Adulation of Apostasy: John XXIII’s Praise of Lisbon’s Patriarch as Symptom of the Neo-Church
The letter “Admodum gavisi” of John XXIII congratulates Manuel Gonçalves Cerejeira, Patriarch of Lisbon, on the fiftieth anniversary of his priestly ordination. It offers courtly praise for his governance, his promotion of liturgy and seminaries, his fostering of “Catholic Action” in Portugal, and commends especially the monument to Christ the King and the national consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, crowning it all with the promise of a plenary indulgence for the jubilee.
In reality, this short text is a condensed manifesto of the conciliatory, naturalistic, and proto-modernist spirit that prepared and justified the conciliar revolution: a pious-sounding seal placed on a hierarchy already in practical alliance with liberal powers and on its way to the conciliar sect.
Direct Complicity with the Conciliar Usurper
From the first line, this text stands under the signature of John XXIII, the initiator of the conciliar catastrophe and thus the first in the line of usurpers after 1958. This alone, in the light of pre-1958 teaching, suffices to treat the document not as the voice of the Roman Pontiff but as an act of a man whose programmatic deeds (calling Vatican II, promoting aggiornamento, courting Freemasonry-friendly regimes and ecumenical relativism) manifest rupture with the integral Catholic faith.
The letter is located among “letters” of John XXIII on the Vatican domain; this is not neutral archival data but the official self-presentation of the post-1958 structure. Here we are in full status haereseos et usurpationis (state of heresy and usurpation). The text is a ceremonial gesture that:
– Publicly confirms a hierarchy already deeply entangled with political cults and national pseudo-consecrations disconnected from any integral restoration of Christ’s social Kingship.
– Legitimizes, with sacral language, a model of episcopal success that is precisely what Pius IX and Pius X warned against: compliant, diplomatic prelates integrating with liberal regimes while preserving Catholic decor externally.
Thus from the outset we see not an innocent congratulation but an ideological anointing of a system that will soon enthrone the conciliar revolution.
Factual Level: The Curated Biography of a System Bishop
John XXIII’s letter constructs an edifying portrait of Cerejeira:
– Vigilant pastor reputed for “fidei studium, consiliorum prudentia, operae sollertia” (zeal for the faith, prudent counsel, diligence).
– Promoter of dignified worship and robust seminaries providing “pleniorem et perfectiorem institutionem” (fuller and more perfect formation).
– Founder and supporter of “Catholic Action” in Portugal, praised for its “salutary fruit.”
– Initiator of a monument to Christ the King and of ceremonies consecrating the Portuguese nation to the Immaculate Heart.
All these elements are presented as if they were self-evident signs of Catholic fidelity.
Yet by pre-1958 standards—Pius XI’s Quas Primas, Pius IX’s Syllabus, and Pius X’s Lamentabili and Pascendi—this narrative is gravely suspect:
1. The letter is absolutely silent about:
– The doctrinal crisis already brewing internationally: liturgical subversion, biblical relativism, “new theology,” political infiltration.
– The necessity of defending the flock against Modernism, condemned by Pius X as the “synthesis of all heresies.”
– The binding Catholic rejection of religious liberty, false ecumenism, and liberalism (Syllabus of Errors, Quanta Cura).
2. “Catholic Action” is invoked with uncritical enthusiasm, as if its politicized, laicist and often horizontal activism had not in many places already become a Trojan horse for democratizing the Church and subordinating spiritual authority to lay committees and party agendas. What Pius XI conceived as an arm of the hierarchy is, in the conciliar sect, weaponized into pressure groups against doctrine and sacramental life. John XXIII’s praise prefigures exactly that abuse.
3. The monument to Christ the King and the national consecration are presented as sufficient badges of fidelity. But if Christ does not truly reign in public law, in legislation, in the confessional structure of the State, such symbolic acts become pious anesthesia. Pius XI in Quas Primas teaches that peace and order are possible only when states recognize and obey the social Kingship of Christ, legislate according to His law, and submit to the rights of the Church. Mere monuments without concrete juridical submission are hollow. When a hierarchy blesses monuments while tolerating or cooperating with liberal, Masonic-influenced orders, it reduces the Kingship of Christ to national devotional folklore.
