The text is a Latin letter of the usurper John XXIII to Joseph Urtasun, Avignon, marking the 600th anniversaries of Innocent VI’s death and Blessed Urban V’s election. It praises the Avignon popes’ personal virtues, their governance from exile, their support of learning, their efforts to restore discipline, pacify rulers, and return to Rome, and it culminates by exhorting the faithful to esteem the Roman Pontificate as supreme spiritual fatherhood and to unite in prayer for the then-upcoming Second Vatican Council as a source of spiritual renewal for the whole human family. In reality, this short composition is a carefully polished manifesto of the conciliar sect’s self-legitimization: it uses true Catholic titles and concepts to crown a counterfeit papacy and prepare the ideological stage for the most destructive pseudo-council in history.
Avignon as Alibi: How John XXIII Weaponizes History to Crown a Counterfeit Pontificate
Historical Commemoration as a Veil for Present Usurpation
On the factual level, the letter appears deceptively harmless: a courteous acknowledgment of Avignon celebrations in honor of Innocent VI and Urban V.
Key elements, in paraphrase and with selected verbatim fragments:
– Innocent VI (Stephen Aubert) is commended as a jurist and restorer of ecclesiastical discipline who governed in “difficilibus ac perturbatis temporibus” from Avignon and attempted to prepare the return to Rome through Cardinal Albornoz.
– The transfer and eventual ceremonial return (1960) of Innocent VI’s remains to Villeneuve are described with approval, highlighting cooperation from the French state.
– Urban V (Guillaume de Grimoard), Benedictine, abbot of Saint-Victor of Marseille, noted for integrity, learning, austerity and humility, is praised for accepting the papacy “cum tremore et timore,” favoring letters and scholars, coming to Rome amid Roman joy, caring for the Holy Places and reunion with Eastern Christians, then being forced back to Avignon, dying in sanctity and honored as Blessed; Pius IX’s confirmation of his cult is recalled.
– From these commemorations, John XXIII draws an exhortation: the faithful should be moved to esteem and adhere to the papacy, considering “dignitas ipsa munusque ipsum,” citing St Bonaventure on the Roman Pontiff as “primus et summus pater spiritualis omnium fidelium … caput indivisum, Pontifex summus, Christi vicarius.”
– He relativizes historical crises and extraterritorial papal residences as permitted by Providence: echoing Augustine, God may “turbare” the Church “ut … in solida petra confirmaretur.”
– He stresses that many, even non-Catholics, now look to Rome, seeing “vana esse et cassa saeculi huius praesidia” and recognizing the Roman See as the “cathedra unitatis” where truth and strength for souls are found.
– Finally, he links this to the approaching “Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum Secundum,” asking for prayers that it may bring “utilitates” and “vigoris spiritualis copiam” to the Church and “universae hominum communitati.”
At first glance: orthodox vocabulary, citations of Augustine and Bonaventure, praise of true popes, mention of unity and the Chair of Peter. But precisely here lies the crux: the entire structure is an act of theological usurpation, wherein a non-Catholic program clothes itself in pre-1958 language in order to seduce the faithful into acknowledging as “Christ’s Vicar” one who is ideologically preparing the destruction of the very order he invokes.
The Perverse Appropriation of True Doctrine to Legitimize a Counterfeit
John XXIII’s technique in this letter is subtle: he borrows the highest traditional theology of the papacy while simultaneously weaponizing it against the integral Catholic faith.
1. He cites St Bonaventure’s exalted doctrine of the Roman Pontiff as:
“primus et summus pater spiritualis omnium fidelium … caput indivisum, Pontifex summus, Christi vicarius”.
– These are true Catholic statements when applied to a true Roman Pontiff.
– But they become a blasphemous parody when placed in the mouth of a man whose subsequent “council” and magisterial line inaugurate the very errors anathematized by the pre-1958 Magisterium: religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism as relativism, laicist human rights ideology, and the dethronement of Christ the King in public life.
2. He appeals to St Augustine’s image of divine Providence permitting trials, so that the Church may cling more to the Rock.
– The insinuation: just as Avignon did not nullify papal authority, so the contemporary crisis—and implicitly, his own dislocating innovations—should be seen as providential, not as signs of rupture or usurpation.
