The brief Latin note attributed to John XXIII congratulates Ignatius Gabriel Tappouni, Syriac Patriarch of Antioch and cardinal, on the fiftieth anniversary of his reception of the Roman purple, praises his merits and fidelity to the See of Peter, and imparts an “Apostolic Blessing” upon him and his flock. Behind this seemingly innocuous compliment lies the distilled program of the conciliar usurpation: the canonization of diplomacy, the sacralization of human respect, and the instrumentalization of Eastern hierarchs as ornaments of a neo-church that has already begun to repudiate the Kingship of Christ and the dogmatic intransigence of the true Roman Church.
Epistolary Formalism in Service of the Conciliar Usurpation
This chirograph is a few lines; its poverty of content is itself doctrinally symptomatic.
John XXIII addresses Tappouni as one “faithfully bound to the See of Peter” and congratulates him for services “to the advantage and ornament of the Church,” then extends a blessing. There is no explicit, material heresy in the text itself; yet context, language, and silences must be judged according to *lex orandi, lex credendi* (the law of prayer is the law of belief) and the pre-1958 magisterial standard.
By December 1960, the man signing “IOANNES PP. XXIII” had:
– Convoked what would become the Second Vatican Council, openly promising an “aggiornamento” that relativized the anathemas of the past.
– Begun dismantling the anti-liberal, anti-modernist ramparts erected by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV and Pius XI–XII, signaling a rupture with the teachings of the Syllabus of Errors (1864) and the uncompromising condemnations of Modernism in “Lamentabili sane exitu” (1907) and “Pascendi.”
– Established a new ecumenical and humanist tone that contradicts the integral doctrine of the Social Kingship of Christ as articulated, for example, by Pius XI in “Quas primas,” where it is affirmed that peace and order can exist only under the public reign of Christ and the submission of states and peoples to His law.
The chirograph must be read as the bureaucratic liturgy of a project already in motion: integrating venerable Eastern figures like Tappouni into a conciliatory “Church of the New Advent” that would soon enthrone religious liberty, false ecumenism, and collegial democratization in place of *una, sancta, catholica et apostolica Ecclesia*.
Flattering Fidelity to an Already Contested “See of Peter”
John XXIII praises Tappouni as:
“Petri Sedi fideliter astrictus” – “faithfully bound to the See of Peter”.
On the surface, this echoes Catholic language. In reality:
– True fidelity to the See of Peter is fidelity to the unchanging magisterium. Pius IX in the Syllabus, and St. Pius X in “Lamentabili” and “Pascendi,” condemn any notion of doctrinal evolution, relativism, religious indifferentism, and subordination of the Church to secular ideologies.
– By 1960, John XXIII’s orientation contradicted this constant doctrine in intention and in gestating reforms. His speeches and policies (not in this letter but in his broader public acts) promoted “dialogue” with the world and with anti-Catholic systems, rehabilitated condemned theological tendencies, and signaled sympathy for precisely those errors the pre-conciliar Magisterium anathematized.
Therefore, praising Tappouni’s fidelity to this “See” means, concretely, binding an Eastern patriarch to a leadership already deviating from the integral faith. The compliment becomes spiritually corrosive: it encourages obedience, not to St. Peter’s unchanging confession, but to the conciliar revolution.
Here appears the first grave problem:
– The term “Church” in the chirograph is deployed without doctrinal content, as a malleable shell that the conciliar project will fill with a new religion compatible with liberalism and ecumenism.
– This contradicts the teaching reiterated by Pius IX that the Church is a *perfect society* with inalienable rights, not subject to the moods of the age, and that it alone possesses the true religion, excluding all others (Syllabus, especially propositions 15–18, 21, 55, 77–80 as errors).
The document’s silence about truth, dogma, the Most Holy Sacrifice, the Social Kingship of Christ, the danger of error, and the salvation of souls is not an accident; it is the new style of an emerging antichurch that drains supernatural substance and replaces it with protocol and sentiment.
Language of Ornamental Merit: The Church as Aesthetic Accessory
John XXIII praises that Tappouni has cared:
“Ecclesiae emolumento et decori” – “for the benefit and ornament of the Church.”
The nouns are telling:
– Emolumentum (profit, advantage): vaguely utilitarian language.
– Decor (ornament, dignity): aestheticizing language.
No mention of:
– Defense of dogma against heresy.
– Guarding the purity of the sacraments.
– Preservation of the true liturgy as the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary.
– Combat against the Masonic and modernist plots so decisively unmasked by the pre-conciliar popes.
In integral Catholic language, the highest “merit” of a bishop or patriarch is to guard the deposit of faith (*depositum fidei*) without diminution, to condemn error, and to sanctify his flock through the true sacraments. Pius XI in “Quas primas” grounds all authentic ecclesial action in restoring the reign of Christ the King over persons and societies; Pius X demands relentless war against Modernism.
