Dated July 24, 1962, this Latin letter of the usurper John XXIII flatters Augustin Bea on the fiftieth anniversary of his priestly ordination, extols the priesthood in generic terms, and, above all, celebrates Bea’s role as head of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity in preparation for the so‑called Second Vatican Council, granting indulgences linked to his jubilee celebrations. The text is a polished panegyric that cloaks in pious phrases the elevation of one of the chief engineers of doctrinal dilution and ecumenical subversion — a concise specimen of the conciliar revolution presenting apostasy as grace.

---

Celebrating the Architect of Doctrinal Surrender

Elevation of Augustin Bea as Model of the New Program

The document opens by invoking James 1:17 to frame Bea’s life and priesthood as a special “gift from the Father of lights,” and then moves directly to praise his jubilee and ministry. It highlights two points:

– his long priestly service;
– his central role as President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity in preparation for Vatican II.

In substance, John XXIII:

– calls the priesthood the “chief of all gifts” and cites patristic phrases (Gregory of Nyssa) to ennoble the presbyteral state;
– lauds Bea’s “diligence and zeal” in his priestly ministry and especially in his conciliar and ecumenical tasks;
– prays that Christ assist Bea so that his priesthood may remain fruitful;
– grants Bea the faculty to impart, in John’s name, blessings with attached plenary indulgences on the occasion of his jubilee celebrations and related functions.

Nothing in the text warns against error, defection from the faith, or the dangers of false union; instead, the entire thrust is: Bea’s ecumenical mission is good, holy, and to be indulgenced. This is the doctrinal nerve: the systematic glorification and sacramental “sealing” of a program that contradicts the perennial Magisterium on the unity of the Church.

Linguistic Cosmetics Concealing a Revolution

The rhetoric is outwardly traditional: Scripture, Fathers, sacramental language, blessings, indulgences. But this is precisely why it is so insidious.

Key elements:

– The text envelopes Bea’s activity in a cloud of devout phrases while strategically highlighting his presidency of the Secretariat for Christian Unity as exemplary.
– The tone is uncritical, panegyrical, bureaucratically serene; there is no sense of doctrinal combat, no echo of *Syllabus Errorum* or *Mortalium Animos*, no militancy of *Quas Primas*.
– The priesthood is described in exalted but abstract terms, disconnected from the concrete duty to guard, confess, and defend the integral Catholic faith against heresy and indifferentism.
– The vocabulary of “unitati provehendae” (promoting unity) is left deliberately vague; it never states clearly that unity is only by conversion to the one true Church.

This absence is decisive. As Pius X exposed in *Lamentabili sane exitu* and *Pascendi*, Modernism hides itself beneath Catholic forms, emptying them from within. The letter is a textbook case: it adopts patristic citations while in practice canonizing the very ecumenical method pre‑condemned by the true Magisterium. The verbiage is pious; the operational content is corrosive.

From Catholic Unity to Ecumenical Confusion

Here we must confront the theological heart of the matter.

Before 1958, the doctrine on the unity of the Church and relations with non‑Catholics is clear and intransigent:

– The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church, a visible, juridical, supernatural society founded by Christ, outside of which there is no salvation, no true worship, no legitimate authority. This is solemnly expressed by the constant teaching of the Fathers and Councils.
– Pius IX, in the *Syllabus of Errors*, condemns the propositions:
– that “every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true”;
– that “man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation”;
– that Protestantism is merely another form of the same true Christian religion.
– Leo XIII, in documents such as *Satis Cognitum* (1896), insists that unity means submission to the Roman Pontiff and integral acceptance of Catholic doctrine.
– Pius XI, in *Mortalium Animos* (1928), explicitly condemns the “pan‑Christian” movement which seeks unity by conferences, negotiations, or doctrinal compromise:
– He teaches that the only true unity is the return of dissidents to the one true Church;
– he brands meetings that place the Church on a level with sects as “apostasy from the true religion.”

Within that doctrinal framework, an official “Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity” oriented toward ecumenism in the modern sense is intrinsically suspect. It is not a neutral technical body; it is the institutionalization of a condemned method: treating heretical and schismatic communities as dialogue partners instead of lost sheep called to conversion.

