while emptying them of dogmatic content.
John XXIII’s letter exemplifies this tactic. He speaks of Paul, but:
– never touches Paul’s uncompromising doctrinal clarity;
– never recalls Paul’s condemnation of another gospel;
– never echoes Paul’s intolerance of error in morals and doctrine.
The rhetoric is devout, but antiseptic. It is liturgical incense used as smoke to conceal the ideological demolition already underway.
Silencing Paul’s Anathemas: The Most Damning Omission
The gravest symptom is the total silence about those Pauline truths most directly contradicted by the conciliar revolution that John XXIII was calling into being.
Saint Paul preached:
– The exclusive mediatorship of Christ and the uniqueness of the Church:
– “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:5).
– The condemnation of perverted gospels:
– “If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema” (Gal 1:8-9).
– The duty to separate from false teachers and innovators:
– “Mark them who cause dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them” (Rom 16:17).
– The incompatibility of light and darkness:
– “What concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?” (2 Cor 6:15).
John XXIII’s letter:
– does not recall Paul’s anathemas;
– does not warn against another gospel;
– does not speak of the danger of false brethren within;
– does not affirm that Rome’s glory depends precisely on its uncompromising fidelity to the unchanging deposit of faith.
Instead, the Apostle is aestheticized. The letter urges that his arrival in Rome be celebrated as a monumental event in Roman religious history, but carefully bypasses what would most bind the conscience: the non-negotiable doctrinal demands that Paul imposes upon all ages.
This silence is not neutral; it is accusatory. It illustrates what Pius X condemned: the modernist “system of errors” that reduces revelation to an inspirational, historical phenomenon while muting its absolute, dogmatic authority (*cf.* *Lamentabili*, prop. 20-26, 58-65).
From Paul’s Rome to the Conciliar Sect: A Symptom of Systemic Apostasy
The letter highlights, with rhetorical flourish, Rome’s glory in possessing the bodies of Peter and Paul:
“Haec nempe Urbs, tot illustris fastis et titulis, potissimum felix terque felix est, quod Petrum et Paulum, Apostolorum Principes, habuit magistros eorumque mortales exuvias religiose asservat.”
Yes: Rome is thrice-blessed for being founded by the Princes of the Apostles. But this unique prerogative imposes a proportionate obligation: *Roma locuta, causa finita est* (Rome has spoken, the case is closed) is valid only so long as what speaks from Rome is identically the faith of Peter and Paul.
When a new regime, beginning with John XXIII, uses their names while preparing:
– to convoke an assembly that will:
– praise non-Catholic religions;
– endorse religious liberty condemned by previous popes;
– relativize the necessity of the Catholic Church;
– adulterate the Most Holy Sacrifice with protestantized rites;
– to institutionalize “dialogue” in place of the Pauline warfare against error;
then the invocation of Peter and Paul becomes not a mark of continuity, but a counterfeit seal.
Pius IX in the Syllabus condemns precisely the principles that the conciliar sect would soon enthrone:
– the separation of Church and State (prop. 55),
– equal public rights for all cults (prop. 77-79),
– the supposed obligation of the Papacy to reconcile with liberal modern civilization (prop. 80).
Pius X, reaffirming these, anathematizes the very evolutionist, experiential religion that would be canonized by the council launched under John XXIII.
Therefore, when John XXIII calls it:
“immane et vituperabile… Romae a sanctissimo Apostolo catholicae fidei illatam lucem impiis commentis et scriptis oppugnare, pravo vitae tenore contemnere”
(“enormous and blameworthy in Rome to attack by impious writings and doctrines, or to contemn by evil life, the light of the Catholic faith brought by the most holy Apostle”),
he inadvertently pronounces judgment upon his own impending program and on the conciliar sect that would flow from it. For what are:
– the adulteration of doctrine,
– the protestantisation of worship,
– the glorification of false religions,
– the cult of man,
if not “impious writings and doctrines” opposing the Pauline light of faith?
External Celebrations Without Interior Conversion: Liturgical Museology
The letter strongly encourages solemn liturgical and cultural initiatives:
– “Sacra sollemnia celebrentur, coalescant coetus, acroases fiant…”
– Conferences, gatherings, festive ceremonies to place in bright light the honour of Paul’s advent to Rome.
But there is a revealing imbalance:
– The text exhorts to “deepen” knowledge of Paul’s doctrine and labours, yet:
– does not specify the dogmatic content that must be confessed;
– does not insist on submission to the pre-existing condemnations of liberalism, indifferentism, and modernism;
– does not call for examination of conscience regarding public sin, heresy, and scandal among clergy and laity;
– does not mention repentance, state of grace, sacramental confession, or the Four Last Things.
Silence about these supernatural realities—where they should be central—is the darkest mark against this letter. It confirms the naturalistic, museum-like treatment of the Apostle: he becomes an object of cultural-historical veneration, not a living judge of doctrine who still declares: *anathema sit* upon innovators, no matter their office.
This is precisely what Pius XI warns against in *Quas Primas*: a secularized world tolerating a declawed “Christ” as moral exemplar or symbol, while rejecting His sovereign rights over individuals and societies. Paul in this letter is treated analogously: impressive, inspiring, but harmless to the new order that John XXIII is about to inaugurate.
