The document issued by John XXIII on 14 January 1959, titled “Opere nobilissimo,” grants plenary and partial indulgences, as well as privileged altars, to the Patriarchal Basilica of St. Mark in Venice. It recalls his personal attachment as former patriarch, evokes earlier grants by Alexander III and St. Pius X, and sets precise conditions for the faithful to obtain indulgences by visiting the basilica, confessing, receiving Holy Communion, and praying “for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff.”

---

Venetian Ornament or Engine of Usurpation: John XXIII’s Pious Veneer of Revolution

From Catholic Indulgence to Instrument of a New Religion

At first glance, this text appears to stand within traditional Catholic practice: the granting of indulgences tied to a basilica, invocation of the thesaurus Ecclesiae (treasury of the Church), emphasis on confession, Communion, and prayer. Such elements, taken materially, correspond to pre-1958 Catholic discipline and echo earlier pontifical acts, including those of St. Pius X. This is precisely why this document is theologically and ecclesially so grave: it functions as a seamless mimicry of tradition in the very person who would shortly convoke the Second Vatican Council and inaugurate the conciliar revolution.

Key structural elements of the letter:

– It appeals to the “noble work” of St. Mark’s Basilica in Venice as a religious centre.
– It grounds new indulgences in continuity with Alexander III and St. Pius X.
– It attaches indulgences to:
– one daily plenary indulgence under the usual conditions;
– multiple plenary indulgences toties quoties (as often as) on precise feast days;
– partial indulgences for visits with prayer for the “Supreme Pontiff’s” intentions;
– the extension of privileged altars throughout the basilica.
– It presents all of this in solemn canonical form, with the typical concluding formula and date.

Taken in isolation, a Catholic might see here harmless devotion. But from the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine and objective history, this text is one more brick in the construction of a counterfeit edifice: it clothes the person and authority of John XXIII—first usurper of the conciliar sect—in the vesture of tradition, precisely to disarm the faithful while a new religion is prepared.

The core problem is not indulgences as such (clearly affirmed by the Council of Trent), but the attempted deployment of genuine Catholic spiritual goods in service of an authority that, by its doctrine and subsequent acts, reveals itself to be alien to the faith taught consistently until 1958.

Factual Level: The Trap of Formal Continuity

Let us deconstruct the main factual points and their implications.

1. Invocation of St. Mark’s Basilica as “principal” and “domicile of religion”

The letter praises the basilica as:
“a kind of principal dwelling of religion” for Venice.

On a factual plane, venerating such a temple is legitimate. Yet here it functions rhetorically to bind the spiritual prestige of a venerable shrine to the person and nascent “pontificate” of John XXIII. The document continually ties:

– his previous governance of Venice;
– his “gratitude” for his pastoral time;
– his desire to “perpetuate” the memory of his office there;

to newly granted indulgences. A traditional basilica is thus instrumentalised as a stage-prop for the self-legitimisation of the conciliar project.

2. Appeal to Alexander III and St. Pius X

The text states that Alexander III and St. Pius X “enriched” the basilica with spiritual gifts, and then places John XXIII’s act in that lineage.

This is the factual pivot of the manipulation:

– Alexander III and St. Pius X were true Popes of the Catholic Church.
– John XXIII, who within months initiates the aggiornamento leading to religious liberty, ecumenism, and the cult of man, presents himself as simply adding another layer of traditional generosity.

This is not neutral:

– It attempts to fabricate a historical and spiritual continuity between an integral Pope like Pius X—who condemned Modernism in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi—and a man whose council and successors would enthrone every principle Pius X anathematized.
– It uses Pius X’s name to shield the deviation that Pius X himself had prophetically unmasked.

