In this brief Latin rescript of 16 March 1960, John XXIII appoints the Archbishop of Milan for the time being as Patron of the Ambrosian Library (Bibliotheca Ambrosiana), praising Cardinal Federico Borromeo’s foundation as a center for religion and the fine arts, lauding its service to “Christian society and the republic of letters,” and solemnly confirming juridically that the reigning Archbishop of Milan shall perpetually hold this patronal role, with the usual clauses of validity, perpetuity, and nullity of contrary acts.
This seemingly innocuous juridical act, however, already manifests the mindset of the conciliar usurper: the reduction of the Church’s mission to cultured humanism, the exploitation of genuine Catholic heritage to legitimize a nascent counter-church, and the quiet replacement of supernatural categories with aesthetic and academic rhetoric.

---

Humanistic Aestheticism Used as a Veil for Ecclesial Usurpation

The document is short, but precisely in its brevity its character is unveiled. Every solemn papal act, however minimal, is either an expression of the *munus sanctificandi, docendi et regendi* (the office of sanctifying, teaching, and governing) in the order of salvation, or it is an administrative trifle adorned with sacral language to simulate authority devoid of fidelity to the *depositum fidei*.

Here we are dealing with an act issued by John XXIII, the initiator of the conciliar revolution, whose entire project will, in short order, unleash the very currents condemned by Pius IX in the *Syllabus* and by St. Pius X in *Pascendi* and *Lamentabili sane exitu*: false irenicism, religious liberty indifferentism, democratization of doctrine, exaltation of human culture and conscience above Revelation. Evaluated by the unchanging pre-1958 Catholic teaching (our sole legitimate criterion), this letter is not a neutral curial formality. It is one tile in the mosaic of a paramasonic restructuring of “Church” and culture.

Factual Plane: Instrumentalizing Authentic Catholic Heritage

Factually, the text does three things:

1. It recalls with praise that Cardinal Federico Borromeo founded and enriched the Ambrosian Library to promote religion and the good arts, as a “noble gymnasium” for clergy and scholars.
2. It notes that the Holy See has always shown benevolence and protection toward this institution.
3. It decrees that the Archbishop of Milan for the time being is the Patron of the Ambrosian Library, with ordinary curial legal formulas, making contrary acts null.

On the surface, this is simply a reaffirmation of a traditional link between a Catholic episcopal see and a Catholic cultural institution. But placed in its historical and doctrinal context (1960, the John XXIII regime preparing Vatican II), several points emerge:

– The act selectively invokes Federico Borromeo’s true Catholic initiative to clothe the authority of John XXIII with inherited prestige. The historic Ambrosian Library was conceived as an arm of the Church’s supernatural mission: preservation of sacred doctrine, patristic sources, ecclesiastical discipline, and Catholic culture subordinated to faith.
– John XXIII’s text silently detaches this from its supernatural telos and accentuates instead a generic service to “christian society and the republic of letters” (christianam societatem ac litteratorum rem publicam). The emphasis falls on the “republic of letters,” the humanist-academic horizon, not on the militant Church preserving souls from error.
– The confirmation of patronage in favor of the current Archbishopric of Milan—already a node in the conciliar network which will soon give to the world prominent architects of the new religion—anchors a venerable Catholic institution within structures that, in doctrinal reality, have already begun to defect.

Thus, the deed weaponizes Catholic memory: authentic tradition is retained at the level of façade, while authority is exercised by one whose program subverts the very doctrinal foundations upon which that tradition rests. The act is juridically clear; the spiritual context makes it morally subversive.

Rhetorical Cosmetics: Pious Latin Covering an Emerging Naturalism

The language of the letter is classical curial Latin, replete with formulae:

– praise of “religion and the fine arts,”
– the Library as “a most ample palestra where men dedicated to learning, especially sacred ministers, might exercise their talents,”
– the Holy See as “fautrix artium politiorum” (patroness of the more refined arts),
– the standard clausulae: certa scientia ac matura deliberatione, perpetuum in modum, nullity of contrary acts.