– This is a calculated analogy: the true popes at Avignon preserved the same doctrine, sacraments, and law; John XXIII uses their memory to sanctify a movement aimed at introducing what St Pius X condemned in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi.
3. He writes that from Rome “in cathedra unitatis doctrinam positam esse veritatis” (Augustine) and that there men find light against the failure of secular ideologies.
– Before 1958, this meant the See which issued the Syllabus of Errors, Quanta Cura, Quas Primas, and the anti-modernist oath.
– John XXIII uses the same patristic and magisterial citations as a bait to make the faithful associate those notes of the true Church with the very structure preparing to officially repudiate their content at and after Vatican II.
This is not accidental. It is the classical modernist method: use traditional formulas, but invert their referent. Corruptio optimi pessima (the corruption of the best is the worst).
From Supernatural Mission to Horizontal Universalism
The letter’s tone is outwardly spiritual, but its key trajectory is toward horizontal, naturalistic universalism:
– The Avignon popes are praised notably for:
– Promoting peace among temporal rulers from Avignon.
– Encouraging culture and letters.
– Diplomatic initiatives towards Eastern Christians.
These things in themselves can be good; but in this document, they serve as a bridge to John XXIII’s own agenda:
– He universalizes the papal function as a reference-point not only for the Church but for “universae hominum communitati.”
– He frames Vatican II, for which he seeks prayers, in terms of benefits “non solum Ecclesiae sed etiam universae hominum communitati.”
Compare this orientation with Pius XI in Quas Primas:
– Pius XI teaches that peace and social order can exist only where the public reign of Christ the King is acknowledged; he condemns laicism and state neutrality as the root of modern misery.
– The integral doctrine insists: first the rights of Christ and His Church, then any talk of “common good.”
John XXIII’s letter, however, glides toward the notion of a council which, in his later programmatic speeches, was explicitly intended not to condemn errors with the severity of Trent and Vatican I, but to employ a “pastoral” new tone—precisely the modernist softening of dogmatic edge which St Pius X identified as the path to doctrinal dissolution.
The silence here is deafening:
– No mention of the absolute necessity of holding the integral Catholic faith for salvation.
– No reference to the duty of nations to submit publicly to Christ the King, as taught in Quas Primas.
– No explicit affirmation of the Syllabus’ condemnation of liberal, indifferentist, and masonic principles.
– No warning against Modernism, condemned by Pius X as “omnium haeresum collectum” (the synthesis of all heresies).
– No call to defend the Church’s rights against masonic and laicist states; rather, a serene reference to the French Republic’s cooperation in returning a pope’s relics—an early symptom of that “reconciliation” with liberalism which proposition 80 of the Syllabus rejects as an error: the idea that the Pontiff should come to terms with “progress, liberalism and modern civilization.”
Instead, the vocabulary anticipates the conciliar cult of “humanity”:
– The Church and its council as sources of benefit for “all men,” detached from explicit calls to conversion and subjection to Christ’s doctrine and law.
This shift in axis—from supernatural primacy to horizontal universality—is not benign rhetoric; it is the signature of the conciliar revolution.
Linguistic Cosmetics: Traditional Latin as the Mask of Revolution
On the linguistic level, the letter is a masterpiece of modernist camouflage.
1. Classical Latin, citations of Augustine and Bonaventure:
– This choice aims to signal continuity, especially to clergy still formed in pre-1958 categories.
– But, as St Pius X exposed in Pascendi, the modernist frequently “speaks with two tongues”: one traditional in form, another revolutionary in practical orientation.
2. Emphases worth noting:
– “Pax,” “public order,” “utilitas,” “human community,” “vigor spiritualis” are gently woven together.
– The papacy is presented as an object of esteem, but not as the implacable guardian of doctrinal anathema and supernatural exclusivity of the true Church.
3. Strategic omissions as linguistic evidence of ideology:
– No mention of heresy.
– No mention of the enemies of the Church: Freemasonry, socialism, liberalism, condemned repeatedly by pre-1958 popes and specifically identified in the Syllabus as principal adversaries.
– No reaffirmation, while praising historic popes, of their concrete condemnations of errors; their doctrinal militancy is muted, while their cultural and diplomatic roles are highlighted.
