Quamvis nullum is a Latin congratulatory letter in which antipope John XXIII praises Tatsuō Doi, then Tokyo archbishop, on the 25th anniversary of his episcopal ordination. In it, he extols Doi as a model prelate, emphasizes the supposed flourishing of Catholicism in Japan, rejoices in having created him a “cardinal,” and encourages the construction of a new principal church as a lasting monument of his piety, attaching a plenary indulgence to the jubilee celebration. Behind the pious verbiage lies the naked program of the conciliar sect: self-celebration of its hierarchy, naturalistic optimism, and the silent replacement of the Kingship of Christ with ecclesiastical careerism and architectural prestige.
Celebration of a Counterfeit Episcopate as the Self-Canonization of the Conciliar Sect
This short letter may appear harmless, a routine jubilee greeting. Under integral Catholic scrutiny, however, it functions as a concentrated micro-manifesto of the neo-church’s deformation of the episcopal office and its quiet subversion of the pre-1958 ecclesiological order.
John XXIII addresses Doi as “Dilecte Fili Noster” and exults that, as first Japanese archbishop of Tokyo, he has shown himself worthy by “religionis studio, maturitate consilii, sollertia operae,” and that therefore he was raised to the “Sacra Romana Purpura.” The text climaxes in boasting that, by enrolling Doi among the “Purpurati Patres,” he wished to “profiteri” that the “Catholic Church” is growing in Japan and to acknowledge the noble disposition of the Japanese nation towards the Gospel.
On the surface: gratitude, missionary joy, architectural plans, an indulgence. In reality:
– No mention of the need to preserve the integral faith against heresy.
– No warning against modernist infiltration, condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi and Lamentabili sane exitu.
– No defence of the exclusive truth of the Catholic religion against false cults (Pius IX, Syllabus, prop. 15–18 condemned).
– No call to establish the public social reign of Christ the King in a non-Catholic nation (Pius XI, Quas primas).
– No exhortation to fidelity to the traditional Roman liturgy and sacramental discipline, precisely while the same antipope was preparing their demolition.
Silentium de supremis, loquacitas de honoribus humanis (silence about the highest things, talkativeness about human honors): this is the signature of apostasy in silk.
Instrumentalization of the Episcopate: From Apostolic Watchman to Neo-Church Functionary
On the factual level, the letter revolves around three axes:
– praising Doi’s “merits” in administration;
– elevating his creation as “cardinal” as a sign of national progress;
– tying spiritual favors (indulgence) to his jubilee and construction project.
The authentic Catholic doctrine on bishops, as defined at the Council of Trent and taught unanimously before 1958, presents the bishop as:
– defender of the deposit of faith against every novelty;
– judge of doctrine under and with the Roman Pontiff;
– guardian of the Most Holy Sacrifice and sacramental discipline;
– preacher of penance and the Cross in a fallen world.
In Quamvis nullum, this supernatural profile is eclipsed by a diplomatic and sociological one. The episcopal jubilee is treated chiefly as:
– an opportunity for communal satisfaction and self-congratulation;
– a proof of the “growth” and “maturity” of a nation within the structures of the conciliar sect;
– a pretext for signalizing geopolitical inclusivity: “Primus namque e Iaponia natione Tokiensis Archiepiscopus…”
The entire letter reads as an ecclesiastical press release: an early specimen of the post-1958 reduction of the hierarchy to managers of an international religious NGO.
Where is the language of Trent on bishops as those who must “withstand wolves,” correct heretics, and guard the flock unto bloodshed? Where the echo of St. Pius X, who demanded that pastors mercilessly unmask Modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies” (Pascendi)? It is absent because such language would expose John XXIII himself and his collaborators.
A true Roman Pontiff, writing in 1963, if faithful to his predecessors, would have:
– warned against religious indifferentism and pan-religious collaboration condemned in the Syllabus;
– exhorted that evangelization in Japan aim at conversion from false religions, not “dialogue” or cultural accommodation;
– recalled that the bishop must defend the immutable liturgy and doctrine from any corruption.