The letter’s crucial move:

– It publicly presents Bea’s leadership of this Secretariat as a work deserving special papal favor and plenary indulgences.
– It thereby lends a pseudo‑sacramental sanction to the ecumenical enterprise that will soon metastasize at Vatican II and in post‑conciliar “dialogue,” contradicting *Mortalium Animos* and the *Syllabus* in practice, even as the new regime will later attempt to mask the rupture under the slogan of a *“hermeneutic of continuity.”*

Thus, while it cites:
“Christ, who is the crown of the whole Church”
it applies this truth to the advancement of a program that de facto denies that same Church’s exclusive salvific necessity and juridical uniqueness. This is the essence of the conciliar sect: pull fragments of Catholic phraseology over the nakedness of betrayal.

Selective Piety and the Omission of the Supernatural Battle

What is most revealing is not what is said, but what is systematically not said.

The letter:

– says nothing about:
– the obligation of separated communities to return to the one fold;
– the mortal danger of heresy and schism;
– the supernatural order of grace versus naturalistic projects;
– the final judgment, hell, or the consequences of error.
– never recalls:
– the condemnations of indifferentism and false “Christian unions” by previous Pontiffs;
– the duty of the priest to fight Modernism, the “synthesis of all heresies” (Pius X);
– the public reign of Christ the King over nations and their laws, as demanded by *Quas Primas*.

This silence is not accidental. It is symptomatic of a new religion whose operative dogma is “dialogue” instead of conversion, “esteem” instead of anathema, “human unity” instead of supernatural incorporation into Christ’s Mystical Body.

According to integral Catholic doctrine, silence on fundamental truths where one is bound to speak constitutes grave guilt. When a man acclaimed as “pope” uses his office to extol and empower those who dissolve Catholic exclusivity, while keeping completely quiet about the binding condemnations of their program by his predecessors, he does not merely omit; he subverts.

Manipulation of the Priesthood for Ecumenical Ends

The letter’s praise of the priesthood is superficially orthodox, yet functionally instrumentalized.

It repeats the classical affirmation that the priest, taken from among the people, is set above them as teacher and guide. But this is immediately harnessed to Bea’s role in the ecumenical apparatus:

– Bea is presented as the model priest of this new orientation: an academic diplomat of “unity,” rather than a confessor of the integral faith against error.
– The priestly identity is subtly detached from guarding doctrinal boundaries and attached to facilitating “understanding” with heretics and schismatics.

This stands in stark contrast to:

– Pius X, who, in *Pascendi* and in his anti‑Modernist measures, demanded that priests be vigilant sentinels against innovation.
– The constant tradition that sees the priest as one who:
– offers the *Most Holy Sacrifice* in propitiation for sins;
– preaches the whole deposit of faith;
– rejects and combats doctrinal novelties and counterfeit “charity” toward error.

Instead of warning the clergy against Modernism’s infiltration — solemnly condemned in *Lamentabili sane exitu*, which anathematizes the relativization of dogma, historical skepticism about Scripture, and denial of the Church’s right to bind consciences — John XXIII rewards and promotes one of the central agents of the “new orientation.” The priesthood is thus redefined in praxis: from defender of the citadel to mediator of surrender.

Indulgences as a Seal on the New Ecclesiology

One of the most troubling elements is the granting of indulgences tied to Bea’s jubilee and his functions:

Bea is authorized to impart blessings with plenary indulgence in the name and by authority of John XXIII at gatherings of clergy, religious, and in his native town, on this occasion.

In traditional Catholic theology:

– An indulgence is the remission before God of temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, granted by the Church from the treasury of Christ and the Saints under specific conditions.
– It presupposes:
– true jurisdiction;
– intention to promote authentic Catholic life and doctrine.

Here, indulgences are politically and symbolically repositioned:

– They become a mark of papal approval for Bea’s person and mission;
– They are fastened to the public celebration of the man leading structural ecumenism.

This is not a neutral devotional favor. It is a theological semiotic: those who rally around the ecumenical architect are told — in classic Catholic sacramental vocabulary — that they are in the stream of papal grace. In reality, the conciliar sect uses the sign‑system of the Church to sanctify its own inversion of ecclesiology.

Once one recognizes, on the basis of pre‑1958 doctrine, that a public promoter of programs condemned by earlier Popes cannot be upheld as a model by a true successor of Peter without implicating himself in deviation, the conclusion becomes clear: the use of indulgential language here does not authenticate Bea; it witnesses against the one who bestows it.