This is not random politeness. It is a classic case of *pars pro toto* misdirection: extract non-controversial aspects of papal history to craft a narrative of a papacy primarily as an instrument of cultural prestige and humanitarian conciliation—precisely the papacy redefined by the conciliar sect.
Theological Inversion: True Papal Primacy Turned into a Shield for Modernist Authority
The theological heart of the letter is the exaltation of the papal office. On its face, it sounds impeccably Catholic:
– The Roman Pontiff as:
– supreme spiritual father,
– indivisible head,
– Vicar of Christ.
But examine how this is used.
1. The letter presents the dignity and office as the primary object of adhesion: “dignitas ipsa munusque ipsum imprimis sunt consideranda, quibus is, qui ea gerit, efficitur … Christi vicarius.”
– True doctrine: loyalty is owed to the office as instituted by Christ.
– However, Catholic theology (affirmed by St Robert Bellarmine and reflected in the sources summarized in the Defense of Sedevacantism) also teaches: a manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church, because he is no member.
– The letter entirely suppresses this condition. It insinuates that whoever occupies the See must be embraced as Christ’s Vicar, without any doctrinal criterion—convenient for one about to convoke a council that will contradict prior condemnations.
2. The Avignon analogy functions to suggest:
– Even when popes were not in Rome, their authority was intact.
– Therefore, by implication, even if circumstances appear unusual (a “pastoral” council, doctrinal ambiguities, liturgical experiments), the faithful must see this as Providence, not as an argument against the legitimacy of those in power.
3. But Catholic doctrine before 1958 insists:
– The papacy is instituted to guard, not to subvert, the deposit of faith.
– Lamentabili and Pascendi condemn precisely the idea that dogma evolves, that the Magisterium cannot fix the sense of Scripture, that the Church should accommodate modern philosophy.
– Pius IX’s Syllabus condemns the reconciliation of the Church with liberalism, religious indifferentism, separation of Church and State.
By exalting the papacy in abstraction while preparing its use against the very content it was instituted to protect, John XXIII performs a theological inversion: the words are orthodox, the projected use is subversive.
Abusus non tollit usum (abuse does not destroy use), but here we see something graver: abuse systematically disguised as the very use.
Silence on Modernism: The Gravest Indictment
From the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine, the most damning aspect of this letter is not what it says, but what it refuses to say.
At a moment (1962) when:
– Modernist errors, condemned in 1907, had reorganized themselves in biblical criticism, liturgical reform theories, and ecclesiology.
– Laicism and masonic political structures dominated Europe.
– The cult of “human rights” detached from Christ’s rights prevailed.
– Secular education ravaged Catholic morals and vocations.
A true pope echoing Pius IX, Leo XIII, St Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII would:
– Reaffirm the Syllabus and Pascendi as living norms.
– Warn Avignon’s faithful against the infiltration of the very sects Pius IX unmasked as the “synagogue of Satan.”
– Recall that peace cannot be built on the denial of Christ’s kingship or relativization of His Church.
Instead, John XXIII’s letter:
– Speaks of men discovering the futility of worldly systems and looking to Rome;
– Yet completely omits the obligation that they accept the integral Catholic faith and reject their errors.
– Points to Vatican II as the answer—without a single word that this council would reaffirm, without dilution, the anti-liberal, anti-modernist condemnations of the past.
This silence is not pastoral prudence; it is doctrinal negligence at best, preparatory treachery at worst.
Qui tacet consentire videtur (he who is silent is seen to consent) — the silence about Modernism, Communism’s errors against the faith, liberalism, and false ecumenism, while speaking in veiled flattery of the “whole human community,” is a symptom: the conciliar sect’s leadership had no intention to continue the pre-1958 line. They needed the authority-language of the papacy emptied of its anti-modernist content.
Avignon as Prototype of Conciliar Deformation: A False Parallel
The entire rhetorical structure pivots on this subtle argument:
– Avignon popes, though residing outside Rome “ob peculiaria rerum adiuncta,” remained true pontiffs and even rendered providential services.
– Therefore, historical irregularities in the papacy’s external situation must not shake confidence.
Correct, in itself, regarding those specific popes.
But notice the sly extension:
– Just as physical displacement did not annul papal authority, so doctrinal “aggiornamento” and new pastoral orientations should not be suspect; they are also presented as allowed by Providence.