Instead, we find a smooth celebration of a functionary who fits perfectly into the coming aggiornamento, in which the bishop becomes—exactly as the Modernists desired—a facilitator of evolution, not a guardian of Tradition.
National Prestige and Collegialist Flattery as Substitutes for the Kingship of Christ
A central passage manifests the ideological subtext:
…cumque te Sacro Collegio Purpuratorum Patrum ascivimus, profiteri voluimus Catholicam Ecclesiam bono auctu istic crescere, palamque agnoscere inclitae gentis tuae dignum laude erga Christi Evangelium nobile studium.
Translation: “When we enrolled you in the Sacred College of Cardinals, we wished to profess that the Catholic Church is growing there by a good increase and to acknowledge publicly the praiseworthy noble concern of your illustrious nation towards the Gospel of Christ.”
This is not Catholic ecclesiology. It is statist symbolism:
– The “growth” of the Church is measured, implicitly, by the presence of a national representative in the pseudo-college.
– The emphasis falls on honoring a nation, not submitting the nation to the sweet yoke of Christ’s social Kingship.
– The logic mirrors condemned liberal Catholicism: the Church decorates nations for their “noble disposition,” instead of calling them from idolatry to the one true faith.
Pius XI in Quas primas teaches that peace and true order are possible only when individuals and societies recognize and obey Christ the King. He explicitly condemns laicism and the equalization of religions, insisting that rulers must publicly honor Christ and shape laws according to His law. Here, in the letter, there is no hint that Japan as a state is obliged to abandon paganism and submit—publicly and legally—to Christ.
Instead, John XXIII endorses precisely what Pius IX and Pius XI condemn:
– a polite, non-confrontational naturalism;
– reducing the supernatural mission of the Church to a sign of cultural inclusion and modernization.
This rhetorical strategy—laudare nationes, tacere de conversione (to praise nations, be silent about conversion)—is one of the chief engines of the conciliar apostasy. The episcopate is no longer the spearhead of the conquest of nations for Christ; it becomes the ornament by which the neo-church decorates the Masonic “family of nations.”
Sanitized Scripture and the Evacuation of Supernatural Urgency
The letter uses Scripture with a telling selectivity. It cites the Psalm “Laudabo nomen Dei cum cantico” and the Pauline desire that they be “filled with the knowledge of His will” (Col 1:9–10). Seemingly edifying; actually symptomatic.
What is missing?
– Any mention of judgment, hell, the danger of apostasy.
– Any allusion to the necessity of being in the state of grace, of penance, of avoiding heresy.
– Any echo of Our Lord’s uncompromising words: “He that believeth not shall be condemned” or “No one comes to the Father but by Me.”
– Any reference to the exclusive claims of the true Church against false religions, which Pius IX reaffirmed forcefully in the Syllabus.
Instead, Scripture is trimmed to harmless praise and vague “knowledge of His will”—perfectly adaptable to the religiously pluralist, humanitarian religion of the neo-church.
This is the same method condemned by St. Pius X: the Modernists use Catholic language, Scripture, and seemingly orthodox formulas, while evacuating their dogmatic content and inserting an evolutionist, immanentist meaning. The text is careful never to assert anything that would offend the surrounding pagan and secular world.
Silentium de scandalo crucis—silence about the scandal of the Cross—is itself scandalous. A bishop in a pagan land is congratulated without any reminder that he must fight against idols, denounce false cults, and bring souls into the one ark of salvation. This silence is not accidental; it is programmatic.
Indulgence as Currency: Sacramentals Bent to Serve a Neo-Church Milestone
Of particular gravity is the way spiritual goods are annexed to the self-celebration:
…id tibi facultatis facimus, ut, quo volueris die, adstantibus christifidelibus nomine Nostro Nostraque auctoritate benedicas, plenaria Indulgentia proposita.
Translation: “We grant you the faculty that, on whatever day you wish, in the presence of the faithful, you may give a blessing in Our name and by Our authority, with a plenary indulgence attached.”
