In this Latin letter dated June 15, 1961, antipope John XXIII congratulates Eugène Tisserant on the fiftieth anniversary of his elevation to the red hat by Pius XI, lauding his erudition, his work as Prefect of the Apostolic Library, his role in the Eastern Churches’ dicastery, and his admission to the Académie Française. The whole text is a polished homage to human learning, diplomatic service, and institutional prestige, culminating in a generic blessing.

---

Behind its courteous prose, this letter exemplifies the anthropocentric, naturalistic, and proto-conciliar mentality that abandons the supernatural mission of the Church and glorifies worldly honors as if they were signs of ecclesial fidelity.

Panegyric of a System: How Human Glory Usurps the Rights of Christ the King

Glorifying Earthly Honors While Silencing the Supernatural End of the Church

John XXIII’s text is externally innocuous: a laudatory letter to a senior dignitary. Yet precisely in its apparently harmless character lies its doctrinal and spiritual corruption.

Key elements of the letter (paraphrased from the Latin):

– He recalls that Pius XI adorned Tisserant with the Roman purple in recognition of his merits, “especially as Prefect of the Apostolic Library.”
– He declares that he does not wish to let this anniversary pass in silence, and expresses congratulations and good wishes.
– He extols Tisserant’s “refined learning,” “knowledge and abundance of things,” and his activities in various high offices.
– He notes with satisfaction his election to the Académie Française, calling it a rare summit of honor granted to those of great reputation.
– He says he rejoices personally, for the College of “Cardinals,” and for Tisserant’s homeland.
– He uses an image of praised virtue growing like a tree refreshed by morning dew, wishing that Tisserant continue to grow in wisdom, fidelity, and honor.
– He imparts an “apostolic blessing.”

There is no mention of:

– the *Most Holy Sacrifice*,
– the state of grace,
– sin, judgment, hell, or salvation,
– the Kingship of Christ over nations,
– the exclusive truth of the Catholic faith,
– the gravity of Modernism and its already-condemned errors,
– the duty of a “cardinal” to defend dogma against the world and against subversive forces.

This silence is not accidental. It is the signature of a neo-church for which ecclesiastical office has been redefined into cultural prestige and diplomatic elegance. The letter reads as if the Church’s goal were to enthrone her dignitaries in the salons of the world rather than to guard the deposit of faith *usque ad sanguinem* (even unto blood).

Contrast this with the pre-1958 Magisterium:

– Pius XI in *Quas Primas* teaches that peace and order depend on the public reign of Christ, and he condemns laicism as a “plague.” The Church must demand that rulers and nations submit to Christ’s law, and all ecclesiastical dignity is ordered to that end.
– Pius IX in the *Syllabus of Errors* condemns the notion that the Church’s rights derive from the State or that ecclesiastical honor is measured by acceptance within liberal institutions.
– St. Pius X in *Lamentabili sane exitu* and *Pascendi* unmasks the Modernist exaltation of “science,” “history,” and worldly recognition when used to dilute or reinterpret dogma.

Measured against that unchanging doctrine, this letter becomes an indictment: a hymn to humanist recognition where there should be a reminder of the Cross.

Language of Flattery as Symptom of Doctrinal Erosion

The vocabulary of John XXIII’s text is saturated with worldly categories:

– “Amplest honor” for cultural and administrative merit.
– “Refined letters,” “knowledge and abundance of things.”
– “Honor’s summit” in joining the Académie Française.
– Joy “for the College of Cardinals” and “for your homeland,” in terms indistinguishable from secular protocol.

He writes of Tisserant’s admission to the Académie:

We rejoice for ourselves, we congratulate you, we congratulate the College of Cardinals, and your homeland.

This triad — self, bureaucratic college, nation — replaces the supernatural triad of God’s glory, salvation of souls, and defense of the faith. The hierarchy is reduced to a dignified club of cultivated gentlemen whose glory is mirrored in the applause of the world.

Note what is missing:

– No call to confess Christ before unbelieving elites.
– No insistence that belonging to a secular academy is subordinate to the duty to combat its errors.
– No warning against the liberal, laicist, and often anti-Catholic intellectual currents that Pius IX and Leo XIII had repeatedly condemned.