On its own, such phrasing is unobjectionable. But the text is symptomatic in what it omits:

– No mention of the *salus animarum* (salvation of souls), the ultimate law of the Church.
– No explicit recall that the Library’s primary task is to serve truth as defined by the Magisterium, to defend the faith against heresy, to preserve orthodox doctrine and the sources that witness to it.
– No warning against the modernist perversion of biblical criticism and theology, which, by 1960, had already been anathematized by St. Pius X but was being rehabilitated quietly in Roman and European academic circles.
– No exhortation that “sacred ministers” frequenting this “palestra” must adhere to the anti-modernist oath (which was then still in force in law) and the condemnations of *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*.

Instead we read a harmonious, diplomatic academicism which—precisely because it is silent where a vigilant Vicar of Christ would speak—betrays a different spirit. As St. Pius X warned, the modernists hid their poison under reverent language and appeals to “science,” “history,” “progress.” This letter’s tone—“benevolent patronage of letters and arts”—fits the same pattern of anesthetizing rhetoric.

Silence here is not neutral. *Silentium de summis est maxima accusatio*: silence about the highest things is the gravest accusation.

Theological Judgment: Culture Severed from the Kingship of Christ

Measured by pre-1958 doctrine, several theological deficiencies must be exposed.

1. Primacy of Christ the King and the social reign of Christ

Pius XI in *Quas Primas* teaches that peace, order, and true culture are only possible under the public and private reign of Christ the King and His law. He explicitly condemns secularism and the relegation of religion to the private or aesthetic sphere. There, we read that:

– peace is only possible in the Kingdom of Christ;
– rulers and nations are bound to publicly recognize and obey Christ;
– the Church must not accept being reduced to a cultural ornament, but claims, by divine right, full freedom and independence to teach, govern, and sanctify.

In this letter of John XXIII:

– The Ambrosian Library is praised as a center of “religion and good arts” but the inseparable subordination of all science and art to the Kingship of Christ and the magisterium of the Church is not reaffirmed.
– The key anti-liberal principles of the *Syllabus*—that the Church alone is the teacher of nations, that indifferentism and the equality of religions are condemned, that the Church has rights over education—are not even alluded to, despite dealing with a major educational and scholarly institution.

This omission is not accidental; it is consonant with John XXIII’s well-documented program of “aggiornamento,” which will culminate in a council that embraces exactly the errors condemned by Pius IX and Pius X: religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism, democratized magisterium, the cult of man. A genuine Pope, reaffirming an ecclesiastical patronage over a library, would naturally bind it explicitly to the safeguarding of the integral Catholic faith and to resistance against condemned errors. Here, nothing of the sort.

2. Duty of the Magisterium to guard against Modernism

St. Pius X, in *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*, imposes on the hierarchy the grave duty to root out modernist teaching in seminaries, universities, publications, and all organs of Catholic culture. He condemns precisely those who:

– subject Scripture and Tradition to naturalistic criticism;
– deny the inerrancy and divine authorship of Scripture;
– reinterpret dogma as evolving expressions of religious experience;
– dissolve the visible Church into a historical product of human consciousness.

A library such as the Ambrosiana, rich in manuscripts, patristic texts, and theological works, is a crucial battlefield against these errors. Therefore, a true Pontiff, appointing its Patron, would at least implicitly affirm:

– that the library’s governance must ensure strict doctrinal orthodoxy;
– that works opposed to the faith be discerned and not treated as equal to orthodox sources;
– that its service to “scholars” is subordinated to the service of truth as defined in the Church.

John XXIII’s letter instead treats the library as a neutral “palestra” for “men of letters,” without a single word about modernism, the anti-modernist oath, or doctrinal vigilance. This is symptomatic: the new regime keeps the structures, seals them with solemn formulas, but empties them from their confessional and anti-error function. *Forma servata, fides deleta* (the form kept, the faith deleted).