In authentic Catholic theology, indulgences are:
– applications of the treasury of merits of Christ and the saints;
– guarded by the supreme authority of the Church;
– tightly bound to true repentance, sacramental confession, and ecclesial communion with the true Church.
Here, a plenary indulgence is attached as:
– a reward and ornament to a silver jubilee inside a structure already bent towards doctrinal subversion;
– a spiritual “bonus” dangling before the faithful to reinforce adherence to the conciliar hierarchy.
This usage is deeply symptomatic:
– It instrumentalizes the language of indulgence to legitimize a man whose “episcopate” is being integrated into the apparatus that would soon promulgate the Vatican II revolution.
– It separates indulgence from any call to defend immutable doctrine against impending novelties.
– It treats the papal authority over indulgences as a tool of bureaucratic benevolence, not of militant sanctification.
Since John XXIII is part of the line of usurpers beginning with himself, these promised spiritual favors are devoid of true ecclesial authority. But even on the plane of internal logic, the gesture reveals a desacralization: what Trent and the pre-1958 popes treated with fear and gravity is here reduced to jubilee protocol.
Absence of Warnings: The Loudest Testimony of Complicity
The greatest indictment of Quamvis nullum is what it omits in January 1963.
At that moment:
– Modernist theology, condemned by St. Pius X, had seeped into seminaries and faculties.
– The opening session of Vatican II (1962) had already revealed a frontal assault on the anti-modernist magisterium.
– Schemes faithful to the pre-1958 doctrine had been shelved; progressivist factions were openly preparing to overturn the teaching on religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, and the liturgy.
A true successor of Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII would then have:
– sounded the alarm with utmost clarity;
– called bishops back to the anti-modernist oath;
– demanded vigilance against those who undermined the Syllabus, Quanta cura, Quas primas, Pascendi, Humani generis;
– reminded that the bishop’s first duty is to guard the purity of doctrine and the integrity of the Holy Sacrifice.
Instead, John XXIII:
– assures Doi that the “Dominicus ager” is bearing “laeti fructus”;
– expresses confidence in human efforts “concordia coniuncti” for the “amplificatio Regni Christi” without defining that Kingdom in the exclusive, social, juridical sense taught by Pius XI;
– urges the swift construction of a new “templum princeps” as a monument of piety.
No warning. No mention of the enemies within, so clearly unmasked by Pius X as “the most dangerous.” No insistence on the necessity of preserving Latin, the Roman Rite, scholastic theology. Silence.
This silence is not neutral; it is complicity. It reveals that the new regime’s priority is the consolidation of its global network of compliant prelates, not the defense of the deposit of faith.
The Rhetoric of Harmless Piety as a Cloak for Revolution
On the linguistic level, Quamvis nullum offers a paradigm of the neo-church’s style:
– archaizing Latin turns of phrase (“Dilecte Fili Noster,” “sacra redimitus es infula”) evoke continuity;
– scriptural allusions create an aroma of orthodoxy;
– emotionally warm, courteous tones foster the image of a benign, pastoral “pope.”
But beneath this surface:
– the content is largely vacuous, devoid of any dogmatic precision or doctrinal militancy;
– the doctrinally rich terms (e.g., “Regnum Christi”) are used without any of the hard edges present in Quas primas;
– the supernatural horizon is flattened into moral encouragement and institutional pride.
This is precisely how Modernism advanced after the condemnations: no longer through frontal denials, but through the “suaviter in modo, molliter in verbis” (soft in manner, soft in words) that evacuates Catholic terms of their objective sense, preparing the faithful to accept their inversion at Vatican II and in the subsequent documents of the Church of the New Advent.
John XXIII’s rhetoric is thus doubly treacherous:
– to the faithful, because it sounds Catholic while blurring Catholic distinctiveness;
– to pastors, because it models an episcopal spirituality centered on administrative success, cultural esteem, and concord, instead of combat, suffering, and doctrinal intransigence.
