Venerable Benedict Aloisi Masella is congratulated on his eightieth birthday and fortieth episcopal anniversary; the conciliar court of John XXIII encourages solemn local celebrations in Palestrina, the erection of a marble monument in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the renewal of public consecration to her Immaculate Heart, and grants, through Aloisi Masella, a plenary indulgence attached to a pontifical Mass celebrated on the designated day. All is expressed in impeccably courteous Latin, presenting John XXIII as benevolent pastor and Rome as dispenser of spiritual favors. This seemingly harmless epistolary compliment is, in reality, a concentrated symptom of the new religion: the polite ceremonial façade hides the usurpation of authority, the instrumentalization of Marian devotion, and the replacement of the true Roman Church by a paramasonic apparatus celebrating itself.
Sentimental Courtesies as a Mask for Usurped Authority
The letter, dated 24 May 1959, in the first year of John XXIII’s claimed “pontificate,” is short, deferential, and externally pious. It:
– Praises the “faithful of Palestrina” for organizing solemn festivities for Aloisi Masella’s 80th birthday and 40th episcopal anniversary.
– Commends the project to inaugurate a marble monument in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary and to renew the public consecration to her Immaculate Heart.
– Expresses wishes for the bishop’s continued fruitful life.
– Grants to Aloisi Masella the faculty to impart, in John XXIII’s name and by his “authority,” a plenary indulgence to the faithful present at a pontifical Mass, to be gained under usual ecclesiastical conditions.
– Concludes with an “Apostolic Blessing.”
On the surface, nothing appears subversive: honor to a senior prelate, Marian devotion, indulgences, blessings. Yet here precisely lies the refined deceit. The usurpation works not by open denial of dogma, but by the serene assumption that John XXIII is the Roman Pontiff and that his signatures, ceremonies, and favors are the unproblematic continuation of the pre-1958 Magisterium. This quiet continuity is the lie.
Illegitimate Dispenser of Spiritual Treasures
At the factual level, the central claim of the letter is implicit but decisive: John XXIII acts as if he holds the authority of the successor of Peter and can:
– Confirm local initiatives as “pastor of the universal Church.”
– Delegate the power to impart a plenary indulgence “nomine Nostro Nostraque auctoritate” (in Our name and by Our authority).
– Bestow an “Apostolic Blessing” binding on the faithful.
If he is not Pope, these acts are juridically null and spiritually void. The letter is therefore not a benign courtesy but the public exercise of a usurped munus.
Integral Catholic doctrine, expressed by theologians such as St. Robert Bellarmine and reaffirmed in the canonical tradition (1917 Code, can. 188.4), teaches that a manifest heretic cannot hold papal office: *non potest esse caput qui non est membrum* (he cannot be head who is not a member). A structure which, beginning with John XXIII, embraces condemned principles—religious liberty, ecumenism, collegial democratization of the Church, the exaltation of “human dignity” against the social reign of Christ—cannot be the same moral person as the Roman Catholic Church taught by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII.
In this letter, the self-presentation of John XXIII as “IOANNES PP. XXIII” functions as the quiet enthronement of a new authority already oriented toward aggiornamento. There is no doctrinal exposition here, but there is the calm canonical exercise of an authority which, if illegitimate, transforms every such document into evidence of a counterfeit magisterium.
Soft Language Concealing a New Ecclesiology
The very style of the epistle is symptomatic. The Latin is smooth, affectionate, ceremonial, devoid of doctrinal combat. We read of:
– publicis venerationis amorisque significationibus (public signs of veneration and love),
– pia fidelium proposita fervidosque apparatus (pious intentions and fervent preparations),
– paternal wishes that the prelate may enjoy the “use of this life and the fruits of good works” for a long time.
The tone is that of a well-mannered humanist patriarch, not of a Roman Pontiff conscious of being *caput verae Ecclesiae militantis* (head of the true Church militant) in an age of apostasy, Freemasonry, and doctrinal dissolution.
Contrasted with the robust, combative language of Pius IX’s *Syllabus Errorum* and St. Pius X’s *Lamentabili sane exitu* and *Pascendi*, this letter is revealing. Where the pre-1958 Popes:
– Condemn indifferentism, rationalism, and liberalism with precise doctrinal censures,
– Unmask secret societies as the “synagogue of Satan” warring against Christ and His Church,
– Affirm the rights of Christ the King over individuals, families, and states (Pius XI, *Quas Primas*),
John XXIII’s note is entirely devoid of supernatural urgency: no mention of:
– The necessity of the state of grace.