This omission is damning. Pius IX explicitly refuted the idea that the Church should reconcile herself with modern liberal civilization as such (Syllabus, proposition 80). Pius XI insisted that rulers and nations must publicly acknowledge Christ or face disorder. Yet John XXIII celebrates a “cardinal” being exalted by an institution that historically participated in the very anti-Christian intellectual trends condemned by the pre-conciliar popes — and he does so without any doctrinal caveat.

The tone is antiseptically horizontal: bureaucratic courtesy mixed with sentimental imagery. The only “virtue” emphasized is competence and reputation. The supernatural is diluted into decorous well-wishing.

This is not accidental style; it is a theological program. *Lex orandi, lex credendi* applies analogously here: the manner in which an antipope speaks manifests what he believes — or refuses to profess.

Theological Inversion: From Guardians of Dogma to Ornaments of the World

From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, several core perversions stand out.

1. Reduction of the cardinalatial dignity to human scholarship and administration

John XXIII grounds Tisserant’s honor primarily in:

– his erudition,
– his administration of the Apostolic Library,
– his role in Eastern affairs.

He never once recalls the essence of the cardinal’s office as traditionally understood: to be ready to defend the faith and the Roman Church with one’s blood, to be principal counsellors in guarding the deposit of Revelation, to oppose error without compromise.

Pre-1958 teaching:

– The Church is a *perfect society* with a divine constitution (Pius IX, Syllabus 19). Offices exist for the protection of revealed truth and the sanctification of souls.
– A dignity divorced from the defense of dogma degenerates into pharisaism: outward honor, inward infidelity.

The letter implicitly redefines ecclesiastical merit as the world defines it: academic prestige, “culture,” diplomatic success. This inversion is at the heart of the conciliar sect’s apostasy.

2. Naturalization of virtue and grace

The one metaphor he uses:

Laudata virtus ut matutino rore generosa arbor aspersa crescere consuevit.

He wishes that Tisserant, grateful for benefits received, may grow “in sincere fidelity, wisdom, usefulness of good undertakings, with all decorum and adornment of soul.”

This is moralistic naturalism:

– No explicit reference to sanctifying grace.
– No mention that all merits must flow from union with Christ, obedience to revealed dogma, hatred of heresy.
– “Fidelity” is undefined — fidelity to what? To Christ the King and His integral doctrine, or to the evolving policies of the neo-church?

In continuity with Pius X, integral Catholic faith insists: there is no authentic virtue against or outside the full profession of Catholic doctrine. To praise “virtue” and “fidelity” in the abstract while simultaneously promoting or tolerating Modernist ideas is deceit. *Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus* (outside the Church there is no salvation) includes: outside integral faith, no true supernatural virtue.

3. Silence on Modernism and Eastern Schism

Tisserant was involved closely with Eastern affairs. John XXIII praises this; but there is:

– no call for the return of schismatic Eastern communities to submission to the Roman See in the sense defined by Florence, Trent, and Vatican I,
– no reiteration of the condemnation of indifferentism and false ecumenism (Syllabus 15-18),
– no warning against “dialogue” that treats schism and heresy as partial expressions of the same “Church.”

This silence is telling. At the very moment when the conciliar revolution is being prepared, the letter’s tone harmonizes with the soon-to-be-officialized betrayal: replacing the missionary imperative of conversion with a diplomatically courteous coexistence. It prefigures the ecumenical relativism that Pius XI’s *Mortalium animos* had declared incompatible with Catholic faith.

Such omission is not neutral; it is dissimulation. *Qui tacet consentire videtur* (he who is silent appears to consent). The letter’s ecumenical quietism stands against the consistent pre-1958 Magisterium.

Symptom of the Conciliar Sect: The Church Bent Before Liberal Culture

This text must be read as a micro-manifesto of the Church of the New Advent.

1. The craving for recognition by secular elites

Celebrating membership in the Académie Française as a “rare peak of honor” reveals a mentality condemned by the earlier popes. Pius IX, Leo XIII, and St. Pius X warned repeatedly:

– against secret societies and liberal elites waging war on the Church,
– against the absorption of clergy into circles whose philosophical premises undermine Revelation,
– against the illusion that the faith can safely seek validation from enemies.

Here, the anti-church does the opposite: it delights in being crowned by the very milieu that historically advanced religious indifferentism, rationalism, and laicism. The “cardinal” becomes respectable to a hostile world; John XXIII sees this not as a danger, but as a triumph.

