The document “Gratulamur” of John XXIII is a congratulatory letter to Cardinal Pierre-Marie Gerlier on the first so‑called “Missionary Congress of all nations” held in Lyon in May 1962. John XXIII praises the city’s ancient Catholic heritage and martyrs, extols the Pontifical Society for the Propagation of the Faith, exalts Pauline Jaricot as a model of lay missionary zeal, and presents the Congress as a decisive moment to seek “new ways” and “new methods” for missionary work in changed times, coordinated under the centralized “Pontifical Mission Societies” and explicitly detached from political interests. The entire text, under an apparently pious veneer and nostalgic references to Tradition, functions as a manifesto for redirecting missionary work into the channels of the nascent conciliar revolution—subordinating evangelization to a naturalistic, institutional, and soon ecumenical apparatus that would betray the very martyrs invoked by name.
From Catholic Mission to Conciliar Program: The Poison in the Congratulations
Instrumentalizing Martyrs to Legitimize a New Religion
John XXIII cloaks his letter in the splendor of Lyon’s martyrs and bishops:
“The city still shines with the unconquered fortitude and shed blood of Vettius Epagathus, Attalus, Blandina and the other holy martyrs, and is illuminated by St. Pothinus, St. Irenaeus, St. Eucherius…”
The rhetoric is deliberate: he borrows the capital of authentic Catholic sanctity to credit a Congress whose principles and historical context are already ordered toward the conciliar overturning of the Faith (1962: the very year he opens the council that will enthrone religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegial demolition). This is theological fraud.
Key points:
– The martyrs of Lyon shed their blood precisely because they refused any compromise with paganism, imperial cult, or syncretism. They died for the exclusive reign of Christ and the unique truth of the Church.
– Pius XI in Quas primas teaches that true peace and order are only possible in the social and public Kingship of Christ; he condemns laicism and the exclusion of Christ from public life as a plague.
– Pius IX in the Syllabus condemns religious indifferentism and the separation of Church and State (prop. 15–18, 55, 77–80).
By 1962 John XXIII is consciously steering the “missionary” discourse toward the very errors condemned by his predecessors: opening to non-Catholic religions, de‑confessionalizing states, and subjugating the supernatural mission to a diplomacy of coexistence. To drape this in the blood of Blandina and Irenaeus is an abuse of sacred memory. The martyrs become a marketing logo for a Congress that prepares the practical abandonment of their confession.
This reveals the fundamental duplicity: evocative invocations of ancient orthodoxy masking the practical demolition of its content—precisely the modernist method condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi and in Lamentabili sane exitu, where the attempt to preserve formulas while subverting their meaning is branded as heretical.
“New Ways, New Methods”: The Conciliar Code Word for Doctrinal Betrayal
At the heart of “Gratulamur” stands a programmatic phrase: the Congress is to discern
“new methods and new ways for missionary apostolate, since times have changed (cum mutata sint tempora, novae rationes novaeque viae patescant).”
On the surface this sounds like mere pastoral prudence. But read in context—1962, the architects of Vatican II, the forthcoming decrees on “religious freedom” and “non-Christian religions”—this is the coded declaration that traditional Catholic missionary doctrine is to be relativized.
According to integral, pre‑1958 Catholic doctrine:
– The Church has a divinely mandated, exclusive mission: teach all nations, baptize them, and bring both individuals and societies under the sweet but objective yoke of Christ the King (cf. Mt 28:19–20; Pius XI, Quas primas).
– The goal of missions is the conversion of infidels, schismatics, and heretics to the one true Church; this is taught consistently by the Fathers, Trent, Vatican I, and reiterated doctrinally by Pius XI in Mortalium animos.
– The idea that “times” can require changing the substance, aim, or doctrinal clarity of missionary work is explicitly condemned as Modernism’s “evolution of dogma” (Lamentabili 58–65; Pascendi).
John XXIII does not say: develop better means to preach the same unchanging doctrine, condemn errors more effectively, and bring nations under the social Kingship of Christ. Instead he speaks in that elastic, programmatic modernist idiom—“new ways,” “changed times,” “methods” divorced from any reassertion of immutable ends.
