In this brief Latin note, John XXIII sends cordial congratulations and an “Apostolic Blessing” to Ignatius Gabriel Tappouni, Syrian Patriarch of Antioch, on the fiftieth anniversary (“quinque lustra”) of his being created cardinal, praising his merits, fidelity to the Roman See, and pastoral service, and invoking divine grace upon him and his flock.

---

This seemingly innocuous compliment letter already manifests the self-assured legitimacy of a usurping hierarchy and exemplifies the sentimental, horizontal, and theologically vacuous style that would soon culminate in the conciliar revolution.

Hollow Benedictions: John XXIII’s Cult of Office without the Kingship of Christ

Flatteries in Place of Faith: The Naturalistic Structure of the Text

The text reads:

We joyfully congratulate Our beloved Son Ignatius Gabriel Tappouni, Patriarch of Antioch of the Syrians, happily celebrating the completion of five lustra since he was honored with the Roman Purple, for the merits by which through so many years, faithfully bound to the See of Peter, he has cared for the welfare and the honor of the Church; and offering good wishes that, supported by heavenly grace, joyful in hope, sound in strength, he may continue to devote himself to his pastoral office, We most lovingly impart the Apostolic Blessing, which We are pleased to extend also to the flock committed to him.

On the factual surface:

– John XXIII:
– Commends Tappouni’s “fidelity” to the See of Peter.
– Emphasizes his service to the “welfare and beauty/ornament” (*emolumento et decori*) of the Church.
– Extends an “Apostolic Blessing” to him and his flock.

On the level of explicit assertions, there is no direct heretical formula. This is precisely the danger. The poison of post-1958 posturing rarely begins with crude denials of dogma, but with a total evacuation of the supernatural center and replacement by institutional self-celebration. The letter glorifies:

– the Roman purple,
– external merits,
– bureaucratic continuity,

while saying nothing about:

– *the necessity of the true faith for salvation*,
– *the integral defense of doctrine against Modernism*,
– *the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ over nations and rites*,
– *the grave duty of Eastern hierarchs to oppose liberalism, indifferentism, and Masonic plots condemned by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X*.

The hierarchy praises itself as such, as if mere adhesion to the reigning structure were per se meritorious, without any examination of what that structure has become. This is the essence of the conciliar mentality in germ: *institutum supra fidem* (the institution above the faith).

Language of Sentiment, Absence of Dogma: Symptoms of Decay

The vocabulary is revealing:

– “Dilecto Filio Nostro” (“Our beloved Son”),
– “ex animo gratulamur” (“we sincerely congratulate”),
– “bona omina facientes” (“offering good wishes”),
– “peramanter impertimus” (“we very lovingly impart”).

All the force is emotional, horizontal, and honorific. There is no:

– mention of *fides catholica integra* (the integral Catholic faith),
– warning against the condemned errors listed by Pius IX in the Syllabus Errorum (1864),
– echo of St. Pius X’s Lamentabili sane exitu or Pascendi against Modernism,
– insistence on the obligation of Eastern hierarchs to defend the one true Church against false ecumenism or nationalistic or modernist corruptions.

Instead, we see an early instance of the “pastoral” sentimentalism that will crown any long-standing prelate with public praises regardless of doctrinal vigilance. The letter functions as a liturgical gesture of the new ideology: hierarchical mutual admiration, detached from the dogmatic demands defined by previous Popes.

Such soft language contrasts sharply with the robust pre-1958 papal idiom:

– Pius IX, in the Syllabus, condemns the liberal thesis that the Church cannot judge or bind philosophy and civil law.
– St. Pius X solemnly anathematizes those promoting doctrinal evolution and biblical relativism.
– Pius XI in Quas Primas vigorously affirms that peace is only possible through the social reign of Christ the King and condemns secularism and the banishment of Christ from public life.

Here, John XXIII presents the office and “fidelity” of Tappouni as self-sufficient goods, without recalling that:

– real merit is measured by militant defense of the truth, not by passive attachment to the reigning power;
– fidelity to the See of Peter, if it is not fidelity to the dogma defined by Peter and his legitimate successors, degenerates into servility toward any occupant, even a propagator of novelty.

This silence is not innocent; it is structural.

Theological Vacuum: Fidelity to Whom and to What?

The letter praises that Tappouni was “Petri Sedi fideliter astrictus” (“faithfully bound to the See of Peter”). But under John XXIII:

– The same person convoked the Second Vatican Council.
– The same regime began to rehabilitate the very tendencies condemned as Modernist:
– biblical criticism detaching exegesis from the unanimous Fathers,
– historical relativization of dogma,
– openness to “religious liberty” and “ecumenism” directly contradicting the Syllabus and the constant Magisterium.