This is precisely what Pius XI in *Quas Primas* opposed: replacing the explicit public rights of Christ by a polite coexistence with secular culture. The letter glorifies the latter, betraying the former.

2. Apostolic Succession replaced by paramasonic courtoisie

Notice the closing:

– wishes for growth in decorum and honor;
– an “apostolic blessing” that is purely formulaic, detached from any call to fight error.

This resonates with the *paramasonic structure* occupying the Vatican: ritual language masking a new religion of human dignity, culture, and dialogue, in which scandals against faith are tolerated as long as the external apparatus shines.

There is no mention that:

– ecclesiastical office-bearers must condemn Modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies” (Pius X),
– failure to oppose error is itself treason,
– public honors in the world commonly accompany compromise on doctrine.

An authentic Roman Pontiff, steeped in the teaching of Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII, would have exhorted: guard the deposit, resist liberalism, uphold the rights of Christ the King against the idolatries of culture. John XXIII does none of this. His silence is consent to the revolution.

Conciliar Fruits: From This Mentality to Systemic Apostasy

Seen in historical context (which is verifiable from the published acts and speeches of John XXIII and the subsequent council):

– The same antipope soon convenes the so-called “Second Vatican Council,” which enthrones:
– religious liberty in the liberal sense,
– ecumenism with heretics and schismatics,
– the cult of man and of conscience,
– the horizontal redefinition of the Church as “People of God” in democratic terms.
– The same milieu produces a liturgical devastation in which the *Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary* is disguised as a community meal, and sacrilege becomes routine.
– The same line of usurpers leads to Leo XIV (Prevost), whose regime of moral inversion, syncretism, and blasphemous “inclusivity” is but the mature fruit of this early humanist flattery.

This 1961 letter is not an isolated courtesy; it is coherent with a program:

– Replace the militant, dogmatic, supernatural Church with a graciously deferential cultural institution.
– Replace the language of condemnation with the language of compliments.
– Replace call to conversion with mutual admiration between hierarchy and worldly elites.

Pius IX warned that the State is not the source of rights (Syllabus 39), and that reconciling with liberalism as ideology is impossible (Syllabus 80). Pius XI insisted that “the plague of laicism” consists precisely in excluding Christ from public life. John XXIII, conversely, rejoices that his “cardinal” is enthroned within that laicist culture, as if this were a vindication of the Church rather than a temptation to betrayal.

What the Letter Reveals About the Nature of the Neo-Church

From the vantage of unchanging Catholic theology before 1958, the following conclusions, based on verifiable content and omissions, are inescapable:

1. Anthropocentrism:
– Human excellence, scholarly acclaim, and national prestige are centered.
– Divine sovereignty, dogmatic integrity, and supernatural warfare are absent.

2. Naturalism:
– Virtues are praised in humanistic terms; supernatural categories are suppressed.
– Grace, sin, redemption, and judgment are not even alluded to.

3. Indifferentism and Proto-Ecumenism:
– Role in Eastern affairs is honored without reaffirming the exclusive obligation of schismatics to return to the one true fold.
– Cultural acceptance by secular elites is acclaimed without doctrinal caveats.

4. Abdication of the Royalty of Christ:
– No demand of public recognition of Christ’s Kingship, contrary to *Quas Primas*.
– Instead, satisfaction that the Church’s human dignitary is honored by a secular academy.

5. Substitution of the True Magisterium by a Paramasonic Courtesy Network:
– The language and priorities align with those societies and ideologies condemned as instruments of the “synagogue of Satan” (Pius IX’s explicit description of such sects).
– The “apostolic blessing” is instrumentalized to ratify a horizontal agenda.

These are not accidents of style. They confirm that the structure speaking in this letter is not the same Roman Catholic Church that anathematized Modernism and liberalism, but the emerging neo-church which canonizes precisely what its predecessors condemned.

To those who hold the integral Catholic faith, this document is useful not as edification, but as evidence: a clear, dated, verifiable instance of how the anti-church reprogrammed ecclesiastical language to serve the world, thereby betraying Christ the King, despising the Syllabus, ignoring *Lamentabili sane*, and preparing the desolation that now engulfs the institutions occupying the Vatican.

---

Source:
Ad Eugenium S. R. E. Cardinalem Tisserant, Episcopum Ostiensem, Portuensem et S. Rufinae, quinque lustra implentem ex quo Sacra Romana honestatus est Purpura   (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025