Ioannes XXIII’s Latin letter “Mox quinquagesima” congratulates Ernesto Ruffini on the fiftieth anniversary of his priestly ordination, praising his work in Roman institutions, his role in priestly formation, his administration of the Archdiocese of Palermo, and granting him, on this occasion, the faculty to impart a blessing with a plenary indulgence to the faithful.
Celebrating a Golden Jubilee inside the Conciliar Labyrinth
The text is brief, courteous, and—taken in isolation—appears innocuous: a formal expression of esteem for long years of ecclesiastical service. Yet precisely in such seemingly harmless documents the system of the conciliar revolution reveals itself in its purest and therefore most chilling form: the language of Catholic piety is carefully preserved while its supernatural substance is emptied and bent to serve an emerging neo-ecclesial order that will soon attempt to enthrone man, dialogue, and democracy in the place of the social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, this letter is not a pious ornament, but a symptom: it confirms the usurper John XXIII in his role as architect and spiritual patron of the coming upheaval, and it presents Cardinal Ruffini as a docile collaborator of the same process. The jubilee rhetoric veils, rather than reveals, the true crisis: the gradual substitution of the immutable doctrine of the Church—so clearly codified by Pius IX’s Syllabus, by Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII—with a new program that, within a few short years, will explode at the so‑called “Second Vatican Council” and generate the conciliar sect.
Laudatory Biography without Confession of Faith: The Factual Emptiness
The letter praises Ruffini for:
– his teaching of Sacred Scripture at the Lateran and the Propaganda Fide universities,
– his role in overseeing seminaries and Catholic universities,
– his government of the Archdiocese of Palermo,
– his promotion of seminaries, churches, Marian and diocesan events,
– his social initiatives for the poor,
– and finally grants him faculty to bestow a blessing with a plenary indulgence.
The facts mentioned are selective and purely external. Nowhere does Ioannes XXIII:
– Profess explicitly the integral Catholic faith as defined up to 1958.
– Recall the solemn condemnations of liberalism, naturalism, modernism, and Freemasonry by his predecessors.
– Mention the duty of defending the flock against the very errors denounced in Lamentabili sane exitu, Pascendi, the Syllabus, and the anti-modernist oath.
– Exhort Ruffini to combat doctrinal deviations in biblical studies, philosophy, liturgy, or pastoral practice, although those deviations were by 1960 already rampant in institutions precisely like those Ruffini served.
– Recall the absolute primacy of the Most Holy Sacrifice, the necessity of the state of grace, the Four Last Things, or the Kingship of Christ, as Pius XI had done so powerfully in Quas primas (1925).
This silence is not accidental; it is systemic. The letter constructs an image of “good episcopate” defined by administration, organization, and sociological achievements, while omitting the essential: *public, militant profession of the faith against error*. In the era when the enemies of the Church—modernists, rationalists, paramasonic networks—had already infiltrated seminaries, universities, and episcopal conferences, point-blank flattery of a prelate’s bureaucratic career, detached from the battle for doctrinal purity, is itself an indictment.
Language of Pious Bureaucracy as Mask of Doctrinal Paralysis
The rhetorical texture of the letter is revealing. Ioannes XXIII moves in a closed circuit of decorous Latin compliments:
– thankful remembrance of “supernal benefits,”
– emphasis on “industry,” “zeal,” “care for youth,”
– admiration for “sacred edifices,” “seminaries,” “pastoral solicitude,”
– concluding with a formulaic “Apostolic Blessing” and the grant of a plenary indulgence.
There is an almost total absence of:
– clear dogmatic formulations,
– precise references to condemned errors,
– explicit mention of the anti-modernist magisterium of St. Pius X,
– any call to stand against secularism and liberalism as enemies of the Kingship of Christ.
Instead of the virile, luminous clarity of Pius IX and St. Pius X—who name and anathematize concrete errors—we find an irenic, horizontal, and managerial vocabulary. This is the “pastoral” tone that will become the trademark of the conciliar sect: a tone that never quite denies Catholic truths, but consistently refuses to assert them in a manner binding, concrete, and militant.
Such language is not the innocent product of temperament. It expresses a program. By displacing doctrinal confrontation with courteous self-congratulation, Ioannes XXIII prepares the psychological and institutional terrain for the “Council” that will proclaim itself merely “pastoral” while in practice dismantling dogma and discipline.
Theological Subtext: Silence as Consent to the Emerging Revolution
Measured against unchanging Catholic doctrine (before 1958), the omissions of this letter are more serious than its words:
1. Silence concerning Modernism and condemned errors
– St. Pius X, in Lamentabili and Pascendi, exposes Modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies” and demands from bishops a vigilant, punitive resistance to it. The anti-modernist oath bound clergy and professors precisely in the institutions Ruffini served.
