The Latin letter attributed to John XXIII, addressed to Michael of Jesus, General Moderator of the Order of the Most Holy Trinity for the Redemption of Captives, marks the 750th anniversary of the death of St. John de Matha. It praises the Trinitarian founder’s charity, recalls the heroic mission of redeeming captives from infidels, commends the historical fruits of the Order, and exhorts its members to imitate their predecessors in holiness and apostolic zeal in changing times, concluding with an “Apostolic Blessing.” This apparently pious tribute, however, functions as a polished facade: beneath its devotional varnish it silently confirms the authority of an intruder, empties authentic Catholic militancy of its doctrinal content, and instrumentalizes a truly Catholic saint to buttress the conciliar revolution in statu nascendi.
Using St. John de Matha to Crown an Intruder: Illegitimate Voice, Illegitimate Blessing
From the first line, we are not dealing with a neutral commemorative text. We are confronted with a self-presentation: “Ioannes PP. XXIII,” issuing a “letter” from the occupied See of Peter in 1962, at the very hour when the neo-church’s founding assembly, Vatican II, was underway.
Measured by the immutable doctrine of the papacy and the Church before 1958, this document is not a filial homage of the Vicar of Christ to a saintly founder; it is the rhetorical exploitation of an authentic Catholic saint to clothe an illegitimate regime.
Key principles prior to 1958 expose the contradiction:
– A manifest or notorious heretic cannot be head of the Church, because he cannot be its member: *non potest esse caput qui non est membrum* (he cannot be head who is not a member). This is reiterated by St. Robert Bellarmine and the common teaching: a public heretic is outside the Church and thus incapable of holding papal office.
– Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code declares any ecclesiastical office vacant “by the fact itself and without any declaration” if the holder publicly defects from the faith.
– The Holy See, in documents such as Pius IX’s Syllabus and St. Pius X’s anti-modernist interventions, condemns the very theological orientation that John XXIII launched and embodied.
Therefore, the text must be read not as a papal exhortation but as an act of the conciliar sect’s emerging “magisterium” attempting to sacralize itself through borrowed sanctity.
The heart of the perversion lies not in what is said about St. John de Matha—much of which, taken materially, is pious—but in the silent, assumed legitimacy of the signer and the deft redirection of a militant, sacrificial charism into a safe, spiritualized, and ultimately modernist-compatible framework.
Hagiographical Ornament as a Political Instrument of the Conciliar Sect
On the factual plane, the letter appears harmless. It:
– Recalls the “septingenti et quinquaginta anni” since the death of St. John de Matha.
– Praises him as “dilectum Deo et hominibus cuius memoria in benedictione est” (beloved of God and men, whose memory is in blessing; Eccli. 45:1).
– Commends the Trinitarian Order’s mission of redeeming captives from infidels.
– Notes that, with changed circumstances, new “fields” open where souls enslaved by sin and the devil should be liberated.
– Encourages imitation of the “magnanimam fortitudinem” (magnanimous fortitude) of the ancient members.
– Imparts an “Apostolic Blessing” to the religious and virgins of the Order.
All this is externally orthodox language. But three decisive elements reveal the deeper deformation.
1. The letter is framed as a solemn papal approbation (“Pontificatus Nostri quinto”), presupposing that John XXIII truly holds the Keys. Here lies the first and structural abuse: the sacred memory of a founder canonized by the true Church is conscripted as a witness for a usurper’s alleged authority. The signatory’s person—central to an “AD mode” assessment—carries a theological content: he is the inaugurator of an ecclesial revolution condemned in principle by the pre-1958 Magisterium.
2. The historical mission of the Trinitarians is praised, but carefully sterilized. The Order’s raison d’être was explicitly Catholic and confessional: to ransom Christians from the hands of infidels, thereby defending the honor of Christ, the integrity of the Church, and the corporal and spiritual welfare of her members. This presupposed:
– The objective distinction between the true religion and false religions.
– The duty to protect the faithful from the dominion of enemies of Christ.
– The right and obligation of the Church to use material means for supernatural ends.
None of this is clearly affirmed as doctrine. The infidels appear as a historical background; their false religion is not condemned; the heroism is celebrated in terms acceptable to a nascent ecumenical mentality.