3. Ecclesiastical authority as mere cultural curator

By declaring the Archbishop of Milan “Patron” of the library, the letter overlays spiritual authority upon a cultural institution. On one level, that is traditional: bishops supervise Catholic schools and universities. But in this new context, the direction is inverted: the episcopal office is tacitly presented as a guarantee of humanistic, academic flourishing, rather than as an uncompromising guardian of divine Revelation.

Authentic doctrine, as reiterated in the *Syllabus* and traditional canon law, teaches that:

– the Church has the innate right to direct teaching concerning faith and morals;
– ecclesiastical authority must judge, condemn, or prohibit writings harmful to faith;
– civil or cultural prestige is nothing in comparison with fidelity to divine law.

In this letter, the Archbishop’s patronage is presented purely as an honorific and protective role toward a “republic of letters,” not as a strictly doctrinal responsibility under pain of sin and censure. The horizon is horizontal. The supernatural is muted.

Symptomatic Reading: A Micro-Sign of the Conciliar Sect’s Ecclesiology

From the perspective of integral Catholic theology, this letter is a small but telling document of the emerging conciliar sect:

– It clothes itself in traditional Latin and canonical forms to project continuity, while its principal architect (John XXIII) is preparing the very council that will enthrone religious liberty, ecumenism, and anthropocentrism—errors explicitly anathematized by the pre-1958 Magisterium.
– It instrumentalizes the holy memory of a true reforming cardinal, Federico Borromeo, whose zeal was entirely subject to Tridentine doctrine and discipline, to decorate a structure that soon will deny the absolute claims of the Church of Christ and open itself to “dialogue” as an end in itself.
– It participates in the slow transmutation of the Church’s visible institutions (libraries, universities, academies) into laboratories of modernist exegesis and theology, under the benevolent protection of “pastors” who no longer wield the sword of doctrinal condemnation.

The pattern is clear:

– Maintain the external honors, seals, titles, and ceremonies.
– Silence the sharp edges: no mention of hell, judgment, error, or anathema; no mention of modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies” (St. Pius X).
– Present ecclesiastical authority as sponsor of culture, dialogue, and scholarship, instead of as divine guardian of immutable truth.

This is precisely what Pius X warned against: a transformed conception of the Magisterium, no longer defining and condemning, but “accompanying” and “encouraging.” The paramasonic structure that occupies the Vatican must root itself in continuity-symbols to deceive those of weaker formation. A short letter such as this is a prime example: nothing overtly heretical is stated; everything truly papal is omitted.

Subtle Naturalism and the Erasure of the Supernatural End

The most damning critique is in what is not said.

– No reference to the ultimate end of man: the vision of God, the necessity of grace, the danger of error.
– No reaffirmation that all arts and sciences must be ordered *sub lege Christi Regis* (under the law of Christ the King), as Quas Primas demands.
– No recollection that libraries and centers of learning must serve the mission expressed in the *Syllabus*: to combat indifferentism, rationalism, socialism, freemasonry, liberalism.

Instead, a naturalistic register: “promotion of religion and the good arts”; “benefits for Christian society and the republic of letters”; paternal benevolence for a “workshop of doctrines.” The overall effect is to frame the Church as a venerable cultural guardian within a pluralistic world, precisely what the pre-conciliar Magisterium repeatedly condemned. By 1960, this language is not innocent; it anticipates the Council’s betrayal.

The omission is not a mere lapse; it corresponds to a program:

– Transform the Church from *societas perfecta* with divine rights over states and culture into a moral-cultural association among many.
– Exalt human learning as co-equal with divine Revelation, subjecting the latter to the canons of “scientific” criticism.
– Replace the language of sin, heresy, and judgment with that of benevolence, culture, and institutional continuity.

In such a perspective, the Ambrosian Library is no longer primarily an armory of dogmatic truth against error, but a museum of Christianized humanism under a patron who soon will participate in the great doctrinal disarming of Vatican II.

Continuity as Simulation: The Legal Formulas as Mask

The most traditional-sounding part of the document is its juridical formula:

We decree that these present Letters shall be firm, valid, and efficacious, and so on; and that anything attempted to the contrary by any authority whatsoever, knowingly or unknowingly, is null and void.