– Ioannes XXIII, in 1960, does not remind Ruffini of this duty. He does not even allude to it. Instead, he praises his academic activity at centers already becoming laboratories of the new theology.
– This eloquent silence in a context where mention is morally obligatory signifies consent. Qui tacet consentire videtur (he who is silent is seen to consent) applies analogically: the usurper, lauding a prelate of key influence, refrains from the one exhortation required by the times—uncompromising defense of doctrine. This is not negligence; it is a signal.
2. Reduction of priesthood to humanitarian and organizational functions
– The praise centers on building seminaries and churches, organizing events, helping the poor—good works in themselves, but here detached from explicit insistence on the sacrificial priesthood, propitiatory character of the Mass, and the salvation of souls from eternal damnation.
– Pre-1958 magisterium constantly subordinates all social action to the first end of the Church: salus animarum (salvation of souls) through true faith, valid sacraments, and submission to Christ the King.
– The letter’s logic suggests a different hierarchy: ecclesial success is measured by structures, numbers, and activity. This naturalistic reduction foreshadows the cult of “pastoral effectiveness” and social projects in the neo-church, where sacrificial worship is replaced by assembly, and conversion by dialogue.
3. Instrumental use of indulgences
– Ioannes XXIII grants Ruffini the faculty to impart a blessing with plenary indulgence on the jubilee day.
– In itself, such faculty, when proceeding from a true Vicar of Christ, would be a spiritual treasure. Here, however, it is annexed to the self-congratulatory narrative of a hierarchy already steering towards aggiornamento.
– The indulgence functions as a pious varnish over an ecclesiastical system that, within a few years, will assault the very doctrinal and sacramental foundations which make indulgences meaningful (the Treasury of the Church, the communion of saints, satisfaction, purgatory). To distribute indulgences while preparing the demolition of the underlying theology is a sacrilegious irony.
4. No reference to the Kingship of Christ over Society
– Pius XI in Quas Primas had taught with divine clarity that social peace and true order require public recognition of Christ as King by individuals, families, and states: “Peace will not shine upon nations as long as individuals and states reject the reign of Christ.”
– Ioannes XXIII, congratulating an archbishop of a historically Catholic region, does not urge him to defend this Kingship against secularism and Masonic legislation; he does not even mention the duty of Catholic states to submit to Christ’s law, condemned errors of religious indifferentism listed in the Syllabus (propositions 15–18, 77–80).
– This absence is the negative preface to the later conciliar glorification of “religious freedom” and of the liberal state that Pius IX had anathematized. By choosing not to reiterate the doctrine at precisely the level where a pastoral letter could naturally do so, Ioannes XXIII confirms his trajectory away from pre-existing magisterium.
Ruffini as Model of Controlled “Conservatism” in the Conciliar Project
The letter also reveals how the conciliar sect co-opts and neutralizes apparent conservatives. Ruffini was known for certain “conservative” positions; yet this very letter teaches us how the new regime uses such figures:
– He is exalted not as a confessor of the anti-modernist magisterium, but as an efficient administrator of seminaries and institutions now being reprogrammed for aggiornamento.
– His leadership of a regional council and diocesan synod is praised as an achievement; the prophetic question—whether these bodies strengthened or weakened doctrinal fidelity—is never posed.
– By embracing Ruffini publicly, Ioannes XXIII signals to the episcopate that career advancement and papal favor do not depend on militant doctrinal combat, but on obedience to the new pastoral line.
This is a classic revolutionary maneuver: incorporate respectable “conservatives” to give the process an appearance of continuity, while the real doctrinal axis shifts. The true criterion is no longer fidelity to the pre-1958 Magisterium, but submission to the will of the usurper and collaboration in his projects—especially the coming “Council.”
From Pius X to John XXIII: A Contradiction That Cannot Be Hidden
When we read this text in light of earlier authoritative teaching, the discontinuity is undeniable.
– St. Pius X’s Pascendi and the oath against Modernism demanded that bishops be vigilant, doctrinally sharp, ready to expel modernist teachers and writings, and to suppress false exegesis and false philosophy.
– Pius IX’s Syllabus condemned religious indifferentism, the subordination of the Church to the state, the denial of the Church’s exclusive truth and rights, and “reconciliation” with liberalism and “modern civilization.”
– Pius XI’s Quas Primas proclaimed the social Kingship of Christ as the foundation of any remedy to modern chaos, explicitly opposing laicism and apostasy of states.
– Pius XII, despite certain ambiguities, still affirmed objectively this line, upheld Thomism, and disciplined some aberrations.
