The Latin letter “Sacra Palaestinae” (17 April 1960) by John XXIII congratulates the Franciscan Order on the fourth centenary of its stable seat at St. Saviour’s in Jerusalem, extols their role as guardians of the Holy Places, encourages the promotion of pilgrimages and financial support for the custodial works, and reaffirms earlier prescriptions that in every diocese at least once a year a collection should be made for the Holy Land. Behind pious language about the “victorious banners” of Christ’s sanctuaries, the text reduces the mystery of the Incarnate Word’s homeland to an object of diplomatic, sentimental, and financial cult, perfectly suited to the emerging conciliar religion: a horizontal, naturalistic management of “Sacred Places” severed from the unchanging demands of Christ the King and the integral Catholic Faith.
Profanation of the Holy Places: John XXIII’s Horizontal Devotion and the Betrayal of Jerusalem
From Holy Places to Museum Relics: The Naturalistic Reduction of the Sacred
On the surface, the document appears orthodox: it speaks of the “Sacred Places of Palestine,” of the “Divine Redeemer,” of venerating the footprints of Christ. Yet precisely in this smooth devotional veneer lies its most dangerous feature: a systematic displacement of the supernatural order by a sentimental topography and an ecclesiastico-touristic cult, detached from the full doctrinal and moral claim of the Catholic Church.
Key features:
– John XXIII praises the Franciscans because they have preserved the Holy Places as a “common and most excellent patrimony of Christians”:
“commune illud praestantissimumque christianorum patrimonium sartum tectum servaretur”
He carefully avoids stating the Catholic dogma that only the Church founded by Christ, the *una sancta catholica et apostolica Ecclesia*, has any divine right over those Places, over worship there, and over their doctrinal meaning. By calling it simply a patrimony of “Christians,” he levels the divinely-founded Catholic exclusivity to a pan-Christian common property, anticipating the ecumenical syncretism of the later conciliar sect.
– The entire letter treats the Holy Places primarily as:
– objects of historical veneration,
– loci for emotional attachment,
– and centers of Franciscan “apostolate and charity works”
rather than as the visible assertion of the Kingship of Christ and the jurisdiction of His Church over peoples and rulers. This is a repudiation in practice of what Pius XI solemnly taught: that peace and order flow only from the social recognition of Christ’s royal rights, not from neutral “patrimony” language divorced from dogma (*Quas primas*, 1925).
This shift is not accidental. It is symptomatic of a new religion that relativizes dogma while adorning itself with pious formulas. The Holy Land is no longer primarily presented as the throne of the crucified King whose law binds individuals and nations, but as a quasi-archaeological sanctuary entrusted to an order praised for diplomatic persistence and logistical management.
Silencing the Kingship of Christ and the True Mission of the Church
The gravest accusation against this letter is its methodical silence.
What is entirely absent?
– No affirmation that:
– the Catholic Church alone is the true Church of Christ (condemned denial: Syllabus of Errors, prop. 21).
– the Holy Places belong by right to that Church in virtue of divine institution, not human agreements.
– No call:
– to convert the infidels, schismatics, and heretics who dominate the Holy Land politically and religiously,
– to preach to Jews and Mohammedans the only Name by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12), as always taught by the pre-1958 Magisterium.
Instead, there is a sterile insistence on preserving monuments and promoting pilgrimages, as if God’s primordial concern in Jerusalem were renovation funds and sightseeing piety, not the submission of all to His Son.
– No mention:
– of the necessity of the state of grace,
– of sacramental life ordered to the Most Holy Sacrifice,
– of the Last Judgment and eternal salvation of souls who tread those holy stones.
This silence is not neutral. In the light of Pius X’s condemnation of Modernism in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi, such omissions are the typical tactics of those who retain forms while emptying them of doctrinal content. The Holy Places are spiritualized into a romantic symbol; dogma is background décor; mission becomes maintenance.