3. The redirection towards “other fields” is articulated in a generic, inward, spiritualist manner:
– The Order is encouraged now to focus on souls subject to the slavery of sin and the devil, which in itself is a true aspect of its vocation.
– But there is total silence about the concrete, doctrinal enemies of the faith in the contemporary world: modernism, liberalism, socialism, naturalism, religious indifferentism—all solemnly condemned by Pius IX and St. Pius X and raging in 1962.
– In other words, the “new captivity” is depoliticized and de-confessionalized. The greatest slavery, according to the integral faith, is heresy and apostasy, especially when spread under Catholic labels. Yet the document does not name the apostasy inside the conciliar structures themselves.
Thus, what we see is hagiography without dogmatic edge, history without doctrinal clarity, exhortation without the confession of Christ’s exclusive Kingship—precisely the technique by which the conciliar sect anesthetizes Catholic consciousness.
Linguistic Politeness Masking Doctrinal Emasculation
The language is classically stylized, apparently “traditional”: citations from Ecclesiasticus and Psalm 1, elevated Latin formulations, exhortations to holiness.
Yet form serves a revolutionary function: to reassure, to soothe, to suggest continuity where a rupture is being consummated.
Consider three symptomatic linguistic traits:
1. Vague praise instead of dogmatic affirmation
The text speaks of St. John de Matha’s “vita inclita, opera, merita,” of the “exquisitissima messis caritatis,” of “uberimum adiumentum et solacium.” All true, but deliberately devoid of explicit confessional sharpness: no stress on the duty to resist Islam as a false religion; no mention of the objective status of infidels as outside the Church; no insistence that ransom was ordered to the salvation of souls through return to the one true fold.
This silence is not neutral; it aligns with the condemned thesis 15–18 of the Syllabus of Pius IX (indifferentism and the equivalence of religions), precisely by not reiterating their negation at the very moment when the Church’s public witness is being reshaped.
2. Spiritualization and interiorization without doctrinal combat
When the document turns to “mutatis rerum adiunctis,” it opens “alii campi finesque” for the Order: to liberate souls from the slavery of sin and the devil. On its face, this is entirely Catholic. However:
– The specificity of contemporary errors is absent. No mention of modernist exegesis, evolution of dogma, immanentism condemned in “Lamentabili sane exitu” and “Pascendi.”
– No identification of the gravest present “captivity”: subjection of souls to a teaching that relativizes dogma, promotes false ecumenism, and prepares a cult of man.
Thus, linguistic generalities serve to separate charity from truth, mission from dogma.
3. Harmonious, irenic tone concealing a subversive project
The rhetoric is irenic, laudatory, non-combative. In a normal age such meekness might be simply pastoral. In 1962, from the mouth of John XXIII, in the midst of orchestrated demolition of the anti-modernist bastions, this gentle tone is the velvet glove of revolution.
St. Pius X, describing Modernists, noted their tactic: they avoid open contradiction, preferring insinuation, re-interpretation, silence on condemned errors, and sentimental piety as cover. This letter fits that pattern: no explicit heresy in the text, but an entire network of presuppositions and omissions that support the modernist system.
Theological Subversion: From Confessional Militancy to Conciliar Humanitarianism
On the theological level, the letter’s core defect is its implicit redefinition of both:
– the Order’s charism, and
– the nature of ecclesial authority endorsing it.
1. Distortion of the Trinitarian Charism
The Order of the Most Holy Trinity for the Redemption of Captives was raised by Providence for a precise purpose: to redeem Christian captives from the hands of infidels, often by risking or giving their own lives in exchange. This was:
– Confessional (for Catholics, not as a general philanthropic service).
– Militant (directly confronting enemies of Christ).
– Hierarchical (obedient to the papal and episcopal authority of the true Church).
– Ordered to Christ’s objective Kingship: rescuing souls so they might serve Christ freely in the true religion.
By celebrating this history without reaffirming these doctrinal parameters, the letter subtly detaches the heroism from its supernatural object and readies it for a generic “human dignity” narrative. The transition is visible:
– Past: liberation “a servitute christiani nominis osorum” (from the servitude imposed by haters of the Christian name).