The factual profile is thus tendentious: it isolates certain “safe” achievements, omits all structural compromises and doctrinal erosion, and presents the compliant prelate as a model. This is precisely how the conciliar structure manufactures its cadres.
Linguistic Level: Courtly Euphoria as Cover for Doctrinal Vacuum
The style is outwardly classical and pious, but a closer reading reveals its function: to flatter, to reassure, and to avoid any mention of combat against error.
Characteristic elements:
– Continuous laudatory formulas: “admodum gavisi sumus,” “bonam nactus es famam vigilantis pastoris,” “eximia laus,” “salutari cum fructu.” No qualifying clauses, no warnings, no calls to doctrinal vigilance.
– Idealized abstraction: the Patriarch is praised for care of worship and seminaries in generic terms. There is no insistence on Thomistic formation, anti-modernist rigor, or submission to the anti-liberal magisterium of Pius IX–XII.
– Sentimental moralism: phrases like “sancte meditari, strenue agere, fortiter pati, bene est vivere” are true as moral maxims but here operate as rhetoric, displacing attention from doctrinal combat to a vague spirituality accessible also to natural religion and humanist ethics.
– Bureaucratic indulgence language: the concession of a plenary indulgence is tied to the jubilee observance, enveloped in benign benevolence. It is a perfect example of how external spiritual favours are distributed without any concomitant insistence on doctrinal integrity, on the rejection of modern errors, or on the necessity of public profession of the integral faith.
This language, precisely because it is smooth and “traditional-sounding,” functions as an anaesthetic. It is the tonal opposite of Pius X’s sharp, surgical clarity in Lamentabili and Pascendi. Where Pius X names, condemns, and exposes, John XXIII caresses, congratulates, and omits. The rhetoric is not neutral; it is symptomatic of a governing class that has traded the militant clarity of the Church for a courteous, diplomatic religion compatible with the emerging neo-church.
Theological Level: Pious Naturalism and the Evasion of Combat
Measured exclusively by the pre-1958 Magisterium (our only legitimate benchmark), the letter is theologically bankrupt not because of what it affirms in detail (many statements are, taken in isolation, orthodox), but because of what it systematically refuses to affirm.
1. Silence on Modernism and Liberalism
By 1961, the condemnations of Pius IX and Pius X stood in full force:
– The Syllabus rejects religious indifferentism, state neutrality, and the separation of Church and State (errors 15–18, 55, 77–80).
– Lamentabili and Pascendi condemn the evolution of dogma, historicism, denial of inspiration, democratization of the Magisterium, and subordination of faith to experience.
A truly Catholic pontifical letter to a major patriarch at such a milestone should:
– Recall the solemn duty to defend the flock from precisely these condemned errors.
– Demand rigorous Thomistic and anti-modernist formation in the seminaries.
– Insist that “Catholic Action” remain strictly subject to hierarchy and supernatural ends, not be allowed to degenerate into lay parliamentarism.
Instead, the letter offers unconditional praise. This is not a minor stylistic choice. It implicitly suggests that vigilance against Modernism is no longer central—that what matters is organization, activity, and harmonious relations. This is a direct practical contradiction of Pius X’s teaching that Modernism infiltrates precisely under such cultivated appearances and must be relentlessly unmasked.
2. Reduction of Christ’s Kingship to Monument and Ceremony
John XXIII commends Cerejeira especially for:
“a te in ista urbe capite monumentum Christo Regi dicatum et caerimonias sanctissimas, quibus per te Lusitana Natio Immaculato Deiparae Virginis Cordi consecrata est.”
English: “the monument dedicated to Christ the King in your capital city, and the most holy ceremonies by which through you the Portuguese Nation was consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of the Virgin Mother of God.”
This appears aligned with Quas Primas and Marian devotion, but read carefully:
– There is no reaffirmation that states are bound iure divino (by divine right) to recognize the Catholic religion as the only true religion and to conform laws to the law of Christ (against Syllabus 77–80).
– There is no explicit recall that Christ’s Kingship is doctrinal, juridical, and social, not a mere emotive symbol “balanced” with pluralism.