The theological deception lies in this:
– By locating the problem in “methods” and “times,” he implicitly accepts the modernist premise that doctrine’s public expression and application must accommodate the world rather than condemn its errors.
– Silence about traditional missionary end (explicit conversion, rejection of errors) is not neutral. Qui tacet consentire videtur (he who is silent is seen to consent). In the context of an oncoming revolution, omission becomes complicity.
Thus, the letter functions as a prelude to the later conciliar aberrations: “dialogue” instead of conversion, “inculturation” as relativism, “mutual enrichment” with paganism, and the betrayal of missions into humanitarian NGOs.
The Supernatural Mission Reduced to Institutional Technocracy
The document heavily emphasizes the Pontifical Mission Societies and centralized organizational structures:
“Pontifical Work for the Propagation of the Faith and other works of similar kind should flourish again with renewed strength… Pontifical Missionary Works should be suitably established in each diocese and nation… not with disunited plans, but moved by a supernatural spirit refer all to that where the head and principle of power is.”
In Catholic theology, hierarchical order is good and necessary. But here the accent is revealing:
– There is no clear reaffirmation that the end of these Works is the salvation of souls by conversion to the Catholic Church and submission to Christ the King in both private and public life.
– Instead, the language is bureaucratic and technocratic: “constitute,” “organize,” “distribute funds,” “adequate assistance,” “centralization under Pontifical Works,” etc.
– The “supernatural spirit” is invoked, but immediately tethered to institutional coordination rather than to the integral proclamation of the full Faith.
Compare this with true pre‑conciliar teaching:
– Pius XI in Rerum Ecclesiae and Benedict XV in Maximum illud insist that missions exist to implant and strengthen the Church as a visible, doctrinally and sacramentally complete society, subject to Rome, and to convert peoples from error.
– Pius IX in the Syllabus anathematizes the notion that all religions can be means of salvation (prop. 16) and that the Church must adapt herself to liberalism and “modern civilization” (prop. 80).
“Gratulamur,” instead of echoing these anathemas, lays the rhetorical and structural groundwork for transforming missionary zeal into:
– fund‑raising,
– sociological planning,
– and, soon after, “dialogue” with non-Catholic religions and cultures, where the absolute claims of Christ are euphemized or suppressed.
The missionary is recast not as a herald of the one Ark of Salvation (outside of which there is no salvation in the ordinary sense), but as a functionary of a worldwide “Pontifical” network engaged in development, assistance, and public relations. This is not accidental; it is the embryo of the conciliar sect’s post‑1960s missionary betrayal.
Detaching Evangelization from the Kingship of Christ and Catholic Ecclesiology
A particularly revealing line is John XXIII’s insistence that missionary undertakings must be:
“not at all bound to political conditions of earthly utility, but solely adhering to the Holy Church, which is mother of all redeemed by the Blood of Christ.”
Catholic doctrine indeed rejects subordination of missions to worldly political agendas. But the antipope subtly inverts this principle.
The traditional Catholic position, as taught notably by Pius XI and Pius IX, is:
– The Church works with temporal powers ordered to the reign of Christ. Catholic states and rulers, acknowledging the Church, have the duty to foster and protect the true religion.
– It is condemned to subject the Church to secular authorities, but also condemned that the State be religiously indifferent or treat all cults equally (cf. Syllabus 55, 77–79).
John XXIII’s formulation is ambiguous in a modernist direction:
– “Not bound to political conditions” is easily—and historically was—translated into quiet acquiescence in secular, religiously neutral (or anti-Catholic) regimes.
– Missions are detached from seeking the conversion and confession of entire peoples and polities, because such a goal would be deemed “political” or contrary to “religious freedom.”
– Note what is missing: any affirmation that nations as nations must bow to Christ the King, legislate according to His Law, and favor the true Church.
By defining the Church merely as “mother of all redeemed by the Blood of Christ,” he uses a formally orthodox expression but in a context that blurs the distinction between those actually within the Church and those outside. This anticipates the conciliar ideology of a universalist, humanity‑embracing “Church,” in which the boundary between membership and non-membership dissolves into sentiment.
