The letter “Gratulamur” of John XXIII, addressed to Pierre-Marie Gerlier on the occasion of the First World Missionary Congress at Lyon, praises the city’s Catholic heritage, extols the Pontifical Mission Societies—especially the work of Pauline Jaricot—and calls for renewed missionary zeal adapted to “changed times,” emphasizing organizational coordination, financial support, and a universalistic, de-politicized presentation of evangelization. The entire text, however clothed in pious rhetoric and adorned with references to martyrs and Fathers, functions as a polished façade concealing the neo-modernist reprogramming of the missions in the service of the conciliar revolution rather than the reign of Christ the King.
“Gratulamur” as a Programmatic Manifesto of Conciliar Missionary Subversion
Inversion of Mission: From Conversion of Nations to Horizontal “Aid Structures”
On the factual level, the letter seems innocuous: a congratulatory message, recollection of Lyon’s glorious martyrs (Pothinus, Irenaeus, Blandina), praise of local Catholic fidelity, and affirmation of missionary works and the Pontifical Society for the Propagation of the Faith, founded by Pauline Jaricot.
But beneath this surface, several structural shifts betray the new orientation:
1. John XXIII presents the Congress primarily as an occasion:
“to consider how, since times have changed, new methods and new ways may be opened for missionary apostolate, so that the Pontifical Work of the Propagation of the Faith and other similar works may flourish again with renewed strength.”
The formula “since times have changed, new methods and new ways” is the classic modernist pretext for *mutatio sensus dogmatum* (change of the sense of dogmas) condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi and by the decree Lamentabili sane exitu, which rejects the notion that dogmas and institutions are merely evolving expressions of consciousness. The letter never clearly binds these “new ways” to the immutable end of missions: the conversion of infidels and heretics into the one true Church and submission of individuals and societies to Christ the King. Instead, it opens a door to pastoral evolutionism.
2. The exaltation of the Pontifical Mission Societies is recast in bureaucratic and managerial language: coordination of funds, organization “in every diocese and nation,” avoiding “disjoined” initiatives, etc. The supernatural end is gradually submerged beneath technocratic vocabulary. Compare this to Pius XI in Quas Primas (1925), who subordinates all social and ecclesial initiatives to the explicit and public reign of Christ over states and laws. Here, Christ’s Kingship over nations is simply absent as a directive principle.
3. The letter emphasizes the growth of dioceses entrusted to “autochthonous clergy” and closely connects this with the Pontifical Work’s support. In itself, forming native clergy is traditional; but in the conciliar context, this point prefigures the later program of dismantling Catholic unity under the pretext of “local churches,” inculturation, and egalitarian collegiality—developments that would eviscerate Roman centrality and facilitate pluralistic syncretism. That trajectory is not stated, but the principles and vocabulary are placed: *mutata sunt tempora*, new methods, structural reconfiguration.
4. Evangelization is carefully detached from “political and earthly utility conditions”:
“…that the sacred expeditions for bringing the Gospel to the nations may exert more present efficacy, by no means tied to political conditions of earthly utility…”
On the surface this sounds like a legitimate reminder that the Church is not a colonial agency. But the omission is devastating: there is no reaffirmation of the duty of states to submit to Christ and His Church, contrary to Pius IX’s Syllabus which condemns the separation of Church and State (prop. 55) and liberal religious indifferentism, and contrary to Quas Primas, which teaches that true peace and order demand that rulers publicly recognize and obey Christ the King. Mission is depoliticized not in the supernatural sense (above earthly interests), but in the liberal sense: no demand that nations abandon false cults and anti-Christian laws. This silence is complicity.
In sum, missionary action is subtly redefined from the supernatural conquest of souls and nations for the one true Church into a coordinated global apparatus, respectable to the world, surgically cut off from the integral doctrine on the social Kingship of Christ. The letter’s apparent orthodoxy is, precisely, its most dangerous feature.
Linguistic Cosmetics: Pious Vocabulary Masking Modernist Dynamism
The rhetoric of the letter is revealing.