– There is no condemnation of the liberal and Masonic forces Pius IX clearly named as the architects of the war on the Church and Christian order.
Thus a profound inversion occurs: the monument and consecration, instead of being the summit of a confessional order, become decorations within an order moving toward secularism and conciliar “religious freedom.” The letter baptizes this contradiction with saccharine praise. That is theologically poisonous.
3. The Sacraments and the Illusion of Continuity
The concession of plenary indulgence and the references to priesthood, seminary, and cult create an impression of perfect continuity with the pre-1958 Church. But this letter belongs precisely to the period in which the usurper prepares the revolution that will attack the Most Holy Sacrifice, the priesthood, and the sacraments at their root.
By pre-1958 doctrine:
– A manifest heretic or one who publicly promotes condemned errors cannot be head of the Church; manifestus haereticus cannot retain jurisdiction (*De Romano Pontifice* as explicated by Bellarmine and the theological tradition).
– The 1917 Code (canon 188.4) affirms loss of office by public defection from the faith.
Admodum gavisi is part of the self-presentation of that usurping hierarchy. Its apparent orthodoxy is used to give cover to a process leading directly to the profanation of the liturgy, doctrinal relativism, and disciplinary dissolution. The sacral tone thus serves an anti-sacral project: simulata pietas (simulated piety) as a mask for mutation.
Symptomatic Level: How This Letter Manifests the Conciliar Spirit
Though short, this document crystallizes several traits that define the conciliar sect and the “Church of the New Advent” that grew from John XXIII’s program.
1. Episcopacy as Decorous Administration, Not Militant Guardianship
Cerejeira is praised as a capable administrator, organizer of seminaries, promoter of Catholic Action, erecter of monuments. Missing is any indication that a bishop’s primary glory is to guard the deposit of faith usque ad sanguinem (even unto blood), to denounce errors publicly, to resist state encroachments, and to prevent every infiltration of Modernism.
Pius X insists that pastors who tolerate doctrinal error are traitors to their office. Here, John XXIII showcases the opposite ideal: the well-integrated, regime-friendly patriarch, crowned by papal praise, soon to be seamlessly integrated into the conciliar aggiornamento. This is the prototype of the episcopal caste that would surrender the flock to the wolves of doctrinal innovation and liturgical deviance.
2. Catholic Action as Proto-Democratization of the Church
The letter extols Cerejeira’s role in founding and fostering Catholic Action “in Lusitania.” Pre-1958 popes, especially Pius XI and Pius XII, continually warned that Catholic Action must remain hierarchical, strictly subordinate to the clergy, ordered to supernatural ends.
Under the conciliar sect, the same networks—already praised and legitimated by letters like this—mutate into engines of:
– Liturgical subversion.
– Ecumenical relativism.
– Political alignment with anti-Christian ideologies under a “social justice” veneer.
– Pressure against doctrinal discipline and moral teaching.
By blessing Catholic Action without a single word of such precautions, John XXIII again shifts the axis: from militant vigilance to organizational activism. The seed of democratized “People of God” ecclesiology lies precisely here.
3. Devotional Nationalism as Substitute for Christendom
The exaltation of national consecrations and monuments can either crown an authentically Catholic polity or be exploited as a pseudo-sacralization of an order drifting into apostasy. This letter shows the latter dynamic:
– Christ the King is invoked rhetorically, but His absolute, juridical rights over nations—insisted upon forcefully in Quas Primas—are not reiterated.
– The Immaculate Heart is called upon ceremonially, while the core enemy identified by St. Pius X—Modernism within the clergy—is not mentioned.
Such selective devotion fosters a false security: as if honoring Christ the King in stone, or Mary in a national ceremony, were compatible with tolerating liberal and Masonic principles in law and culture. This is precisely the dialectic the conciliar sect exploits: pious symbols used to sanctify treason.
4. The Diplomatic Papacy and the Eclipse of the Prophetic Papacy
Pre-1958, even when prudent, the Papacy retained a prophetic, non-negotiable edge: it condemned errors by name, unmasked sects by name, and defended rights of the Church against states by name (as seen in the Syllabus, Quanta Cura, numerous allocutions quoted therein).
