This Latin letter of John XXIII to Cardinal Alfonso Castaldo on the 25th anniversary of his episcopal ordination is an ornate panegyric: it praises his pastoral zeal in Pozzuoli and Naples, exalts his works for parishes, clergy, youth, and charitable institutions, grants him the faculty to impart the “papal blessing” with plenary indulgence on the jubilee celebration, and wraps everything in the rhetoric of “good shepherd” and apostolic fruitfulness. Behind its devout vocabulary, the text reveals the early consolidation of a new, horizontal, sentimental, and bureaucratic ecclesial mentality in which episcopal office is measured by sociological efficiency and public recognition rather than uncompromising guardianship of the deposit of faith and the rights of Christ the King; it is thus an edifying mask covering the nascent conciliar apostasy that John XXIII was already preparing.

---

Episcopal Flattery as Prelude to Revolution

From the outset, we must state the principle dictated by *lex orandi, lex credendi* and confirmed by the constant Magisterium before 1958: a true Roman Pontiff exists to guard, defend, and apply the Revelation once given, not to inaugurate a new orientation. John XXIII (“Ioannes XXIII”), the inaugurator of the conciliar upheaval, is historically and doctrinally the first link in the post-1958 chain of usurpers; every document issued under his name must therefore be read as coming from within the conciliar plot, even where its letter appears pious or harmless.

This letter, dated 24 June 1959, issued less than a year after his election and after his announcement of the future council (January 25, 1959), must be interpreted in that context: as part of the soft transition from the integral Catholic order condemned by the world (Pius IX’s *Syllabus*, Pius X’s *Pascendi*, Pius XI’s *Quas Primas*) to the “opening to the world” and the cult of pastoralism that culminated at Vatican II and in the “Church of the New Advent.”

Three axes structure this text:

– Cult of personality and episcopal self-congratulation;
– Horizontal, naturalistic criteria of “success”;
– Instrumentalization of spiritual goods (indulgence, blessing) to crown human action, not to lead to repentance and doctrinal firmness.

Each of these axes contradicts the pre-1958 doctrine once we strip away the incense smoke.

Factual Level: What the Letter Praises—and What It Carefully Silences

John XXIII celebrates Castaldo as exemplar of the “good shepherd,” highlighting:

– His visitation of the diocese, increase of parishes, care for clergy and “Catholic Action”;
– Restoration of the seminary;
– Founding of multiple charitable institutions for children and the poor;
– His work in Naples as coadjutor, apostolic administrator, and archbishop;
– Public civil recognition of his social merits;
– Finally, he grants him the faculty to impart “papal blessing” with plenary indulgence to the faithful on the jubilee day.

At first glance, this sounds like classical Catholic praise. Yet when we confront it with integral doctrine and with the magisterial language of the pre-conciliar Popes, the lacunae are more eloquent than the compliments.

1. No mention of:
– Defense of the integrity of the faith against Modernism and neo-Modernism;
– Combat against condemned errors: liberalism, religious indifferentism, socialism, Freemasonry;
– Upholding the Social Kingship of Christ against secularist states (as required by Pius XI, *Quas Primas*);
– Correction of liturgical abuses or doctrinal deviations;
– Sanctification of souls via the *Most Holy Sacrifice* offered in a spirit of propitiation;
– Preaching on sin, judgment, hell, necessity of state of grace, and sacramental confession.

2. Emphasis instead on:
– Administrative expansion (more parishes);
– Organizational development of “Action Catholique”;
– Social care, educational structures, public esteem;
– “Great usefulness” for citizens, especially in education, as acknowledged “publicly.”

This naturalistic focus corresponds exactly to the errors condemned in the *Syllabus of Errors* n. 56–58, where Pius IX rejects the separation of morality and law from divine sanction and condemns the subordination of the Church to naturalistic, secular criteria. When a supposed successor of Peter extols a bishop primarily because “even civil society” publicly recognizes his social works, the order is inverted: *homo mensura* replaces *Deus mensura*.

The gravest factual silence: there is not one word about guarding the flock against the very dangers that Pius X denounced in *Lamentabili sane exitu* and *Pascendi*—notwithstanding that by 1959 these errors had penetrated seminaries, universities, and episcopates. To congratulate a bishop without any reference to his duty to extirpate modernist doctrines is to normalize negligence or complicity.

Linguistic Level: Soft Pastoralism as Veil of Doctrinal Emasculation

The rhetoric of this letter is instructive:

– It speaks in warm, paternal, almost effeminate tones: “Dilecte Fili Noster… joy… happiness… benevolence… esteem.”
– It quotes Augustine: “adiuvate nos et orando et obtemperando; ut nos vobis non tam praeesse, quam prodesse delectet” (“help us by praying and obeying, that we may delight not so much in ruling over you as in being of use to you”). But John XXIII isolates precisely the fragment that, decontextualized, can be used to flatten authority into service rhetoric, without Augustine’s equally strong stress on discipline, correction, condemnation of error.
– The language of “exemplar of good shepherd” is used in purely managerial and philanthropic sense: a good shepherd as efficient organizer who provides social services.