1. Continuous use of elevated devotional language—“Regnum Christi,” martyrs, “flagrans Evangelii amor,” “caritas,” invocation of Irenaeus—is employed without any corresponding doctrinal precision. This is the modernist tactic Pius X denounced: speaking with Catholic phrases while injecting new meanings. The text is studiously devoid of any clear:
– condemnation of false religions,
– assertion that “outside the Church there is no salvation” in its perennial sense,
– demand for abjuration of errors,
– insistence on the unique necessity of baptism and submission to the Roman Pontiff as conditions of unity.
All remain buried beneath a fog of edifying words.
2. The phraseology “new methods,” “new ways,” “changed times” is paradigmatic of evolutionist mentality. St. Pius X, in Lamentabili, explicitly condemns the thesis that dogmatic expressions and ecclesiastical institutions are merely fruits of historical evolution (prop. 54: *Dogmas, sacraments, and hierarchy … are stages in the evolution of Christian consciousness*). By making “mutata tempora” the explicit rationale for a reconfiguration of missions, John XXIII aligns with the mindset formally anathematized just fifty-five years earlier.
3. The letter’s tone is diplomatic and congratulatory, devoid of militant supernatural urgency. There is no language of combat against heresy, idolatry, or Freemasonry, in stark contrast to Pius IX, Leo XIII, and St. Pius X, who continuously exposed the “synagogue of Satan” (Pius IX in the appended text of the Syllabus) and the sects corrupting nations. Lyon, city of martyrs, is presented as a stage for organizational congresses, not as a rallying point for restoration of the Catholic confessional state.
4. The selective patristic reference is itself symptomatic. The letter cites Irenaeus:
“Ubi Ecclesia, ibi est Spiritus Dei: et ubi Spiritus Dei, illic Ecclesia et omnis gratia; Spiritus autem veritas est.”
(“Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace; but the Spirit is truth.”)
But it refrains from drawing the necessary conclusion: those who reject the integral magisterium of the Church are outside this grace and truth. Instead, the quote is neutralized into a generic encouragement for missionary enthusiasm, as if *any* post-1958 “ecclesial” structure animated by “missionary spirit” automatically fulfilled Irenaeus’ criterion. This is rhetorical exploitation of patristic authority in service of a new ecclesiology.
The letter’s language thus performs a double operation: it simulates continuity while eroding doctrinal clarity, and it mobilizes affective devotion to conceal a shift toward a relativized, worldly-compatible missionary concept.
Theological Dislocation: Missions Severed from the Kingship and Exclusivity of Christ
Measured against the pre-1958 magisterium, the theological content—and even more, the omissions—are devastating.
1. No assertion that the Catholic Church is the one ark of salvation.
– Pius IX condemns as error the proposition that man can find the way to eternal salvation in any religion whatsoever (Syllabus, 16) and that “good hope” is to be entertained for those who do not belong to the true Church (17) understood indifferentistically.
– The letter never recalls that the goal of missions is the incorporation of souls into the one true Church, distinct from and opposed to heresy and infidelity. “Evangelium gentibus advehendum” is left undefined; it can be harmonized with a Vatican II-style “dialogue” without conversion.
2. No reaffirmation of the obligation of nations to recognize Christ the King publicly.
– Pius XI in Quas Primas teaches that the calamities of nations stem from the refusal to accept the reign of Christ in public life, and insists that rulers owe public cult and obedience to Christ and His Church.
– John XXIII in this letter, while addressing worldwide missions and praising their expansion, is completely silent about the necessity that newly evangelized societies reject secularism and submit their laws to Christ. Instead, he specifies only that missions must not be linked to “political utility,” which in the conciliar paradigm means precisely: no insistence that states abandon false religious liberty and laicism.
3. Acceptance of the modernist idea of “changed times” as a theological category.
– Authentic Catholic doctrine allows adaptation of methods (e.g., choice of language, prudential strategies) while the *end* and *content* of mission remain immutable: preach Christ, condemn error, bring souls under the authority of the Church. Here, “mutata tempora” is not followed by a robust repetition of immutable ends; it is used as leverage for a structural overhaul of mission works, later realized in post-conciliar “dialogue,” abandonment of proselytism, and practical universalism.