Preparation of the Conciliar Program: Collegiality, Inculturation, and Humanist Optimism
Even within this brief letter, one can discern key pillars of the conciliar and post-conciliar program:
1. Collegial exaltation:
– The emphasis on Doi as member of the “Sacro Collegio Purpuratorum” and as representative of his nation anticipates the conciliar deformation of the episcopal college as a kind of senate of world regions, diluting the primacy and fostering horizontal structures.
2. Inculturation emptied of conversion:
– Praising the Japanese nation’s “nobile studium” for the Gospel without calling for its formal and public abandonment of false religions signals exactly the later line: every culture is affirmed; Christ is insinuated, not commanded.
3. Humanist optimism:
– The assurance that, with divine help and human efforts “concordia coniuncti et solidi,” the Kingdom of Christ is extended, masks the reality that these “human efforts” are being marshalled precisely to overturn the doctrinal ramparts erected by previous popes against Liberalism, Naturalism, and Freemasonry.
In light of Pius IX’s explicit teaching that Masonic and similar sects wage war on the Church and aim at her subjugation (see the appended condemnations in the Syllabus and related allocutions), the absence of any anti-Masonic vigilance in such correspondence is itself a grave sign. While the infiltrators were advancing, John XXIII was distributing compliments and indulging in optimistic platitudes.
The Monument of Stone versus the Living Monument of Fidelity
Significantly, John XXIII singles out one concrete project:
…ut novum templum princeps, quod exaedificare cupis, quam primum affabre factum ad caelum sua culmina extollat. Pietatis tuae posteris quoque durabile erit hoc monumentum.
Translation: “…that the new principal church which you desire to build may soon, skilfully finished, lift its spires to heaven. This will also be for posterity a lasting monument of your piety.”
This is the naked cult of ecclesiastical self-memorialization. In integral Catholic spirituality:
– the true monument of a bishop is the preservation of the pure faith and of the true Sacrifice;
– the true memorial is the sanctity of souls led to heaven, not his own name engraved on a façade.
Praised here is not:
– preaching against error;
– defending the faithful from heretical catechisms;
– refusing to implement modernist innovations.
Praised is:
– a visible structure that will, in fact, more easily serve as liturgical and symbolic stage for the coming neo-rite and neo-doctrine.
The preference for stone monuments over doctrinal monuments epitomizes the neo-church mentality: architectural, media, and diplomatic triumphs masking interior desolation. Christ’s warning stands: “There shall not be left here a stone upon a stone” when the temple ceases to be the house of true doctrine and worship.
Conclusion: A Small Text as a Precise Symptom of a Great Apostasy
Quamvis nullum, though brief and superficially devout, manifests all the essential pathologies of the conciliar revolution:
– the reduction of the episcopal office to an honorific, national-representative, and managerial role;
– the exploitation of Catholic devotional language to legitimize a paramasonic structure occupying the Vatican;
– the substitution of calls to conversion and doctrinal fidelity with rhetoric of human cooperation, cultural affirmation, and architectural success;
– the abuse of indulgence-formulas as spiritual cosmetics over a rapidly mutating ecclesial body;
– the near-total silence about Modernism, condemned by St. Pius X, and about the absolute claims of the Kingship of Christ over nations, proclaimed by Pius XI.
Measured by the standard of unchanging Catholic teaching before 1958—Pius IX’s Syllabus, Leo XIII’s doctrinal encyclicals, St. Pius X’s anti-modernist magisterium, Pius XI’s Quas primas, Pius XII’s reaffirmations—this letter is not a harmless curial courtesy. It is evidence of a new religion installed at the summit: a neo-church that speaks of God while enthroning man, that quotes Scripture while betraying Tradition, that congratulates “bishops” while preparing them to be executives of an apostate system.
Its piety is a mask; its silence is an accusation; its optimism is a lie. The only Catholic response is to unmask this counterfeit and return without compromise to the integral faith, the true Sacrifice, and the authentic hierarchy that serve Christ the King alone.
Source:
Quamvis, cum nullum – Ad Petrum tit. S. Antonii Patavini de Urbe S. R. E. Presb. Cardinalem Tatsuo Doi, Archiepiscopum Tokiensem, a suscepta episcopali dignitate quinque impleta lustra celebraturum (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025