Under a true Pontiff, such a clause safeguards a legitimate ecclesiastical disposition rooted in the service of Christ’s Kingship. Here, the same clause is invoked by one who uses the papal office to launch a council which, in fact, contradicts the *Syllabus*, neutralizes *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*, and paves the way for a religion of man.

Thus the legal solemnity becomes self-accusatory. It shows:

– The usurper understands the force of papal language and uses it to surround his policies with an aura of unassailable continuity.
– The faithful, seeing such formal resemblance to earlier papal acts, are disarmed and less inclined to suspect revolution.
– The revolution proceeds not by open contradiction at first, but by signing many such “innocent” acts while systematically eliminating the Church’s militant, anti-error stance from the living consciousness of clergy and laity.

*Similitudo sine identitate* (similarity without identity): the shell of papal style is kept; the Catholic substance is quietly removed.

Right Order of Arts and Letters: What a True Pontifical Act Would Have Said

From the standpoint of immutable Catholic doctrine, what would we expect in a legitimate papal letter renewing the patronage of a great ecclesiastical library?

At minimum:

– An explicit affirmation that all studies conducted under the Library’s auspices must conform to the teaching of the Church, as expressed in the Council of Trent, Vatican I, the *Syllabus*, *Lamentabili*, and *Pascendi*.
– A warning that modernist exegesis and theology, which deny the inerrancy of Scripture and the immutability of dogma, are condemned and have no place in Catholic institutions.
– A reminder that bishops are obliged in conscience to supervise libraries and schools to exclude books and teachings contrary to faith and morals, because error in such places endangers souls.
– A clear subordination of the “republic of letters” to the Kingdom of Christ and His Church: arts and sciences are good only insofar as they lead to truth and sanctification; otherwise, they become instruments of perdition.

None of this appears in John XXIII’s text. The omission is itself doctrinally charged and sufficient to expose the internal orientation of his regime.

Consequences: Cultural Institutions as Gateways of Apostasy

What has history shown since 1960?

– The Ambrosian Library and similar institutions have been pervaded by the same modernist currents dominating “Catholic” biblical, liturgical, and dogmatic scholarship after the council.
– Textual criticism, historical relativism, and the denial of inerrancy—precisely condemned in *Lamentabili*—have become respectable, even normative, under the watch of hierarchs formed in the conciliar spirit.
– Instead of bastions of integral Catholic doctrine, these libraries and faculties now frequently serve as relay stations diffusing theological relativism and the cult of man.

This letter, granting patronage without doctrinal conditions, is perfectly aligned with that development: by failing to tie such patronage strictly to the defense of the faith, it effectively hands a historic Catholic institution into the hands of those preparing to dethrone Catholic orthodoxy.

Final Appraisal: A Small Stone in the Edifice of the Neo-Church

Therefore, judged by the unwavering light of pre-1958 magisterial teaching:

– The text is not a grave dogmatic pronouncement of heresy; it is something more insidious: a pious-phrased, juridically correct, doctrinally vacuous token that legitimizes the authority of one who is architect of a new religion.
– It reflects a mentality in which the Church is chiefly “patroness of the arts,” protector of cultural treasures, and partner of scholars—while her essential office as divinely constituted guardian of immutable truth and enemy of error is strategically silenced.
– It enlists a venerable Catholic institution under the aegis of the conciliar project, using real tradition as propaganda capital for a paramasonic, anthropocentric structure.

In Catholic terms, that is already bankruptcy. Where the Vicar of Christ would have spoken of truth, dogma, anti-modernist vigilance, the reign of Christ, and the *salus animarum*, John XXIII offers only cultured compliments and legal formalities. *Lex orandi, lex credendi*—and also *lex scribendi*: what he writes here reveals what he does not believe with the inviolable firmness of his predecessors.

---

Source:
Religio bonaeque, Litterae Apostolicae Mediolanensis Archiepiscopus « Pro Tempore » constituitur Patronus Bibliothecae Ambrosianae, d. 16 m. Martii a. 1960, Ioannes PP. XXIII   (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025