– Present: focus on interior enslavement to sin and the devil, presented without reference to the concrete doctrinal enemies of the Church.
An integral Catholic approach would explicitly say: the greatest captors today are the propagators of modernism, liberalism, false ecumenism, religious liberty as an absolute, and the cult of man; souls must be ransomed from these errors by preaching the unchanging doctrine, administering the true sacraments, and resisting any pseudo-magisterium that contradicts Tradition. The letter does not dare to utter this. Its silence is doctrinally devastating.
2. Sacralizing an Illegitimate “Magisterium”
The “Apostolic Benediction” given in the name of John XXIII is not a neutral flourish. It is an assertion: “I am the Roman Pontiff; my blessing is that of Peter; my exhortation interprets the will of Christ.” Accepting this at face value would mean:
– Accepting that the same authority which convened and directed the conciliar revolution also guarantees the authentic continuation of St. John de Matha’s spirit.
– Accepting, in practice, that the *ordo Trinitatis* is to be conformed to the new ecclesiology, the new ecumenism, the new liturgy, the new doctrine—all of which contradict the pre-1958 Magisterium.
But the unchangeable Catholic principle, paraphrasing the teaching of Pius IX and St. Pius X, is: *non licet* (it is not permitted) to recognize as supreme authority one who promotes doctrines and disciplines opposed to what has been previously and definitively taught by the Church. The blessing of an antipope is not a channel of grace; it is a political seal of the conciliar system.
3. Implicit Negation of Christ’s Social Kingship
Pius XI in Quas Primas teaches plainly that peace and order in society depend on public recognition of the Kingship of Christ, and condemns laicism and the relegation of Christ to the private or purely “spiritual” sphere. The heroic history of the Trinitarians is a concrete expression of this doctrine: they asserted by action that:
– Christ is King,
– His faithful must be defended against infidel oppression,
– societies must bow before His law.
This letter empties that dimension. Christ the King is not invoked as demanding the submission of nations; infidelity is not denounced; the Order is not explicitly called to fight for the restoration of public Christian order. Instead, the focus is interior and apolitical, compatible with the soon-to-be-proclaimed doctrine of “religious liberty” and “dialogue.”
This contrast with Quas Primas is not accidental. It is symptomatic of the conciliar sect’s program: to transfer Catholic zeal from the visible, confessional, social order into a vague personalism and humanitarianism, thereby neutralizing real opposition to the world’s apostasy.
Symptom of the Conciliar Revolution: Selective Memory and Programmatic Silence
The most damning accusation against this text, read from the integral Catholic faith, lies in what it does not say.
1. No denunciation of the real “captivity” of the 20th century
When this letter was issued (1962):
– Modernism, formally condemned as “the synthesis of all heresies,” had infiltrated seminaries, universities, episcopates.
– Nations were enslaved to secularism, communism, socialism, and masonic liberalism, all condemned by the pre-1958 Magisterium.
– Inside the very structures occupying the Vatican, there was a concerted effort to dilute dogma, reform the liturgy, and introduce religious liberty and false ecumenism—precisely those errors pre-condemned in the Syllabus and in the anti-modernist documents.
Yet this supposedly “apostolic” letter, addressed to an Order whose specific mission is liberation from captivity, does not name:
– Communism
– Freemasonry
– Modernism
– Liberalism
– Religious indifferentism
– The growing betrayal of doctrine within the hierarchy
Silence here is not neutral. It is a silent collaboration. The Order is encouraged to be zealous—but not against the real persecutors of the faith. The Trinitarians are pushed into a safe zone, harmless to the revolution.
2. No affirmation of the unique salvific necessity of the Catholic Church
The text never clearly reiterates that there is no salvation outside the Church (*extra Ecclesiam nulla salus*), nor that the ransom of captives had as its end their perseverance and growth in the one true faith.
This omission dovetails precisely with the post-1958 trajectory: from extra Ecclesiam to “elements” of the Church, from missionary urgency to interreligious dialogue, from the condemnation of error to the respect of all “sincere believers.”