Here, the Eastern patriarch is praised as an ornament to a Roman purple that, under John XXIII, is already being emptied of its confessional content. The episcopate and cardinalate are presented not as militant guardians of truth but as dignified accessories within an ecumenizing apparatus.
This reveals:
– A reduction of the episcopal and patriarchal office to ceremonial loyalty to the conciliar agenda, rather than to Christ’s immutable mandate: “teach all nations… teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”
Blessing Without Mission: Naturalistic Benevolence vs. Supernatural Duty
John XXIII extends:
“Apostolicam Benedictionem… peramanter impertimus” – “We most lovingly impart the Apostolic Blessing.”
Yet there is no accompanying:
– Exhortation to uphold the integral Catholic faith against heresy.
– Reminder of the Four Last Things: death, judgment, heaven, hell.
– Call to promote the public rights of Christ the King in the East.
– Warning against secularism, socialism, and the Masonic sects that Pius IX explicitly identified as the “synagogue of Satan” waging war on the Church.
Compare this to the pre-1958 pattern:
– Pius IX, in the texts embodied within the Syllabus, warns incessantly against liberal states and the devilish machinations of Freemasonry, calling bishops to open battle.
– St. Pius X in “Lamentabili” and “Pascendi” binds theologians and shepherds under grave penalties to reject modernist exegesis, relativism, and dogmatic evolution.
– Pius XI in “Quas primas” insists that peace, liberty, and order depend on submission to Christ’s social reign; he condemns laicism as the “plague” of our age.
Here, under John XXIII, the so-called “Apostolic Blessing” is severed from apostolic severity. It is emptied into a sentimental benediction compatible with religious indifferentism and political secularism.
This is not a minor stylistic shift. It is symptomatic of a new religion:
– A benediction without militancy is a counterfeit of the apostolic spirit. “Peace” without truth is condemned by the entire pre-conciliar tradition as betrayal.
Systematic Silences as Witness of Apostasy
The gravity of this short document lies chiefly in its omissions. In the context of global apostasy, Communism, Islam, modernist theology, and Masonic influence, a true Roman Pontiff writing to an Eastern patriarch should:
– Admonish the defense of authentic Catholic doctrine against Eastern schismatics and heretics.
– Condemn any form of false ecumenism that treats schism as merely “another tradition.”
– Encourage the imposition of Christ’s reign in public and private life (as demanded in “Quas primas”).
– Recall the obligation to reject indifferentism, the very idea that “any religion” can be a path to salvation (condemned by Pius IX as error 16).
– Reiterate the absolute necessity of the true Church and the danger for souls outside her visible unity.
Instead, the text:
– Says nothing of conversion of non-Catholics.
– Says nothing of the unique salvific necessity of the Catholic Church.
– Says nothing of error, heresy, or sacramental responsibility.
– Treats the patriarch’s mission as a self-contained “pastoral task” whose measure is loyalty to John XXIII, not to the perennial magisterium.
According to integral Catholic criteria, such silence—precisely in a context demanding clarity—is itself a sign of doctrinal betrayal. St. Pius X exposed as modernist the principle that the Church should refrain from condemning, soften dogmatic edges, and adapt language to the “needs of the times.” That is exactly the ethos already visible here.
Integration of Eastern Hierarchs into the Conciliar Sect
Praising Tappouni’s devotion “to the See of Peter” in 1960 must be understood as:
– Incorporating Eastern Catholic structures into the conciliar framework that would:
– Promote a false ecumenism that respects “sister churches” without calling them to return to Roman unity in the true sense.
– Undermine the doctrine that outside the Church there is no salvation (*extra Ecclesiam nulla salus*) in its traditional meaning.
– Encourage liturgical pluralism as a laboratory for dissolving the theology of sacrifice and propitiation in the Most Holy Sacrifice.
The language of “ornament” signals how Eastern patriarchs are to function: proof-texts for a syncretic neo-church that showcases diverse rites and cultures while hollowing out the dogmatic core.
This stands against the previous magisterium:
– Pius IX and Leo XIII, when approving Eastern rites, did so on condition of strict doctrinal unity and clear affirmation of Roman primacy and the unique truth of the Catholic faith.
– The same popes resolutely condemned “national churches,” collegial relativization of the papacy, and any illusion that diverse rites justify diverse doctrines.
Here we see:
– The transformation of Eastern fidelity from a witness to Roman orthodoxy into a decorative pillar for a world-religion project, in which unity in truth is replaced by unity in institutions and sentiment.