Ubi Ecclesia, ibi Spiritus Dei (where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God) is quoted from St. Irenaeus—but immediately turned from a sharp criterion of truth and separation from heresy into a vague enthusiasm for the Congress’s agenda:
“Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God and all grace; the Spirit is truth.”
Yet the very structures John XXIII blesses would soon deny in practice:
– the necessity of submission to Catholic doctrine for salvation,
– the exclusive identity of the Church of Christ with the Roman Catholic Church as defined by Vatican I,
– and the duty to combat error, not dialogue with it.
The quote is weaponized against its own content: a mark of Modernism.
Laicized Heroization of Pauline Jaricot: Pious Surface, Modernist Subtext
A large portion of the letter is devoted to praising Pauline Jaricot, foundress of the Society for the Propagation of the Faith. He speaks of:
“the illustrious virgin… endowed with good disposition and versatile talent… turned her efforts to many initiatives suggested by Christian charity… particularly in founding the Work of the Propagation of the Faith…”
At first glance, honoring a 19th‑century laywoman who supported missions is legitimate. But again, subtext and use are decisive.
The strategy:
– Elevate a lay figure as symbolic ancestor of the new missionary paradigm.
– Present her organizational creativity and social concern as the true genius of missions.
– Tie her story directly into the Pontifical Mission Societies centralized in Rome, now under conciliar control.
What is missing and therefore incriminating:
– No doctrinal emphasis that the greatness of her work lies in supporting the preaching of the one true Faith against paganism, heresy, and unbelief.
– No warning against the instrumentalization of missionary funds and structures by modernist infiltrators—a silence striking in 1962, when subversion of seminaries, religious communities, and mission territories by Modernism was already notorious.
– No insistence, as pre‑1958 Popes repeatedly expressed, that missions must form clergy and laity solidly grounded in Thomistic doctrine and Roman discipline, precisely against liberal and modernist currents.
Instead, Pauline Jaricot is absorbed into a narrative of lay “participation,” structural innovation, and sentimental admiration—categories that would soon be exploited to democratize and horizontalize the notion of mission, dissolving its sacramental and hierarchical character.
Thus, even where the text seems most pious, it participates in the same modernist hermeneutic: using authentic Catholic legacies as decorative witnesses for an already altered ecclesiology.
Linguistic Symptoms: Bureaucratic Piety and Controlled Ambiguity
The style of the letter itself is a clinical indicator of the doctrinal disease.
Characteristic features:
1. Hyper-politeness and sentimentalism:
– “We congratulate and rejoice… noble city… illustrious virgin… splendid memories…”
– This saccharine tone contrasts violently with the gravity of the times: global apostasy, aggressive socialism and Freemasonry (denounced repeatedly by pre‑1958 Popes), and the infiltration of errors into clergy and seminaries.
– The absence of warnings, condemnations, or doctrinal fortification is not an oversight; it is programmatic.
2. Technocratic vocabulary:
– “Congress,” “delegates,” “General Council,” “organization,” “funds disposition,” “new methods.”
– The text breathes conference‑hall air rather than the supernatural sobriety of Gregory XVI’s Mirari vos or Pius X’s Pascendi.
– A pseudo-supernatural gloss is placed over structures that in practice would be commandeered by post‑conciliar ideologues.
3. Ambiguous theological language:
– Frequent references to “supernatural spirit” and “missional zeal,” carefully disconnected from precise dogmatic propositions.
– Scriptural and patristic echoes are present only as ornaments, never as blades to cut error.
This linguistic pattern is typical of the conciliar sect’s documents: the gradual replacement of sharp Catholic dogmatic diction with atmospheric, malleable phrasing—perfectly suited to conceal the mutation of doctrine under conserved formulas.
Systemic Alignment with the Conciliar Revolution
To grasp the full bankruptcy of this letter, it must be located within the broader doctrinal trajectory that followed:
– Within months, John XXIII opens Vatican II, whose documents on “religious liberty,” “missions,” “ecumenism,” and “non-Christian religions” contradict, in their plain sense and practical application, the integral pre‑1958 Magisterium (Pius IX’s Syllabus, Leo XIII, Pius XI’s Quas primas, Mortalium animos, etc.).