– This is precisely the kind of subversion condemned by St. Pius X: modernists “corrupt the notion of dogma” by subjecting it to history and experience. The letter’s programmatic vagueness is the embryo of that corruption.
4. Sacramental and eschatological silence.
– A genuine missionary exhortation from an authentic Pontiff would press the urgency of:
– baptism as necessary for salvation;
– the state of grace;
– the Last Judgement and eternal punishment;
– the gravity of idolatry and infidelity.
– Here, none of these central supernatural motives of mission are explicitly affirmed. The motives invoked are principally:
– heritage of Lyon,
– organizational efficiency,
– honoring Pauline Jaricot,
– “fraternal charity” expressed in offerings and aid,
– unified coordination under the Pontifical Work.
– This silence about sin, hell, necessity of true faith, and the absolute urgency of supernatural salvation is not accidental; it reflects the conciliar sect’s gradual abandonment of missionary doctrine in favor of humanitarianism and institutional self-preservation. *Quod tacet, consentire videtur* (he who is silent is seen to consent).
5. No denunciation of modernist, liberal, or masonic assaults against the Church.
– Pius IX and St. Pius X speak clearly of masonic sects as instruments of the “synagogue of Satan” waging war on the Church; they condemn liberal parliamentarianism that strips Christ of public kingship; they expose false philosophies.
– In 1962, with revolutionary forces poised to use the coming council as an instrument of demolition, John XXIII sends a letter about global missions without a single warning about these enemies. The only “turbida” he mentions are “troubled affairs shaking peoples,” in a purely naturalistic, depoliticized, and deracinated manner. The causes—apostasy, liberalism, Freemasonry—are left in darkness.
By the standard of the pre-1958 magisterium, this is not a harmless pastoral note. It is a theologically anesthetized text, preparing minds to accept a redefinition of mission compatible with indifferentism and laicist ideology.
Pauline Jaricot Instrumentalized: From True Piety to Conciliar Mobilization
The letter devotes considerable space to Pauline Jaricot, lauding her virtues, charity, and foundational role in the Propagation of the Faith.
Here a crucial distinction must be made:
– Historically, Jaricot’s work was conceived within the integral Catholic framework: aiding true missionaries whose explicit end was the conversion of infidels and the consolidation of Catholic life under true doctrine and sacraments.
– John XXIII’s praise, however, subtly detaches her initiative from that integral context and re-inscribes it into the conciliar program:
– The Pontifical Work is hailed as “universal missionary apostolate of the faithful,” structured under Roman direction, but in a moment when that Roman structure itself is being taken over by those intent on doctrinal dilution.
– The text emphasizes financial coordination, organizational centralization, and the transformation of her inspiration into a global apparatus that, after 1962, would serve increasingly to fund “missions” that tolerate, or even promote, inculturation of pagan rites, false ecumenism, and the denial of the necessity of conversion.
This is the technique of the conciliar sect: canonize (in rhetoric or pseudo-canonizations) figures of genuine or presumed virtue, then exploit their legacy as moral capital for an opposite agenda. The Jaricot evoked here is not a warrior for the exclusive claims of the Catholic Church; she is re-presented as patroness of an amorphous “missionary spirit” perfectly usable for the Church of the New Advent.
Systemic Symptoms: How “Gratulamur” Manifests the Conciliar Apostasy
Seen in the broader line of pre- and post-1958 teaching, this letter is symptomatic of a deeper pathology.
1. Replacement of doctrinal clarity by “spirit” language.
– Phrases like “magnificent and great inspiring spirit,” “supernatural spirit moving all things,” and admiration for “changed times” pave the way for the later abuse of the term “spirit of the council” against the letter of dogma.
– Authentic Magisterium (Trent, Vatican I, Syllabus, Pascendi) is sharp, juridical, anathema-bearing, and crystal clear. Here we find only exhortations and compliments, no doctrinal precision, no condemnations of prevalent errors.