3. The “intentions of the Supreme Pontiff”

A key condition for the indulgences is prayer “ad mentem Summi Pontificis” (for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff), a standard traditional formula. But once the office is held in fact by a teacher of error or by one opening the way for systemic doctrinal subversion, this clause becomes spiritually explosive:

– Traditional Catholic theology presupposes that the Pope’s “intentions” are ordered to the true good of the Church: the exaltation of the faith, extirpation of heresies, conversion of infidels, Christian unity in the one true Church, etc.
– In the conciliar and post-conciliar context, the “intentions” concretely manifest as:
– promotion of religious liberty condemned in the Syllabus of Errors, propositions 15–18, 77–80;
– ecumenism recognizing sects and false religions as legitimate “paths”;
– practical acceptance of secularism and the banishment of the public reign of Christ.

Binding indulgences to such an authority, without qualification, begs the question: are the faithful being conditioned to intercede for the success of policies objectively condemned by the pre-1958 Magisterium?

4. Expansion of the *thesaurus Ecclesiae* under a revolutionary

The letter emphasizes that John XXIII adds gifts “from the treasury of the Church” to those of his predecessors. This factually means:

– He claims full jurisdiction over the spiritual treasury (satisfactions of Christ and the saints), which is inseparable from the true Papacy.
– Yet his coming program (announced in 1959: the convocation of Vatican II) will unleash doctrines irreconcilable with previous solemn teaching.

Factually and canonically, if one accepts the principles reiterated in the pre-1958 theologians and codified in the 1917 Code:

– A manifest heretic or one promoting condemned errors cannot validly wield papal authority; a fortiori he cannot dispose of indulgences in the name of the universal Church.
– Canon 188 §4 of the 1917 Code provides that public defection from the faith entails tacit resignation of office. The doctrinal trajectory initiated by John XXIII and concretised at Vatican II, judged in light of the Syllabus of Errors and Quas Primas, falls within the category of systemic defection.

Thus what appears as a pious extension of indulgences is in reality a juridically and theologically dubious claim of power, used to legitimize an authority already oriented against integral doctrine.

Linguistic Level: Soft Devotion as Camouflage for Subversion

The rhetoric of the letter is smooth, sentimental, and clerical. Its style is itself symptomatic.

1. Emotional self-referentiality

The text insists on John XXIII’s personal memories:
“We hold grateful memory” of St. Mark’s, because of his six years ruling Venice.

This self-referential pathos subtly shifts attention:

– from the objective rights of God and the intrinsic holiness of the place,
– to the emotional narrative of the “pope” as benevolent figure.

This sentimentalism, later typical of the conciliar sect, drains doctrine into affect: orthodoxy becomes peripheral, “warmth” central.

2. Invocation of tradition without doctrinal content

The letter invokes:

– St. Mark’s Basilica;
– Alexander III;
– St. Pius X;
– the index of feasts from Pius X’s reform of the breviary.

But what is conspicuously absent?

– No reminder of the reality and necessity of the state of grace.
– No mention of the danger of sacrilegious Confession or Communion.
– No warning that indulgences require detachment from all sin.
– No doctrinal reaffirmation against the rapidly spreading errors of Modernism, Socialism, Freemasonry—precisely where Venice, Italy, and Europe were already contaminated.

The language is bureaucratically precise about days and formulas, but doctrinally anodyne. It looks Catholic; it no longer fights.

3. The benign, depersonalized tone towards sin and judgment

Classic Catholic indulgence grants, especially in times of crisis, intertwine mercy with vigorous admonition about hell, judgment, and the gravity of sin. Here, we find a polite, administrative style, devoid of eschatological urgency.

This is not accidental. A modernist, naturalistic mentality recoils from speaking of divine wrath, eternal punishment, and the absolute necessity of conversion to the one true Church. The silence is itself accusation.

Theological Level: The Collision with Pre-1958 Magisterium

Even though “Opere nobilissimo” does not openly teach heresy, its theological function must be read within John XXIII’s person and subsequent acts. Measured against integral Catholic doctrine, several fault-lines appear.

1. Indulgences and the True Papacy: Abuse of a Catholic Institute

The Council of Trent (Session 25, Decree on Indulgences) teaches:

– indulgences are salutary,
– the Church has authority to grant them,
– abuses must be removed.