This is a false parallel.
– Avignon:
– No new doctrinal religion.
– No reversal of prior condemnations.
– No invention of religious liberty against Quanta Cura.
– No liturgical revolution overturning the propitiatory nature of the Most Holy Sacrifice.
– Conciliar sect (from John XXIII onward):
– Systematic dilution or negation of the Syllabus and anti-modernist documents.
– Substitution of the doctrine of the social kingship of Christ with declarations of religious freedom as if a natural right of error.
– Liturgical transformations resulting in rites that, in their theology and praxis, obscure or contradict the Catholic doctrine of the Sacrifice.
– Ecumenism that treats heretical and schismatic communities as “sister churches,” against the constant doctrine that the Church of Christ is one and identical with the Catholic Church.
To invoke Avignon as a precedent for accepting such a program is an abuse of history. It is theological manipulation: a legitimate irregularity is used as an apologetic shield for a revolutionary, illegitimate transformation.
Pseudo-Pontifical Pathos and the Preparation of Vatican II
At the end, John XXIII directly binds the Avignon commemoration to Vatican II:
– He urges prayers at Avignon that the council may bring “magnas utilitates … Ecclesiae, quin immo universae hominum communitati.”
– The formulation reveals the operative ideology:
1. The council is framed not primarily as a solemn defense of dogma against modern errors, but as a positive outpouring of “spiritual vigor” for all humanity.
2. The supernatural end of the Church (salvation from sin, defense of revealed truth, preparation for judgment) recedes behind language of common benefit to “the human community,” a term congenial to the cult of man that will erupt later in the conciliar and post-conciliar discourse.
Measured against pre-1958 magisterial teaching:
– Pius XI in Quas Primas condemns the laicist thesis that public order can be built apart from submission to Christ’s kingship, making clear that “peace of Christ” is only in “the Kingdom of Christ.”
– The Syllabus rejects the notion that the Pontiff should reconcile himself with liberalism (prop. 80).
– St Pius X condemns the idea of dogmatic evolution and of a church that reshapes itself to modern thought.
John XXIII’s letter does not state these condemned theses explicitly; but it is architected to lead into a council that will dress such ideas in “pastoral” garments.
Thus, this epistle functions as one of many stepping-stones: it canonizes, in the eyes of the faithful, the authority of the man and the upcoming assembly, using irreproachable terms, so that when novelties are introduced, the people’s instinct to resist will have been disarmed by such texts.
Conciliar Sect Self-Portrait: Rome Without the Faith
One final symptomatic point:
John XXIII writes that many, including non-Catholics, look to Rome, because they see that secular supports are vain and understand that in the “cathedra unitatis” there is truth and strength.
This would be glorious, if that “cathedra unitatis” referred to the unequivocal voice of the pre-1958 Church: anathematizing errors, demanding conversion, insisting on the unique salvific mediatorship of Christ through His Church.
But read in the light of what followed:
– That “look to Rome” was answered not by a call to abjure heresies and submit to the one true Church, but by:
– dialogical processes,
– mutual recognitions,
– liturgical deconstruction,
– doctrinal ambiguities,
– and the practical enthronement of the cult of man.
Thus the letter, while draped in orthodox citations, prefigures the neo-church: a Rome geographically unchanged, juridically occupied, but doctrinally derailed.
The structures occupying the Vatican appropriate the honor due to Innocent VI, Urban V, Pius IX, and Augustine, only to invert their legacy.
To an eye formed by the immutable Magisterium:
– The epistle is not an innocent devotional piece.
– It is a programmatic signal that the conciliar sect will rule by:
– borrowing Catholic language,
– silencing Catholic severity,
– universalizing Catholic symbols for a humanistic project,
– and demanding unconditional adhesion to its “pontiff” precisely as the doctrinal content of the faith is prepared for methodical dilution.
Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief): here, likewise, lex loquendi reveals the emerging lex credendi. And it is not the faith of the Church before 1958.
Source:
Duplicis anniversariae – Ad Iosephum Urtasun, Archiepiscopum Avenionensem, sexto exacto saeculo a pio Innocentii Pp. VI obitu et B. Urbani Pp. V ad Petri Sedem electione (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025