From the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine, *fidelitas Sedi Petri* cannot mean unconditional submission to any policies or novelties proposed by a reigning figure. It means adhesion to:

– the defined dogmas of the Church,
– the anti-liberal, anti-modernist stance solemnly taught and enforced by the true Magisterium.

Pius IX explicitly rejects the notion that the Church must reconcile Herself with “progress, liberalism, and modern civilization” (Syllabus, prop. 80 condemned). St. Pius X thunders against those who wish to “reform” dogma and ecclesiastical structures in the name of modern thought.

But John XXIII’s chirograph:

– offers no remembrance of these doctrinal battles;
– situates Tappouni’s “merits” solely in the register of institutional loyalty and decorum;
– implicitly blesses a merely canonical, not doctrinal, conception of fidelity.

Thus the letter becomes a micro-manifesto of the conciliar sect’s anthropology: as long as one is “with us” institutionally, one is praiseworthy; militant defense of immutable dogma is not mentioned, much less demanded.

From Defense of the Church to Decoration of the Neo-Church

The phrase “Ecclesiae emolumento et decori” says that Tappouni has contributed to the “advantage” and “ornament/beauty” of the Church.

But what is the Church here?

– Not clearly the *societas perfecta*—the perfect, divinely constituted society, as upheld by Pius IX and Leo XIII.
– Not explicitly the visible bastion of the one true faith, intolerant of error and false worship.
– Rather, an entity whose “decus” is associated with long tenure, purple vestments, and harmonious cooperation with the new Roman policy.

By 1960, the apparatus already moves toward:

– diluting the Church’s exclusive claims;
– preparing liturgical and doctrinal “aggiornamento”;
– softening condemnations of masonry, liberalism, religious indifferentism.

In that context, to call such a Patriarch an “ornament” of the Church, without reference to resistance against these trends, is a theological statement: *pulchritudo* is no longer the radiance of truth and sanctity; it is the dignity of office within a structure which is about to enthrone Modernism.

The contrast with pre-1958 papal reasoning is stark:

– For Pius XI in Quas Primas, the Church’s true honor consists in publicly asserting the Kingship of Christ, demanding that rulers and nations subject themselves to His law.
– For Pius X, any complicity with Modernism is treason; any silence that aids error is culpable.

In John XXIII’s letter, however:

– No exhortation to defend the true doctrine against rising errors.
– No reminder that Eastern Catholics must not slide toward indifferentism with schismatics.
– Only institutional congratulations.

This is not mere omission; it is acquiescence.

Linguistic Pastoralism as Instrument of Modernist Subversion

The style of the text exemplifies what St. Pius X foresaw and condemned:

– *Verba dulcia, venena occulta* (pleasant words, hidden poisons).
– The use of constant affective formulas (“beloved son,” “sincerely,” “lovingly,” “joyful in hope”) to create an atmosphere where dogmatic edge appears “unpastoral.”

Modernism, condemned by Lamentabili and Pascendi, does not always speak through explicit denial, but through:

– reduction of faith to sentiment,
– relativizing of doctrinal precision,
– substitution of clear anathema with congratulatory diplomacy.

Here:

– Tappouni’s “fidelity” is praised.
– But fidelity to the anti-modernist magisterium would, in that period, have required lucid resistance to John XXIII’s own program of aggiornamento.
– Therefore the text implicitly redefines fidelity as alignment with the new course.

This inversion of criteria—a hallmark of the conciliar sect—corrupts the very notion of obedience:

– True obedience is *ob-audire* (to listen toward) God’s already-defined truth.
– The conciliar mentality makes obedience a psychological and legal adhesion to mutable policies of a regime that contradicts prior doctrine.

The letter is a pure specimen of this mental revolution.

Silences that Accuse: What John XXIII Refuses to Say

The gravest charge against this chirograph is not what it says, but what it refuses to say—especially considering the historical context:

By 1960:

– The enemies identified by Pius IX—the masonic sects, naturalism, liberalism—had only strengthened their grip.
– The errors condemned in the Syllabus and by Leo XIII’s anti-masonic teaching had penetrated states and elites.
– Modernism, formally anathematized by St. Pius X, was surging back in seminaries, universities, and episcopates.

A genuinely Catholic papal letter to an Eastern Patriarch in such circumstances should have:

– reminded him of his strict obligation to defend:
– the divinity of Christ,
– the exclusivity of the Catholic Church as the only ark of salvation,
– the social Kingship of Christ against secularism and “religious liberty” lies;
– warned against:
– conciliatory attitudes toward schismatic Orthodoxy,
– adoption of historical-critical poison in exegesis,
– any liturgical or doctrinal innovations undermining the Holy Sacrifice and the sacraments.

Instead:

– No mention of the *Syllabus Errorum*.
– No mention of *Lamentabili* or *Pascendi*.
– No reference to the duty of rejecting false ecumenism or religious indifferentism.
– No insistence on separation from secret societies.