Silentium de necessariis est grave indicium apostasiae (Silence about what is necessary is a grave sign of apostasy). Here, the necessary: Christ’s exclusive Kingship, the obligation of conversion, the denunciation of false cults, are hushed in favor of a unifying rhetoric about patrimony and philanthropy.
“Patrimony of Christians”: Ecumenical Sabotage in Embryo
The deliberate terminology of “patrimonium christianorum” must be read in continuity with the Syllabus’ condemnation of Indifferentism and false equality of sects:
– Pius IX condemns the proposition that “Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion…” (Syllabus, prop. 18).
– He likewise condemns civil and doctrinal leveling of religions (props. 15–17, 77–80).
Yet John XXIII, in an official letter, speaks in a way that:
– blurs confessional borders,
– dissolves the Catholic claim to exclusive guardianship of the loci sancti,
– prepares in language what the conciliar revolution will later enact formally: joint “custody” of holy realities with heretics and infidels, ecumenical liturgies, and political compromises in the very land sanctified by the Precious Blood.
This is not innocence; it is ideological. To describe Jerusalem’s sanctuaries as a “common patrimony” while withholding the solemn assertion of Rome’s exclusive divine mandate is to deny in practice the principle that the Holy Places are visible signs of a kingdom “that shall have no end” (Nicene Creed), the reign of Christ in and through His one visible Church.
Where integral Catholic doctrine proclaims:
– *Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus* (Outside the Church no salvation),
John XXIII’s rhetoric insinuates:
– “Within Christian pluralism, shared patrimony unites us.”
This rhetorical corruption is one of the purest fruits of the conciliar spirit already active in 1960.
Franciscans as Custodians of Sentiment: A Manipulated Heroism
John XXIII magnifies the “invincible constancy” of Franciscan friars, praises their sacrifices, and recalls past persecutions. In itself, the historical fidelity of the Order in the East contained admirable episodes. Yet the way the letter instrumentalizes this history is revealing.
He exalts:
– logistical guardianship,
– social and charitable initiatives,
– “works” that broaden the “field of the Church” in the Near East,
while he suppresses:
– the Order’s traditional duty to preach conversion to the true Faith,
– the combat against Islam, Judaism, and heresy as enemies of the Cross,
– the confessional and militant dimension of their presence.
Thus, past martyrdoms are appropriated to authorize a present betrayal: a Franciscanism reprogrammed as humanitarian custodian of “spaces” for all, instead of a Militia Christi confessing dogma to death if necessary.
This is a perfect practical application of errors condemned by St. Pius X:
– the reduction of apostolate to social action and immanentist “charity,”
– the reinterpretation of dogma and mission through historical evolution (cf. Lamentabili 52–55, 63–65, condemning ideas that dogmas, sacraments, hierarchy are mere evolutionary forms of Christian consciousness).
By sustaining this emptying of the Franciscan vocation, John XXIII acts not as guardian but as gravedigger of Catholic missionary identity in the very place where the Apostles received the command: “Teach all nations…”.
Perverting Almsgiving: Financing a Neo-Church in the Holy Places
A central practical point of the letter is to confirm and press the obligation of annual collections for the Holy Land:
“ut … fidelium … Sanctorum Locorum necessitates proponantur.”
Under a true Pope and in a true Catholic order, this could be a legitimate exercise of ecclesial solidarity. But by 1960, with John XXIII preparing the council that would enthrone religious liberty and ecumenism, and with the Franciscan custody progressively integrated into the conciliar project, this insistence assumes an entirely different significance.
Serious problems:
– Faithful are urged to give, without any doctrinal safeguard, to works increasingly subordinated to:
– ecumenical cooperation,
– interreligious cohabitation,
– diplomacy with enemies of the Faith,
– liturgical and catechetical corruption.
– There is no warning that:
– funds must not support the subversion of doctrine;
– no Catholic may materially cooperate with the propagation of a false religion, even if disguised by ancient habits.