– The missionary ideal shifts from converting nations and tearing souls away from false cults to “dialogue,” “inculturation,” and affirmation of “values present in other religions.”
– The Pontifical Mission Societies and structures blessed here become vehicles for:
– financing “missionaries” who refrain from preaching the necessity of the Catholic Church,
– promoting liturgical and doctrinal experiments,
– and dissolving Catholic identity into religious pluralism and humanitarianism.
In this light, “Gratulamur” is not an innocent, peripheral congratulation. It is an element of system:
– It uses apparently orthodox elements (martyrs, missions, Pauline Jaricot) without the accompanying condemnations and precise doctrine that defined all previous authentic Magisterium.
– It prepares minds to accept “new ways” while trusting centralized conciliar institutions.
– It anesthetizes vigilance: no warning about Modernism, no mention of the grave dangers already exposed by St. Pius X, no identification of Freemasonry and liberalism as global enemies of the Church—despite Pius IX’s and Leo XIII’s explicit teaching, parts of which the provided Syllabus excerpt recalls.
When contrasted with the consistent pre‑1958 papal condemnations of liberalism, indifferentism, rationalism, and secret societies, John XXIII’s silence is itself a catastrophic sign. Maxima silentii culpa (the greatest guilt is the silence where one must speak).
Omissions that Condemn: The Silence on Sin, Judgment, and the True Sacrifice
The gravest indictment is not found in what is said, but in what is systematically omitted:
– No mention of:
– mortal sin,
– necessity of repentance,
– the Four Last Things,
– the danger of eternal damnation for infidels, heretics, or apostates,
– the unique mediatorship of the Catholic Church.
– No explicit exaltation of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as the heart of missionary life and the unique propitiatory sacrifice for sins.
– No insistence on doctrinal orthodoxy, Thomistic formation, or the duty to reject and combat heresies.
Instead, the Congress is presented as a celebration of zeal, organization, financial cooperation, and lay involvement, with a vague “supernatural spirit” and generic call for “charity.”
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, this silence is not neutral:
– It reflects the modernist naturalization of the supernatural: missions become a humanitarian and cultural enterprise rather than an urgent rescue from hell and incorporation into the one true Church.
– It empties the language of “Kingdom of Christ” and “extension of the Church” of their doctrinal precision, leaving room for the later reinterpretation where “Kingdom” includes other religions and “Church” subsists beyond visible Catholic unity.
This is precisely the shift anathematized in Lamentabili and Pascendi: the reduction of dogma to “practical values” and “religious experience,” detached from immutable truth.
Conclusion: A Polite Seal on the Betrayal of the Missions
“Gratulamur” must be read for what it is:
– not a harmless letter,
– but a paradigmatic artifact of the conciliar sect’s method.
It:
– Appropriates the authority of martyrs and saints to legitimize a “new” missionary orientation not anchored in the exclusive claims of the Catholic Church and Christ the King.
– Propagates the language of “new methods for changed times,” without reaffirming the immutable end of missions: conversion and subjection of souls and societies to the true Faith.
– Redirects trust and resources toward centralized structures that would soon be used to suffocate authentic evangelization and propagate the conciliar ideology globally.
– Exhibits the modernist style: emotive praise, bureaucratic planning, and doctrinally imprecise piety masking a concrete, destructive agenda.
Against this, the perennial Catholic teaching stands crystal clear and irreformable:
– Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation) is not a negotiable slogan but a dogmatic boundary.
– Peace and justice are possible only under the public and private reign of Christ the King; any “mission” that does not aim at this is a betrayal of the Gospel (Pius XI, Quas primas).
– The Church must condemn and separate from error; to embrace “new methods” that silence condemnation is to lose the Faith itself.
Therefore, far from being a sign of missionary renewal, “Gratulamur” is one of the refined instruments by which the conciliar paramasonic structure disarmed true Catholic missions, prostituted the memory of martyrs to ecumenical agendas, and prepared the abomination of desolation that now occupies the places once held by the Holy Roman Church.
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