These omissions are themselves doctrinally significant. *Qui tacet consentire videtur* (he who is silent is seen to consent) when silence is strategically placed where confession is required.

In light of Quas Primas:

– Pius XI teaches that public order, nations, and rulers are bound to recognize and honor Christ the King and conform their laws to His law.
– John XXIII’s letter, however, does not even allude to Christ’s Kingship, grace, sin, or salvation; grace is reduced to generic support, detached from doctrinal content and moral combat.

This silence is a repudiation in practice of the pre-1958 Magisterium, even while the letter superficially uses traditional formulas.

Symptom of the Conciliar Sect: Institutional Self-Worship

The chirograph is a liturgical gesture of the emerging neo-church:

– The “Church” is treated as an aesthetic and diplomatic subject, displayed in purple and protocol, no longer as the militant guardian of revealed truth condemning errors.
– The “Apostolic Blessing” is distributed as a ceremonial seal over a structure that is preparing to enthrone those very errors previously anathematized.

Pius IX, warning of the masonic and liberal onslaught, insisted that the Church must:

– resist, condemn, and unmask the plots against her divine constitution;
– refuse any false reconciliation with “modern civilization” understood as emancipation from Christ’s law.

St. Pius X declared Modernism the “synthesis of all heresies” and imposed oaths and disciplinary measures precisely to prevent what John XXIII then unleashed.

This letter to Tappouni:

– fits seamlessly into that betrayal.
– It affirms the legitimacy and continuity of a regime about to overturn the doctrinal ramparts.
– It blesses a loyalty that, in substance, becomes loyalty to an anti-doctrinal project.

Thus, even in its brevity, it starkly illustrates:

– the shift from the supernatural to the naturalistic:
– from defending the deposit of faith to honoring long careers,
– from Christocentric clarity to bureaucratic cordiality,
– from militant Catholicism to harmonious coexistence with the spirit of the age.

Christ the King versus the Purple of a Counterfeit Hierarchy

When Pius XI instituted the feast of Christ the King in Quas Primas, he taught that:

– true peace and order exist only when individuals and states recognize Christ’s royal rights;
– the Church must proclaim His Kingship against laicism and secular apostasy;
– rulers and nations are strictly bound to submit to His law publicly.

Measured against that doctrine, John XXIII’s chirograph:

– does not exhort Tappouni to promote the public reign of Christ in the East;
– does not arm him doctrinally against secular and heretical influences;
– substitutes the glory of Christ with the glory of the “Roman Purple.”

The letter speaks of:

– “spe laetus, viribus integer pastorali muneri se devovere pergat” (“joyful in hope, strong in vigor, may he continue to devote himself to his pastoral office”).

But what is that “pastoral office” here, concretely?

– Without reference to guarding the flock against error and heresy,
– “pastoral” becomes the empty slogan that will soon be used to justify:
– doctrinal relativism,
– liturgical revolution,
– practical acceptance of religious pluralism.

This is the inverted hierarchy of values of the conciliar sect:

– The purple is extolled.
– The Cross of doctrinal combat is hidden.
– The Kingship of Christ is tacitly replaced by the sovereignty of ecclesiastical diplomacy.

Conclusion: A Miniature Manifesto of the Coming Apostasy

In isolation, the chirograph might look like a harmless congratulation. Read in the light of the unchanging Catholic doctrine before 1958 and the subsequent conciliar catastrophe, it is:

– a specimen of the new “pastoral” rhetoric whose gentility systematically excludes:
– clear doctrinal teaching,
– condemnation of error,
– affirmation of the exclusive claims of the Catholic Church;
– an implicit proclamation that institutional continuity suffices, regardless of doctrinal rupture;
– a quiet canonization of mere hierarchical longevity as “merit” and “ornament,” even as the same hierarchy drifts toward Modernism.

Against this, integral Catholic theology holds immovably:

– *Fides ante omnia* (faith before all): no amount of purple, protocol, or sentimental blessing can compensate for the betrayal of defined dogma.
– *Nulla obedientia contra fidem* (no obedience against the faith): “fidelity” to a hierarchy that undermines prior solemn teaching is not virtue, but complicity.
– *Rex noster Christus est* (Christ is our King): every act of ecclesiastical governance, every letter, must manifest His rights over souls and societies, not conceal them beneath courteous verbosity.

Where Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Pius XI spoke clearly, militantly, and supernaturally, John XXIII here exemplifies a different religion: one that blesses its own offices, silences its own dogmas, and prepares the stage on which the conciliar sect will enthrone man, dialogue, and religious equality in place of the crucified King.

---

Source:
Chirographum missum ad Ignatium Gabrielem tit. Sanctorum XII Apostolorum S. R. E. Presb. Card. Tappouni, Patriarcham Antiochenum Syror., quinque implentem lustra, ex quo Sacra Purpura est decoratus   (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025