Conciliar Ecumenism Versus the Syllabus and Quas Primas

Measured against the binding pre‑conciliar Magisterium, the spirit embodied in this letter is irreconcilable with Catholic truth.

1. Against the Syllabus of Errors:

– The whole ecumenical current encouraged by Bea and applauded here tends toward:
– religious indifferentism;
– the leveling of the Catholic Church with sects in “dialogue”;
– the marginalization of the exclusive claim of Catholicism in public and international life.
– Pius IX explicitly condemns these tendencies. Yet John XXIII’s letter never invokes the *Syllabus*, never frames unity as the return of erring brethren, never warns against the condemned propositions. The silence effectively annuls the Syllabus at the level of praxis.

2. Against Quas Primas (Pius XI):

– Pius XI teaches that true peace depends upon public recognition of Christ’s social kingship and the submission of individuals and states to His law.
– He condemns secularism, laicism, and the relegation of religion to a private neutral sphere.
– Ecumenism of the Bea‑type prepares precisely such a neutralization: the Church presents herself as one confession among many, negotiating, instead of commanding in the name of the King of kings.

By praising the architect of that program and attaching pontifical favor to him, John XXIII aligns his “pontificate” with the practical erosion of Christ’s Kingship in public life, even as he hides behind pious formulae. *Lex orandi, lex credendi* is weaponized in reverse: the public prayers and honors train the faithful to accept a new belief, contrary to the old.

Symptom of Systemic Apostasy: From Bea to the Neo-Church

This letter must be read as a symptom of a deeper pathology.

– Augustin Bea’s theological line — biblical relativization, historical‑critical dissolution of inspiration, and “Christian unity” understood as pluralistic convergence — is precisely what prior Magisterial acts such as *Lamentabili* condemned as Modernism.
– John XXIII does not merely tolerate this line; he exalts its chief exponent, places him at the heart of the council, and covers him with sacral language and indulgences.
– This is a foundational gesture of the conciliar sect: to enthrone those whom the true Church’s doctrine brands as ideologically deviant, and to do so under the appearance of continuity.

The post‑1958 paramasonic structure occupying the Vatican builds itself through such acts:

– it appoints men like Bea to redefine doctrine in practice;
– it uses letters like this as instruments of moral conditioning;
– it shifts the center of gravity from the defense of the deposit to the management of “dialogue” — with heretics, with false religions, with the world.

The result, fully visible in later decades, is the Church of the New Advent:

– a neo‑church where “unity” means reciprocal recognition of error;
– where the unique saving necessity of the Catholic Church is tacitly suppressed;
– where the Most Holy Sacrifice is eclipsed by communal rites and ecumenical performances;
– where the authority claimed from Peter is expended in glorifying programs anathema to his predecessors.

In that light, this brief missive functions as a micro‑manifesto: the usurper canonizes, in nuce, the theological and pastoral reorientation that leads straight to the abomination of desolation in the sanctuary.

Integral Catholic Verdict on Cum omne

From the perspective of unchanging Catholic theology before 1958, the judgment is precise:

– The letter’s Catholic phrases (on grace, priesthood, Christ) are emptied and retooled in the service of an ecumenical agenda previously condemned by the authentic Magisterium.
– The glorification of Bea’s role as head of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, without any doctrinal caveat, is an endorsement of methods and principles contrary to:
– *Mortalium Animos* (Pius XI);
– the *Syllabus of Errors* (Pius IX);
– the anti‑Modernist teaching of Pius X (*Lamentabili*, *Pascendi*).
– The omission of any call to conversion of separated Christians, any warning against indifferentism, and any reference to the binding prior condemnations, exposes a deliberate practical repudiation of integral doctrine under a mask of continuity.
– The use of indulgences and blessings to halo this program desacralizes the Church’s spiritual treasury, bending it to ratify a revolution instead of sanctifying the faithful in the one true faith.

Therefore, this document is not a harmless congratulatory note. It is a compact sign of the mutation: the turning of the structures once Catholic into instruments for promoting an ecumenical, naturalistic, and modernist religion. Its smooth Latinity and patristic citations do not mitigate but intensify its culpability, because they aim to disarm resistance by cloaking treachery in the vocabulary of Tradition.

---

Source:
Cum omne – Ad Augustinum S. R. E. Cardinalem Bea, quinquagesimum Sacerdotii sui natalem celebraturum   (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025