– There is no connection made between almsgiving and:
– the Most Holy Sacrifice,
– penance,
– reparation for sins against the Holy Places (blasphemies, false worship, profanations),
all of which are central in the pre-1958 Catholic understanding of sacred space.
Instead, a purely horizontal rhetoric of “increasing needs due to the circumstances of the times” and “liberality” appears: a naturalistic humanitarian vocabulary that could be adopted by any NGO.
This perversion of almsgiving violates the Catholic principle that material support is ordered to the true worship of God and the salvation of souls. Pius IX himself, in condemning Masonic and liberal infiltration, exposed precisely such tactics: using Catholic generosity to fund anti-Catholic ends (cf. his warnings against secret societies and liberal governments in the Syllabus).
“Sacred Places” Without Condemnation of Enemies: A Program of Coexistence
Another conspicuous omission: the letter never mentions:
– Freemasonry,
– anti-Catholic governments,
– Zionist, Muslim, or secularist profanations of the Holy Places,
– heretical or schismatic rites that insult the Divine Majesty on holy ground.
Yet pre-conciliar Popes repeatedly and explicitly denounced:
– the Masonic “synagogue of Satan” as orchestrator of war against the Church and the Papacy (Pius IX, in the appended passages to the Syllabus),
– the usurpation of ecclesiastical rights by secular powers,
– the falsity of religious liberty and indifferentism.
Here, in a letter dealing precisely with territories marked by anti-Christian power and false religions, the supposed “Pope” of 1960 spreads a veil of silence and speaks only of:
– “pious liberality,”
– “veneration of the sacred footprints,”
– “gratitude” to benefactors.
Qui tacet consentire videtur (He who is silent appears to consent). The practical result is consent to the coexistence of Christ with His negators in the very land of His Passion, as if the Church’s task were to adjust her cult to the pluralistic status quo.
Thus the Holy Land is transformed from a battlefield of truth against error into a stage for the conciliar sect’s diplomacy. This is the ideological function of the letter.
Subtle Undermining of Ecclesial Authority and Mission
Though couched in paternal phrases, the text contributes to the democratization and dilution of ecclesial authority:
– It heavily appeals to the “pietas fidelium ex orbe universo” (piety of the faithful from all over the world) and their generosity as decisive supports of the cause.
– It frames the norms of Leo XIII and Benedict XV primarily as mechanisms to raise funds, not as juridical assertions of the Holy See’s sovereign authority over the Holy Places.
What is missing is the clear juridical language, present in true Magisterium, that:
– the Roman Pontiff, as Vicar of Christ, exercises direct authority over the sacred,
– the faithful are bound in obedience because the Church commands in God’s name,
– temporal and spiritual powers that hinder this are in objective rebellion against divine law.
Instead, John XXIII’s tone is bureaucratic-sentimental, suggestive rather than commanding, flooding the page with benevolent affect. This stylistic shift is itself theological: the shepherd no longer wields the rod of Peter, but the tone of a UN functionary blessing a cultural heritage project.
This contradicts the constant pre-1958 teaching reaffirmed, for example, by Pius IX, who insists that:
– the Church is a perfect society with proper and perpetual rights (Syllabus, prop. 19 condemned),
– the civil power cannot define her limits, nor usurp her freedom.
A letter on Jerusalem that does not trumpet this sovereignty, but rather melts it into a vague appeal for international generosity, is doctrinally deficient and practically subversive.
Symptom of the Conciliar Sect: Continuity in Words, Revolution in Substance
Seen from the perspective of integral Catholic teaching, “Sacra Palaestinae” is not an isolated devotional note, but a piece of evidence in the case against John XXIII and the conciliar sect:
– It preserves some traditional phrases (Holy Places, Divine Redeemer, martyrs).
– It methodically excludes:
– exclusivity of the Catholic Church,
– condemnation of false religions,
– proclamation of Christ’s social Kingship in the Holy Land,
– emphasis on the Most Holy Sacrifice and sacramental life as the heart of those sanctuaries,
– denunciation of the enemies of the Church (Masons, liberals, secular states).