This decree presupposes:

– a true hierarchy,
– a true Roman Pontiff,
– a consistent doctrinal framework.

Pre-1958 theologians (e.g., St. Robert Bellarmine, as summarized in the provided Defense of Sedevacantism file) articulate a principle: a manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church, nor wield jurisdiction. If John XXIII is architect and inaugurator of a system overturning solemnly defined teachings—religious liberty, ecumenism indifferent to conversion, the nature of the Church—then two alternatives arise:

– Either the dogmas of the pre-1958 Magisterium are abandoned, and with them the very Catholic doctrine that gives sense to indulgences;
– Or John XXIII cannot truly appropriate the spiritual treasury he claims to distribute.

Hence, this letter represents either:

– the theological weaponization of indulgences in favor of an emerging false magisterium, or
– a void legal shell that mimics Catholic form without Catholic authority.

In both cases, it is a grave deformation of the Catholic understanding of indulgences, which exist to restore the order of charity and justice founded on immutable truth, not to certify apostasy.

2. Silence on the Social Kingship of Christ: Practical Liberalism

Pius XI in Quas Primas (1925) solemnly teaches:

– true peace and order are possible only under the public reign of Christ the King;
– states and rulers must recognize and obey Christ and His Church;
– secularism and laicism are a “plague” to be explicitly opposed.

In “Opere nobilissimo,” the basilica is praised as an artistic and spiritual monument, but:

– there is no call for Venice or Italy to restore the public rights of Christ the King;
– no denunciation of secular laws hostile to the Church;
– no echo of Pius XI’s insistence that civil authority must conform its laws to Christ.

Instead, we see a safe, interiorized piety, perfectly compatible with liberal regimes so long as Catholicism remains confined to devotions and tourism.

This is practical modern liberalism: a “Church” that blesses, decorates, sentimentalizes—but does not command nations to submit to the scepter of Christ, as Quas Primas demands.

3. Contradiction with the Syllabus of Errors: Preparation for Vatican II

Pius IX’s Syllabus (1864) condemns:

– indifferentism (15–18),
– the subordination of the Church to the state (19–21, 55),
– the reconciliation of Catholicism with liberalism and modern civilization (80).

John XXIII’s overall “pontificate”—announced only days after this letter—positions itself as precisely such a reconciliation. Even if “Opere nobilissimo” does not directly mention religious liberty or ecumenism, it must be read as part of a coherent strategy:

– use traditional signs (Latin, indulgences, basilicas, memory of Pius X)
– to accustom Catholics to a new regime whose doctrinal content will invert the Syllabus.

This is theological sleight of hand: the forms of the old religion are preserved for a moment to anesthetize resistance to the coming betrayal of its substance.

4. Continuity with St. Pius X Misappropriated

Particularly offensive is the exploitation of the name of St. Pius X.

– Pius X condemned Modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies” in Pascendi and Lamentabili.
– He insisted on the subordination of all theological speculation to the immutable dogma received from the Fathers and previous Magisterium.
– He acted as Patriarch of Venice in genuine continuity with that doctrine.

John XXIII invokes Pius X while:

– initiating a conciliar process that will legitimize doctrines and practices Pius X explicitly fought:
– historicizing of dogma,
– undermining of the unique truth of the Catholic Church,
– friendly coexistence with condemned secret societies and liberal errors.

This is not reverence; it is parasitism. The moral authority of a canonized, pre-1958 Pope is harnessed to legitimize an enterprise fundamentally opposed to his teaching.

Symptomatic Level: An Early Symptom of the Conciliar Sect’s Method

“Opere nobilissimo” becomes a case study in the method of the conciliar sect and the structures occupying the Vatican.

1. The Strategy of Harmless Piety

Pattern:

– Before launching explicit doctrinal novelties, cloak the usurping authority in every external mark of tradition: Latin formulas, indulgences, basilicas, references to saints.
– Avoid any clash with modern errors; abstain from strong condemnations.
– Encourage devotions that flatter sensibility, not those that arm the intellect and will against liberalism, naturalism, and Modernism.