Linguistic Softness as Theological Strategy
The style of the chirograph is not neutral; it is the medium of a different theology:
– Warm affective phrases: “ex animo gratulamur,” “bona omina facientes,” “peramanter impertimus.”
– Absence of the traditional register of combat: no “defend,” “condemn,” “oppose errors,” “uphold dogma,” “promote Christ’s reign,” “guard the sacred deposit.”
In the integral Catholic tradition, especially under St. Pius X, papal documents addressing hierarchs in grave times commonly bear:
– Explicit demands for doctrinal vigilance.
– Clear condemnation of specific errors.
– Serious references to divine judgment, supernatural mission, and the eternal destiny of souls.
John XXIII’s sugary rhetoric exemplifies the modernist tactic condemned by St. Pius X: enveloping poison in the language of mercy, optimism, and universal benevolence while quietly dismantling dogmatic clarity. This is not “pastoral sensitivity”; it is strategic anesthesia.
Alignment Against the Pre-Conciliar Magisterium
Judged by the sole legitimate standard—Catholic teaching before 1958—this chirograph is gravely deficient.
1. Against Pius IX (Syllabus of Errors):
– The chirograph fits within a broader pontificate that moves toward:
– Acceptance of religious liberty (condemned in propositions 15–18, 55, 77–80).
– Reconciliation with liberal modern civilization (condemned as an error).
– Its language of neutral goodwill, without confessional assertion, manifests the mentality that the Syllabus explicitly identifies as pernicious.
2. Against St. Pius X (“Lamentabili,” “Pascendi”):
– Modernism is “the synthesis of all heresies”; one of its features is muting dogma in favor of experience, reducing Church authority to encouragement, and avoiding condemnations to please the world.
– The chirograph’s tone participates in this condemned spirit: no defense of dogma, only commendation of institutional loyalty.
3. Against Pius XI (“Quas primas”):
– “Quas primas” insists that public order and true peace require recognition of Christ’s kingship in laws, institutions, and social life; it denounces secularism as atheistic revolt.
– This chirograph offers merely horizontal recognition—promotion of a churchman, not of the Kingship of Christ. No trace of the imperative that all nations submit to Christ the King.
– Thus it implicitly aligns with the secularist age Pius XI condemned, by refusing to assert Christ’s regal rights even in a formal ecclesiastical act.
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, the pattern is evident:
– The document does not explicitly scream heresy; it whispers apostasy by embodying the new style of a paramasonic structure that no longer dares to speak as the Bride of Christ, but only as a courteous NGO of religious dignitaries.
Symptoms of the Conciliar System: Personnel, Purple, and Protocol
Finally, the very object of the letter—the celebration of fifty years since the conferral of the Roman purple—reveals another structural disease:
– Exalting longevity in the college of “cardinals” as such, without reference to how that dignity has been used in defense of the faith, reduces *Sacra Purpura* to institutional seniority.
– This fits the conciliar pattern in which:
– Men are rewarded for docile cooperation with aggiornamento.
– Eastern and Western hierarchs alike are absorbed into an apparatus whose primary loyalty is to the post-1958 line of usurpers and their humanist program.
Authentic Catholic tradition treats honors as dangerous burdens: reminders of obligation to confess the faith unto blood. Here, honor is detached from doctrinal militancy; it becomes careerist. That model formed the conciliar hierarchy that would later promote:
– Liturgical desecration,
– Religious relativism,
– Political syncretism with anti-Christian regimes,
– And the eclipse of the true Mass and sacraments by stage-managed rites.
This chirograph is thus a micro-specimen of the macro-disease.
Conclusion: The Gentle Mask of Revolutionary Infidelity
Evaluated solely by pre-1958 Catholic doctrine:
– The text is culpably silent where a true Pope would speak.
– It employs soft, aestheticized language that eradicates the note of militancy and doctrinal clarity demanded by prior magisterial condemnations of Modernism and liberalism.
– It binds an Eastern patriarch, not to the constant teaching of the Roman Church, but to the person and program of John XXIII, first public architect of the conciliar revolution.
– It presents the Church as an institution to be ornamented by human dignities, not as the Militant Church engaged in mortal combat for the salvation of souls and the universal reign of Christ the King.
Such documents, precisely in their blandness, demonstrate the theological and spiritual bankruptcy of the conciliar system: a system which, having lost the sense of supernatural mission, replaces it with congratulatory epistolary formalism—courtesy in place of creed, diplomacy in place of dogma, sentiment in place of the Cross.
Source:
Chirographum missum ad Ignatium Gabrielem tit. Sanctorum XII Apostolorum S. R. E. Presb. Card. Tappouni, Patriarcham Antiochenum Syror., quinque implentem lustra, ex quo Sacra Purpura est decoratus (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025