Note the absence of juridical and doctrinal vocabulary that dominates pre-1958 papal letters:

– No insistence on *munus docendi* as first obligation: to teach, to condemn errors, to ensure doctrinal purity;
– No reference to the bishop’s power to legislate and judge in the name of Christ;
– The idea of episcopal office is aestheticized: a decorative jubilee, crowned by indulgence.

This linguistic shift is not neutral. It embodies the modernist tactic described by St. Pius X: to preserve Catholic words while infusing them with a new meaning. The “good shepherd” becomes not primarily the one who drives away wolves (heretics, liberals, modernists), but the one who gains applause and produces “fruit” gauged by secular criteria.

The adoption of such sentimental and bureaucratic style is a symptom of *sentimentalismus pastoralis*: replacing the supernatural virility of faith with benevolent administrative humanism.

Theological Level: Inversion of Ends and Perverted Use of Spiritual Goods

Let us confront key elements of this letter with unanbiguous Catholic teaching.

1. Purpose of the Episcopate

Traditional doctrine (see Vatican I, *Pastor aeternus*; the Roman Pontifical; Pius XII’s teaching) presents bishops as:

– Successors of the Apostles;
– Holders of *munus docendi, sanctificandi, regendi*;
– Above all, guardians of the deposit of faith: *“O Timothy, guard the deposit.”*

In the letter, Castaldo is lauded almost exclusively for:

– Structural growth;
– Promotion of “Catholic Action” (which in much of the 20th century was the Trojan horse of democratic and modernist tendencies);
– Charitable and educational works “recognized publicly.”

This is a textbook illustration of the error condemned in *Lamentabili* 39–41, 54: reducing Church realities to historical, sociological developments, and treating her mission as predominantly ethical-social.

The letter displays a functionalist theology of the episcopate: the bishop as manager of “projects,” “institutions,” “development,” rather than as uncompromising teacher who anathematizes heresy.

2. Misuse and Trivialization of Indulgences

At the end, John XXIII grants:

“ut sacra sollemnia acturus ipse papalem Benedictionem cum indulgentia plenaria consueto more lucranda populo impertias” — the faculty to impart papal blessing with plenary indulgence.

In integral Catholic theology, indulgences are bound to:

– Detestation of sin;
– Sacramental confession;
– Interior conversion;
– Submission to the Church that defends the true faith.

Here, the indulgence is appended as honorary ornament to a celebration of human merits, without any summons to penitence or doctrinal vigilance. It becomes a decoration validating a career praised primarily on natural grounds. This is not merely incomplete; it is theologically perverse—a subtle instrumentalization of supernatural treasures for the canonization of the new pastoral ideology.

3. Silence on Christ the King and the Social Order

Pius XI in *Quas Primas* teaches with lapidary clarity that:

– Peace and order can exist only when states recognize publicly the reign of Christ and submit their laws to His law.
– The Church must oppose laicism and secularism as formal apostasy.

In the letter, where public recognition by civil authorities of Castaldo’s social works is praised, there is zero insistence that these authorities acknowledge Christ’s sovereignty or conform legislation to divine law. Public esteem is praised as such, without distinction whether the same states promote secularism, Masonic policies, or anti-Christian laws.

This omission manifests a tacit acceptance of the liberal thesis: the Church as socially useful partner inside a pluralistic order, rather than as the unique societas perfecta claiming public rights for the Kingship of Christ. It is an indirect violation of the doctrine laid out in the *Syllabus* (esp. 55, condemnation of the “separation of Church and State” as principle) and in *Quas Primas*.

4. Catholic Action as Vehicle of Democratization

The repeated commendation of “Action Catholique” is symptomatic. In many countries, this structure was utilized to:

– Introduce laity as co-decision-makers;
– Permeate the Church with democratic, political, and progressivist agendas;
– Undermine hierarchical and sacerdotal concept of the Church.

By praising its “progress” without any doctrinal caveats, John XXIII aligns himself with the democratization trajectory later dogmatized in the conciliar sect. The letter thus anticipates the idea that the Church listens to the “People of God” and adapts, an idea explicitly condemned in *Lamentabili* 6–7, where it is rejected that the teaching Church merely ratifies the opinions of the believing community.

Symptomatic Level: This Letter as Microcosm of Conciliar Apostasy

This seemingly minor document is a distilled specimen of the conciliar virus. Let us highlight its symptomatic features.

From Guardian of Orthodoxy to Manager of Humanitarian Projects

The entire praise of Castaldo can be summed up:

– He traveled;
– He built;
– He organized;
– He collaborated;
– He gained public sympathy.

But:

– Where is his fight against heresy?
– Where his defense of the *Syllabus* against liberal encroachments?
– Where his application of *Pascendi* to root out modernists?
– Where his public resistance to anti-Christian laws?

Nowhere.

This is exactly the transition described and condemned by pre-1958 Popes: replacing the supernatural end (salvation from sin, defense of revealed truth) with natural ends (culture, welfare, good relations with authorities). It is the pastoralism that prepared the New “Mass,” the false ecumenism, religious liberty, and the cult of man solemnly exalted by the conciliar sect.