This letter does precisely that. By 1959, the enemies of the Church understood that direct frontal assault had failed; infiltration and mimicry were now the tactic.

2. The Reduction of Indulgences to Spiritual Tourism

Notice the practical effect:

– A basilica of immense artistic beauty;
– Pilgrims enticed: “visit devoutly, gain plenary indulgence daily”;
– A milieu in which piety is easily confounded with aesthetic sentiment and cultural admiration.

Yet:

– No doctrinal catechesis is appended.
– No link to the battle against Freemasonry and secularism strongly denounced by Pius IX and Leo XIII.
– No call to repentance from modern unbelief; no denunciation of the “synagogue of Satan” (Pius IX’s language concerning masonic sects).

The indulgence becomes a benign premium added to religious tourism and vague “devotion” to basilicas, not a militant aid in the war for souls.

3. Conditioning the Faithful to Obedience to a Counterfeit Authority

Every indulgence here is tied, explicitly or implicitly, to the recognition of John XXIII as “Supreme Pontiff” and to prayer for his intentions. The message is clear:

– If you accept him and his intentions, spiritual treasures flow.
– If you question this alignment, you place yourself—apparently—outside the stream of grace.

This mechanism is diabolically subtle:

– It leverages authentic Catholic desires (for the remission of temporal punishment, union with the Apostolic See, veneration of holy places)
– to bind consciences to an authority preparing to subvert the very faith on which those desires rest.

Once the conciliar revolution is unleashed, resistance to the new doctrines can then be smeared as disobedience to the same “papal” authority that once gave indulgences at St. Mark’s. A spiritual trap has been laid.

4. Absence of Any Warning Against the Real Enemies of the Time

What is the gravest omission of this letter? Silence.

– Silence about Modernism, already condemned yet in 1959 rampant.
– Silence about Communism, Socialism, secularism devouring Italy and Europe.
– Silence about Freemasonry, repeatedly unmasked by pre-1958 Popes as the architect of the war on the Church.
– Silence about the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church as the one Ark of Salvation, in stark contrast to Indifferentism condemned in the Syllabus.

This silence is not neutral; it is complicity. When a supposed “pope” speaks about indulgences and basilicas without situating them in the uncompromising struggle between the Kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of Satan, he teaches by omission that such a struggle no longer defines Catholic consciousness.

Unmasking the Bankruptcy: Using Holy Things to Sustain an Unholy System

Measured against the unchanging doctrine of the Church before 1958, “Opere nobilissimo” reveals:

– A calculated appropriation of Catholic forms to crown a non-Catholic project.
– A sentimental and aesthetic piety displacing militant, doctrinal Catholicism.
– An attempt to bind indulgences and the Church’s treasury to a line of usurpers beginning with John XXIII, thereby weaponizing spiritual goods against the true faith.

The integral Catholic response must be:

– to affirm the authentic doctrine on indulgences as taught by the Council of Trent and consistently upheld by true Popes;
– to recognize that the legitimate dispenser of such treasures must profess and defend the same immutable faith, including:
– the unique truth of the Catholic Church,
– the social kingship of Christ,
– the condemnation of liberalism, Modernism, and false religions;
– to reject the abusive use of indulgences as a cosmetic for an apostate agenda.

Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief). When the law of prayer is manipulated to support a new belief contrary to the old, the external rites, documents, and indulgences cease to be trustworthy signs of Catholicity and become instruments of deception.

Therefore, this seemingly pious apostolic letter is not a harmless devotional embellishment, but one of the early, perfidious gestures by which the conciliar sect sought to clothe its revolutionary intentions in the venerable garments of St. Mark, St. Pius X, and the treasury of the Church, in order to lead souls—confiding in the name “Roman Pontiff”—into a new religion that the true Roman Pontiffs had relentlessly condemned.

---

Source:
Indulgentiae Plenariae et Partiales Patriarchali Basilicae S. Marci Venetiis Conceduntur, XIV Ianuarii a. 1959, Ioannes PP. XXIII   (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025