3. No warning against pseudo-sacraments and pseudo-teaching
From the perspective of the faithful today, the greatest captivity is being trapped inside the conciliar sect, receiving invalid or sacrilegious rites, and being catechized with doctrines opposed to the perennial Magisterium.
In the spirit of Pius X’s Lamentabili and Pascendi, any genuine Catholic authority in 1962, foreseeing or witnessing the doctrinal deviations, would be bound to:
– Warn religious Orders not to conform to heresies of modern exegesis, liturgical vandalism, democratic ecclesiology.
– Command them to cling to the traditional liturgy, doctrine, and discipline.
– Exhort them to refuse cooperation with any program undermining the Church’s dogmas.
This text does the opposite by omission: it offers a benediction without conditions, encouragement without doctrinal safeguard, exhortation without warning. It is, effectively, a gentle pressure to submit to the conciliar paradigm under the guise of fidelity to the founder.
From St. John de Matha’s Heroism to Conciliar Mediocrity
To grasp the spiritual bankruptcy encoded in this letter, we must contrast two visions.
1. St. John de Matha and the authentic Catholic paradigm
– He received from God a charism tightly linked to the worship of the Most Holy Trinity and the honor of Christ’s redeeming Blood.
– He founded an Order approved by a true pope (Innocent III), explicitly oriented to redeem Catholic captives from infidels.
– His work presupposed:
– clear dogmatic conviction,
– sacrificial courage,
– readiness to suffer and die for the salvation of Catholic souls.
In the pre-1958 understanding:
– Charity is inseparable from truth.
– Mercy is ordered to conversion and perseverance in the one Church.
– Defending the faithful against enemies of the faith is an act of justice to God and love for souls.
2. The conciliar recasting
The 1962 letter:
– Uses biblical citations and elevated style to project continuity.
– Praises the past without re-affirming its dogmatic presuppositions.
– Redirects the charism to a generic interior liberation, easily assimilated to the soon-coming anthropocentric, dialogical religion.
Thus, the conciliar sect attempts to:
– Cover its rupture with a thin coat of traditional vocabulary.
– Ensure that ancient Orders become instruments of its new agenda.
– Shift the focus from fighting objective errors and persecutors to a subjective piety that coexists peacefully with systemic apostasy.
This is precisely the method condemned in advance by the pre-1958 Magisterium: to “develop” dogma and spirituality in such a way that their meaning is inverted while their formulas are superficially retained (*eodem sensu eademque sententia*—in the same sense and the same judgment—being abandoned in practice).
Conclusion: Reject the Intruder, Recover the True Captivity and True Liberation
This letter is not, in itself, an overt manifesto of heresy. Its sentences on charity, prayer, penance, and imitation of a saint can be read, taken in isolation, in an orthodox sense. But this is precisely its danger and its function: to lull, not to enlighten; to co-opt, not to confirm.
Measured by the unwavering light of the pre-1958 Magisterium:
– Its author, as inaugurator of the conciliar revolution, cannot be recognized as a true successor of Peter if we adhere to the principles taught by the very popes he implicitly contradicts.
– Its silence about modernist and liberal captivity reveals complicity with the very forces that Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, and Pius XI exposed as masonic, naturalistic, and destructive of the Church.
– Its redirection of a militant, sacrificial, confessional charism into a vague, deracinated spirituality is a betrayal of St. John de Matha’s legacy, not its fulfillment.
Authentic sons of St. John de Matha, and all faithful Catholics, must draw the opposite lesson:
– To see that the gravest captivity today is inside the conciliar neo-church, where pseudo-authorities dispense corrupted doctrine and mutilated rites.
– To recognize that true liberation is adherence to the integral Catholic faith, the traditional sacraments, and the unbroken Magisterium, *ante* the conciliar usurpation.
– To understand that any “blessing” that presupposes acceptance of modernist structures and doctrines is not apostolic but a counterfeit.
Only by rejecting the illegitimate “Pontificatus” invoked in this text, and by returning fully to the doctrine, worship, and discipline solemnly taught and protected before 1958, can one honor St. John de Matha in truth and continue his mission of ransoming captives—from the infidels of old, and from the more subtle but more terrible captivity of modernist deception and conciliar apostasy.
Source:
Septingenti et quinquaginta (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025