John XXIII’s letter is the work of a diplomatic “pope” who refuses to recall these battles. It is all smiles, no swords. This posture allowed the conciliar sect to present the revolution (Vatican II and its aftermath) as a “pastoral opening” harmonious with tradition, when in fact it represented the inversion of precisely that anti-liberal, anti-modernist resistance.
The document therefore is symptomatic: it is not yet the explicit doctrinal deformation of later texts, but the moral and rhetorical disarmament that makes such deformation possible. It exalts men who will never stand against the revolution and reassures them that they are perfectly Catholic in doing so.
Contrasting with the Pre-1958 Magisterium: The Condemnation Implicit in Silence
To expose the bankruptcy of this letter, one need only juxtapose it with the perennial teaching it does not dare to echo.
– Pius IX (Syllabus) condemns the notion that the Church should reconcile with liberalism and modern civilization (error 80). John XXIII’s entire posture, culminating in Vatican II, moves in the opposite direction, and this letter’s tone is fully aligned with that tendency.
– Pius X (Lamentabili, Pascendi) orders an unrelenting war on any attempt to historicize dogma, democratize authority, or subject faith to experience. John XXIII’s reign is the launchpad for “aggiornamento,” explicitly softening that stance. In Admodum gavisi, not a word encourages the patriarch to protect his clergy against precisely those intellectual currents.
– Pius XI (Quas Primas) teaches that peace and order require explicit submission of laws and institutions to Christ the King. This letter delights in a monument while making no demand on the state and no denunciation of liberal principles. The result is to evacuate Quas Primas of its binding force, reducing it to a purely ceremonial inspiration.
This silence is not accidental. It is programmatic. The text is crafted so that nothing in it could offend the liberal-preconciliar elites or complicate the coming conciliar embrace of religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality.
Silence thus becomes the gravest indictment. Where previous popes spoke clearly, the usurper is silent. Where they condemned, he congratulates. Where they armed bishops to fight, he crowns bishops who will disarm.
Integral Catholic Response: Unmasking the Pious Facade
From the perspective of the integral Catholic faith, several conclusions follow:
– This letter does not strengthen the faith; it weakens it. By exalting human administration, its ambiguous devotional politics, and its surface achievements without anchoring them vigorously in anti-modernist, anti-liberal doctrine, it communicates that such combat is no longer central or even necessary.
– It legitimizes a hierarchy that will soon serve the conciliar sect. Cerejeira and his peers, praised as models, become precisely the instruments of Vatican II implementation: acceptance of a new ecclesiology, new liturgy, new religious liberty doctrine, false ecumenism.
– It exemplifies the rhetorical method by which the neo-church advances: retain pious vocabulary, refer to Christ, Mary, priesthood, indulgences, while carefully avoiding any concrete assertion that would bind against modern errors or condemn collaboration with anti-Christian forces.
Against such texts one must apply the iron hermeneutic of the pre-1958 Magisterium:
– Any episcopal or papal act that systematically omits the essential doctrinal battles of the age, flatters instead of warns, and venerates structures complicit with liberalism, must be recognized as part of the process by which the abomination of desolation is established in the holy place.
– Any invocation of Christ the King that is not simultaneously a rejection of religious indifferentism, secularism, and Masonic principles is an abuse of His Name.
– Any praise of “Catholic Action” or institutional activism that is not subordinated explicitly to immutable doctrine and sacramental theology is the seed of democratized apostasy.
Admodum gavisi is therefore not an edifying footnote of a benign “good pope,” but a small, revealing stone in the edifice of conciliar deception. Its blandness is its indictment. Where the true Church speaks with the fire of prophets and martyrs, the conciliar sect soothes with ornaments, anniversaries, monuments, and indulgences detached from the integral confession of the faith. The only Catholic reaction can be lucid repudiation of this model and a return to the doctrinal intransigence of the authentic Magisterium which it quietly betrays.
Source:
Admodum gavisi – Ad Emmanuelem Tit. Ss. Marcellini et Petri S. R. E. Presb. Cardinalem Gongalves Cerejeira, Patriarcham Lisbonensem, quinquagesimum a suscepto sacerdotio annum implentem (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025