This is precisely the method unmasked by St. Pius X:
– retain forms,
– evacuate dogma,
– replace supernatural ends with natural ones: culture, patrimony, humanitarianism, dialogue.
The letter is therefore a small but clear manifestation of the same spirit that would later produce:
– the cult of religious liberty,
– ecumenical worship in the Holy Land,
– recognition of false religions as “partners,”
– reduction of the Holy Places to shared “spiritual heritage” instead of citadels of the Catholic Faith.
In this sense, “Sacra Palaestinae” is a preparatory catechism of the neo-church: training the faithful to give money and sentimental adhesion, while their minds are weaned away from the sharp, exclusive, militant truth of the Gospel.
Integral Catholic Counter-Principles: Jerusalem for Christ the King Alone
Against the doctrinally diluted and horizontally oriented message of this letter, the perennial Catholic doctrine before 1958 stands in luminous opposition:
– *Unicity of the Church*: Only the Catholic Church, visible and hierarchical, is the Mystical Body of Christ. Thus only she has divine right over the Holy Places, not as “heritage” of an undefined Christianity, but as instruments and signs of her mission to teach all nations.
– *Kingship of Christ*: As Pius XI proclaims, peace and order, personal and social, come only from public recognition of Christ’s reign. Jerusalem, of all cities, must be proclaimed not as neutral “holy space,” but as the earthly theater of the King’s definitive victory; every denial of His rights there is rebellion.
– *Condemnation of False Religions*: The Syllabus of Errors, Lamentabili, and the entire pre-conciliar Magisterium reject any doctrinal or practical parity of sects and the idea that men can be saved in any religion whatsoever. Therefore:
– Islam, Talmudic Judaism, Eastern schisms, and Protestantism profaning or contesting the Holy Places are not “partners” but objective enemies of Christ’s rights, to be prayed for, instructed, and converted, not flattered.
– *Primacy of Supernatural Ends*: Any mention of the Holy Land that does not directly serve:
– the frequent, worthy celebration of the Most Holy Sacrifice,
– the teaching of the true Faith,
– the sanctification of souls,
but instead exalts sentiment, sightseeing, philanthropy, or interreligious co-management, is a betrayal.
Measured by these principles, John XXIII’s letter collapses. It is, despite pious trappings, an act of ideological sabotage: subordinating the most sacred geography of Redemption to the nascent conciliar ideology of shared heritage, horizontal charity, and doctrinal mutism.
Conclusion: The Holy Land Is Not an Ecumenical Park
“Sacra Palaestinae” must be read not as a harmless occasional letter but as a window into the emerging religion of the “Church of the New Advent”:
– It speaks reverently of the Holy Places while tacitly stripping them of their confessional and royal meaning.
– It praises Franciscans while redirecting them from missionary martyrdom to managerial coexistence.
– It invokes the generosity of the faithful to nourish structures already drifting toward the conciliar apostasy.
In doing so, it betrays Jerusalem, not by open denial, but by suffocating truth under sentimental vagueness. Where Christ shed His Blood, the conciliar sect installs a “common patrimony”; where the Church once proclaimed *Non possumus*, John XXIII whispers “let us all support together”; where Popes condemned the Masonic and liberal assault on the Church, he stands mute.
The integral Catholic response is clear and verifiable in the pre-1958 Magisterium: Jerusalem belongs to Christ the King and to His one true Church. Any teaching, governance, or devotional program that obscures this or subordinates it to ecumenical or naturalistic considerations is not Catholic, but a manifestation of the ongoing apostasy.
Source:
Sacra Palaestinae Ad Augustinum Sépinski, Ordinis Fratrum Minorum ministrum generalem, quarto exeunte saeculo, ex quo sodalium eiusdem ordinis sedes in Hierosolymitana urbe stabiliter est constituta (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025