Bureaucratic Sanctification of the New Episcopal Type

By issuing such letters, John XXIII performs a strategic operation:

– He canonizes a new model of bishop: benevolent social leader, beloved by media and politicians, friendly to “Catholic Action,” not feared by enemies of the faith.
– He sends a message to the hierarchy: this is the profile Rome blesses now. Not the intransigent defender of the *Syllabus* and the condemnations of Modernism, but the adaptable pastor admired by the world.

This is in radical contradiction with the consistent teaching that:

– Friendship with the world is enmity with God (James 4:4);
– The shepherd must guard against wolves, not seek their compliments;
– Bishops who fail in the faith betray their office and, according to the classical theologians (Bellarmine, et al., as cited in the Defense of Sedevacantism file), lose authority in substance once manifest heretics.

In this light, the enthusiastic approval of such a worldly-oriented bishop by an antipope architect of the Council is not a harmless courtesy: it is confirmation of a shared orientation, a mutual recognition inside the revolution.

Deliberate Disregard of the Modernist Threat

By 1959:

– Modernist thinking (evolution of dogma, historical relativization, biblical criticism hostile to inerrancy) had been condemned explicitly in *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi* (1907), and implicitly persisted;
– Pius XII still reiterated the inerrancy of Scripture and the reality of original sin and propitiatory sacrifice.

Yet this letter moves in an entirely different optic:

– No recall to doctrinal vigilance;
– No allusion to the “synthesis of all heresies” that was Modernism;
– No call to fidelity to the anti-liberal papal line of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Rather, by its tone and content, it signals that those condemnations have become a dead letter. This practical abandonment is itself an act of rebellion against the preceding Magisterium: *quod tacet consentire videtur* (he who is silent is seen to consent), especially when he has the duty to speak.

Instrumentalization of St. Augustine and Patristic Vocabulary

The selective quote of Augustine is paradigmatic. Augustine, who:

– Thundered against heresies;
– Defended authority of the Church against Donatists and Pelagians;
– Insisted on coercive measures against obstinate heretics for the good of souls;

is reduced to a slogan about pastors “delighting not to rule but to be of use.”

John XXIII twists patristic language toward an ideology where:

– Hierarchy exists for horizontal “service” as defined by worldly needs;
– The dimension of command, judgment, and anathema is morally suspect or silenced.

This misuse of patristic authority is a refined modernist technique: employing the Fathers against the constant practice of the Church, evacuating their hard edges.

Integration into the Conciliar Project and the Post-Conciliar Sect

Seen in continuity with John XXIII’s other actions:

– Announcement of a “pastoral” council aimed at “aggiornamento”;
– Ending the integral anti-modernist stance of his predecessors;
– Rehabilitation and advancement of suspect theologians;

this letter is a puzzle piece:

– It rehearses the new, irenic style;
– It offers an exemplar of bishop suitable to conciliar ecclesiology: horizontal, “open,” socially engaged, applauded by secular authorities;
– It cloaks the approach with indulgences and blessings, thereby anesthetizing consciences and training the faithful to confuse supernatural authority with this new orientation.

What appears as a minor congratulatory letter is in fact a subtle catechesis in the new religion of post-conciliarism: Christianity as benevolent humanism under decorative sacramental language.

Conclusion: Why This Harmless-Looking Letter Is Spiritually Toxic

Measured by the standard of the immutable Catholic doctrine before 1958, this document is gravely deficient and symptomatic:

– It promotes a naturalistic understanding of episcopal fruitfulness.
– It manifests a practical abandonment of the anti-modernist battle commanded by St. Pius X.
– It subtly legitimizes the idea that public esteem and collaboration with secular powers are signs of good pastoral governance, in opposition to Pius IX’s and Pius XI’s condemnation of liberalism and laicism.
– It trivializes indulgences and blessings, using them to adorn worldly success rather than to call to conversion.
– It idealizes a “good shepherd” who is never shown guarding against wolves—that is, the modernist teachers and liberal politicians who were already attacking the Church.

In sum, the text is not merely incomplete; it is anodyne in the precise, dangerous sense: a sweet sedative that helps anesthetize the hierarchy on the eve of the conciliar catastrophe. Beneath its courteous Latin, it enshrines the pastoral ideology that would soon publicly enthrone the cult of man within the structures occupying the Vatican and bury, under tons of sentimental verbiage, the militant, doctrinally precise Catholicism of the ages.

Those who desire to remain faithful to the Catholic faith as taught consistently until 1958 must recognize in such documents not an expression of the perennial Magisterium, but an early blossom of the conciliar sect’s program: replacing the Cross and the Kingship of Christ with the smiling humanitarian bishop and the applause of the world. This letter’s silence about supernatural combat and doctrinal intransigence resounds as a warning bell: where such silence reigns, apostasy is already at work.

---

Source:
Initi a te Episcopalis – Ad Alfonsum Tit. S. Calixti S. R. E. presbyterum Cardinalem Castaldo, Archiepiscopum Neapolitanum, Episcopum Puteolanum, quina lustra a suscepto episcopatu celebraturum   (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025