In contrast, Ioannes XXIII’s letter:
– omits all reference to the ongoing doctrinal war,
– abstains from invoking the anti-modernist directives,
– situates Ruffini’s merits entirely on institutional and sociological planes,
– deploys indulgences and blessings as ornaments on an ecclesiology in mutation.
This is not the continuity of Catholic Tradition; it is the polite language of transition to another religion—a paramasonic structure that uses Catholic vestments and vocabulary as camouflage. The law of non-contradiction applies: Lex credendi cannot be “hardened” against modern errors by one series of popes and simultaneously “softened” into ambiguous pastoralism by a successor, without either falsifying the earlier condemnations or betraying them. Since the pre-1958 Magisterium is indefectible in its universal, consistent teaching against Modernism and liberalism, the later deviation unmask itself as illegitimate.
Humanistic Optimism Behind the Latin Formalism
Even in a short letter, the spirit of Ioannes XXIII’s humanistic optimism is perceptible:
– The note of serene celebration, devoid of apocalyptic realism, prevails.
– A long priestly life is presented automatically as a sign of divine favor, without confronting the possibility of infidelity or the need for penance.
– The tone anticipates the false optimism of the “opening to the world,” soon to explode in conciliar documents and the cult of man denounced (implicitly) by all prior papal condemnations of naturalism.
The radical contrast with St. Pius X is striking. Where the sainted Pope saw a dreadful apostasy incubating inside seminaries, universities, and chanceries, Ioannes XXIII sees only “noble flame of religion” and “useful enterprises” to be encouraged. Such dulled perception is not merely psychological: it is theological blindness, a refusal to see the Church as Militant amid enemies, and a preference for the mirage of universal goodwill.
Conciliar Symptomatology: How This Letter Prefigures the Neo-Church
This minor text encapsulates several pathologies that will fully manifest in post-1962 post-conciliarism:
1. Pastoralism without dogmatic edge: teaching by compliments and atmospheres rather than by precise doctrinal assertion and condemnation of error.
2. Administrative and sociological reductionism: measuring ecclesial merit by buildings, institutions, events, and social projects rather than by fidelity to the deposit of faith.
3. Supernatural language drained of combativeness: speaking of divine grace, blessings, sacraments, but never in a way that confronts concrete heresies or warns against the enemies named by Pius IX and St. Pius X (Freemasonry, rationalism, indifferentism, modernism).
4. Integration of “conservatives” as controlled opposition: rewarding prelates like Ruffini who give a traditional aesthetic covering to the conciliar project while submitting to its leadership and not obstructing its direction.
5. Indulgence as decor: employing treasures of the Church (or their appearance) as tokens to reinforce adherence to a structure already in process of doctrinal mutation.
All of this is consistent with a paramasonic strategy: maintain forms, alter content; honor institutions, invert their purpose; flatter the hierarchy, neutralize its guardianship of doctrine.
God’s Law above Human Sentiment: The Required Judgment
Applying the immutable Catholic criterion—*lex suprema: salus animarum* and the public reign of Christ the King—this letter stands condemned not because it contains explicit doctrinal heresy, but because:
– it confirms in office and glorifies the architect of a process that would soon devastate doctrine, liturgy, and discipline;
– it models a style of episcopal evaluation that is horizontal, worldly, and blind to the principal duty: guarding the flock from error;
– it illustrates in miniature the tactic of replacing militant, confessional Catholicism with a sentimental, bureaucratic, “pastoral” religion, which the Syllabus, Pascendi, and Lamentabili had already branded as incompatible with the Catholic faith.
In an epoch when Masonic and modernist networks, denounced repeatedly by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X and others, were intensifying their assault on the Church, such a letter—soothing, congratulatory, doctrinally evacuated—functions objectively as complicity. The true Church, faithful to her pre-1958 Magisterium, cannot recognize in this tone and in this agenda the voice of the Good Shepherd.
Therefore, this document, while small and outwardly courteous, must be unmasked as part of the broader conciliar pattern: the subtle sanitization of episcopal conscience, the cultivation of a hierarchy pleased with itself, and the studious avoidance of the very doctrinal arms—anathema, condemnation, intransigence—that God entrusted to His Church and that the saints, from Athanasius to Pius X, used without hesitation.
To praise such a system is to assist the spiritual ruin of souls. To expose it is an act of fidelity to the unchanging doctrine of Christ the King and His true Church, which cannot be reconciled with the cult of pastoral ambiguity and human respect inaugurated by Ioannes XXIII and perfected by his successors in the conciliar sect.
Source:
Mox quinquagesima – Ad Cardinalem Ruffini, Archiepiscopum panormitanum, a suscepto sacerdotio quinquagesimum annum implentem (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025