2. Ecclesiology drifting toward democratized “people of God” mentality.
– By exalting “universal missionary apostolate of all the faithful” without strong reaffirmation of hierarchical, sacramental mediation and the unique authority of the pre-conciliar Church, the text foreshadows the democratized ecclesiology of Vatican II’s neo-church.
– The emphasis on broad lay participation, congresses, committees, and collective initiatives—divorced from robust doctrinal security—fertilizes the soil for doctrinal anarchy disguised as “co-responsibility.”
3. Omission of any warning against Modernism.
– Less than 60 years after St. Pius X declared Modernism “the synthesis of all heresies” and imposed the Anti-Modernist Oath, John XXIII writes as if that war were over and won, requiring no vigilance.
– There is no reference to the doctrinal battles of the 19th–20th centuries—no Syllabus, no Pascendi, no Lamentabili, no condemnation of “religious liberty” or ecumenism. The silence is eloquent: the paramasonic structure intends to shelve those documents.
4. Submission to secular categories.
– By insisting missions must not be associated with “political” interests without simultaneously asserting the duty of states to subject themselves to Christ, the letter implicitly concedes the secular dogma of religiously neutral politics condemned explicitly by Pius IX and Pius XI.
– This naturalistic “neutrality” is the necessary prelude to the later cult of “human rights,” “dialogue,” and “tolerance” that tramples the rights of God.
5. Preparation for the Conciliar Revolution.
– Date and context are crucial: March 1962, on the eve of the so-called council convoked by John XXIII, which would enthrone religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality. This letter is part of the rhetorical softening:
– habituating clergy and laity to “new methods,”
– anchoring the changes in emotionally charged references to martyrs and holy figures,
– rebranding centralization and restructuring as fidelity to missionary zeal,
– but never recalling the binding pre-1958 doctrinal condemnations that would expose the revolution.
In light of the constant pre-1958 Magisterium, such a document cannot be received as an act of a true Roman Pontiff guarding the deposit of faith. It is an instrument of transition from Catholic missions to conciliar humanitarian campaigns.
True Catholic Mission: The Standard That Condemns “Gratulamur”
To unmask the bankruptcy of the orientations embodied in this letter, it suffices to recall the authentic principles, consistently taught before 1958:
– The Church is a perfect and exclusive society founded by Christ; no other religion is pleasing to God as such. (Council of Florence; Pius IX, Syllabus; Leo XIII).
– Missions exist to:
– preach the integral Catholic faith;
– baptize, incorporate into the one Church;
– extirpate idolatry, superstition, heresy;
– form Catholic societies under the law of Christ the King.
– Rulers and nations are bound to publicly recognize the true religion and forbid public offenses against it (Pius IX, prop. 77–80 condemned; Pius XI, Quas Primas).
– Any attempt to neutralize this duty under the pretext of “changed times,” “pluralism,” or mere humanitarian cooperation is treason against Christ’s Kingship.
– The Magisterium has the divine right and duty to judge, condemn, and exclude modernist errors; silence in the face of them, especially in official acts, is itself a sign of defection.
Judged by this standard, “Gratulamur”:
– dissimulates the exclusive claims of the Church;
– avoids asserting the social Kingship of Christ;
– blesses a vague program of “new methods” without doctrinal safeguards;
– subordinates heroic Catholic figures and institutions to a conciliar reinterpretation;
– and carefully avoids any clash with the liberal-secular order.
This is not the voice of Peter confirming his brethren, but of an operator preparing the missions for absorption into the Church of the New Advent—where “evangelization” can coexist with religious liberty, false ecumenism, and the cult of man.
The faithful who cling to the unchanging doctrine of the pre-1958 Church must therefore treat such texts, not as guides, but as warnings: a showcase of how pious language can be used as camouflage for the quiet abandonment of the true Catholic missionary mandate and the denial, in practice, of the universal and public reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Source:
Gratulamur – Ad Petrum Tit. SS.mae Trinitatis in Monte Pincio S. R. E. Presb. Cardinalem Gerlier, Archiepiscopum Lugdunensem, ob primum Missionalem ex omnibus nationibus Conventum, Lugduni celebrandum (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025