Ecclesiological Subtext: Legitimation of a Counterfeit Authority
The letter’s gentle tone and classical Latin are deployed to project continuity and undisputed authority, implicitly demanding recognition of John XXIII as legitimate successor of Peter while he prepares to neutralize the very magisterium he claims.
From the integral Catholic standpoint:
– *A manifest heretic cannot be Pope*:
– As expounded by St. Robert Bellarmine and classical theologians: a public, notorious heretic is separated from the body of the Church and cannot hold authority over it; he is not a member and thus cannot be head.
– The principle reaffirmed by canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code:
– Public defection from the faith results in tacit resignation of office “ipso facto,” without further declaration.
While this letter is formally pious and does not in itself articulate an explicit heresy, its function in the broader context is to:
– wrap in traditional piety the person who initiates:
– the relativization of pre-existing doctrinal condemnations;
– the program of aggiornamento leading to dogmatic, liturgical, and moral revolution.
Thus the text is part of a moral and doctrinal fraud: an attempt to claim the prestige of Peter and Paul while laying the foundations of an institution—the conciliar sect—that contradicts their faith. It is an act of symbolic capture: the names of the Apostles are used as decorative capitals on a structure whose foundations have been secretly shifted.
Contradiction with Pre-1958 Magisterium: Measured by Omissions
Compare John XXIII’s letter with what the authentic Magisterium had taught shortly before:
– Pius XI, *Quas Primas*:
– insists that true peace and order are possible only under the public and private reign of Christ the King;
– condemns laicism and secularism as sources of social ruin;
– requires states and rulers to submit their laws to Christ’s law.
– Pius IX, *Syllabus of Errors*:
– condemns:
– religious indifferentism;
– separation of Church and State;
– subjecting the Church to civil power;
– the notion that truth evolves with history.
– Pius X, *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*:
– condemns:
– the idea that dogma evolves from religious experience;
– that the Church must adapt doctrine to modern thought;
– that ecclesiastical authority is derived from the community.
An authentic Pauline centenary letter in continuity with this magisterium would:
– thunder against modernism as Paul thundered against false apostles;
– call Rome to penance for tolerating blasphemies, indecency, and secularism;
– warn that any “new Pentecost” against the prior teaching of the Church would be a new Babel, not from God;
– reaffirm that Peter and Paul’s Rome cannot endorse religious liberty, ecumenism with heresy and schism, or adulterated liturgy without betraying its foundation.
John XXIII’s text does none of this. Its gentle vagueness is not a minor stylistic choice; it is a deliberate avoidance of the very fault lines along which the conciliar revolution would proceed. This silence, in the face of a world already intoxicated with liberalism and naturalism, is tantamount to acquiescence.
Modernist Technique: Selective Tradition as Decorative Facade
The method at work can be summarized:
– Retain:
– Latin language;
– quotations from Scripture and Fathers;
– references to martyrs and relics;
– invocations of “Apostolic Blessing.”
– Remove:
– any concrete reaffirmation of the Syllabus;
– any binding mention of Vatican I’s condemnations of doctrinal relativism;
– any clear denunciation of modern philosophical and political errors;
– any insistence on the exclusive salvific necessity of the Catholic Church;
– any robust teaching on sin, grace, judgment, Hell.
This is exactly how Modernism survives under appearances of orthodoxy. As Pius X noted, Modernists “lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root,” yet are capable of disguising themselves with traditional formulas.
The letter “S. Paulus Apostolus” is such a disguise. Its apparent harmlessness is its usefulness. It habituates the faithful to accept:
– a leadership that speaks beautifully of saints,
– while preparing to overturn their doctrine,
– without ever warning the flock of the wolves entering in episcopal clothing.
Conclusion: Paul Used Against Paul
Saint Paul, who resisted Peter “to the face” when the latter’s conduct endangered the truth of the Gospel (Gal 2:11), would resist infinitely more sharply any who, seated in Peter’s chair in appearance, would:
– relativize the Church’s exclusive claims;
– fraternize with idols and false cults;
– dilute dogma in the name of dialogue;
– reduce the Most Holy Sacrifice to a communal banquet;
– evacuate from public life the rights of Christ the King.
John XXIII’s letter, read in isolation, seems a harmless—if anodyne—devotional text. Read in its real historical and doctrinal context, it is a small but telling piece of a larger operation:
– to invoke Paul’s name without his anathemas;
– to celebrate his arrival in Rome while inaugurating a regime that expels his doctrine from the same Rome;
– to bless commemorations that soothe consciences, instead of calling them to the uncompromising fidelity Paul demands.
Thus, what presents itself as homage to the Apostle is in fact the appropriation of his prestige by an ecclesiastical revolution he would have condemned as “another gospel.”
Source:
S. Paulus Apostolus – Ad Caesarium D'amato, Episcopum Tit. Sebastenum in Cilicia ac S. Pauli de urbe Abbatem, undevicesimo revoluto saeculo ex quo Sanctus Paulus Apostolus Romam venit (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025