– The horror of mortal sin.
– The danger of modernist errors assailing clergy and people.
– The reign of Christ over temporal society.
– The final judgment or eternal salvation as the true horizon of episcopal life.
This is not an accidental silence; it is a style coherent with a different religion. The letter normalizes a bureaucratic-liturgical Catholicism centered on ceremonies, jubilees, monuments, and blessings, in which dogmatic clarity and anti-modernist militancy are quietly suppressed under a soft, sentimental veneer.
The rhetoric of benevolence without battle is itself a theological signal: the age of doctrinal war, we are told implicitly, has passed; now comes the pastoral age of optimism and universal affirmation. This corresponds exactly to the mentality later codified by the conciliar sect: “opening to the world,” “dialogue,” “respect” for errors instead of their condemnation.
Instrumentalization of Marian Devotion for a Conciliar Agenda
A central element of the letter is the inauguration of a marble monument and renewal of public consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary:
In the noble city of Palestrina a marble monument is to be inaugurated in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and public consecration to her Immaculate Heart will be renewed.
On its face, this is pious. Yet under the conciliar usurpers, Marian language is systematically used to legitimize their authority and to sentimentalize doctrine. Two grave distortions emerge:
1. Marian devotion is framed as a harmonious ornament of ecclesial life, detached from her historical role as Vanquisher of all heresies and Queen against liberal revolution. The document nowhere recalls that:
– Mary is exalted as the one who crushes all heresies in the whole world.
– True devotion to her Immaculate Heart is intrinsically tied to uncompromising fidelity to her Son’s Kingship and the Church’s dogmatic intransigence.
– Modernist manipulation of Marian language often serves to sedate the faithful while they are being led into a new religion.
2. The consecration and monument are placed under the aegis of John XXIII’s “authority,” transforming a true and venerable Marian piety into a visible seal of allegiance to the conciliar regime. The faithful are thus habituated to see Marian gestures as ratifying the legitimacy of the usurpers. This is not authentic Marian spirituality; it is its exploitation.
The integral Catholic position: any consecration, monument, or devotion invoked as an implicit endorsement of a pseudo-magisterium is objectively misdirected. Marian symbols are here harnessed to a project that from 1959 onward will demolish scholastic theology, liturgy, and the public reign of Christ, replacing them with precisely those ideas condemned in the *Syllabus* and *Lamentabili*.
Indulgence as Empty Form in a Counterfeit Economy of Grace
John XXIII grants Aloisi Masella the faculty:
…ut in dioecesi Praenestina, die constituta, post Sacrum pontificali ritu peractum, adstantibus fidelibus nomine Nostro Nostraque auctoritate benedicas plenariam indulgentiam iisdem proponens, ad Ecclesiae praescripta lucrandam.
(“…that in the Diocese of Palestrina, on the appointed day, after the Holy Sacrifice celebrated in pontifical rite, you may bless in Our name and by Our authority, in the presence of the faithful, granting a plenary indulgence to be gained according to the prescriptions of the Church.”)
Key points:
– The letter presupposes John XXIII holds the power of the keys and can attach indulgences.
– If he is a usurper and if the “structures occupying the Vatican” constitute a conciliar sect, then this claim is void. One cannot distribute the treasures of the Church from outside the Church.
– The faithful are trained to regard participation in ceremonies under the conciliar hierarchy as channels of grace, thus binding piety to apostate structures.
This is the first stage of a new sacramental economy: externally similar forms (Mass, indulgence, episcopal honors) are retained while authority, doctrine, and ultimately the rite itself (after 1969) are subverted. The process is gradual: at this 1959 stage, the Most Holy Sacrifice is still externally the traditional rite, but the power directing it is already oriented toward doctrinal revolution. What appears as continuity of indulgenced worship is in fact a bridge for leading souls from the Catholic order into the Church of the New Advent.
The theological principle remains: *fons indulgentiarum est vera potestas clavium in vera Ecclesia* (the source of indulgences is the true power of the keys in the true Church). Outside that, the promises are empty, and their use becomes a tool of deception. Thus the letter, under the guise of spiritual generosity, binds consciences to a counterfeit authority.
Episcopal Self-Celebration Instead of Militant Pastoral Office
The letter is provoked by the clergy and faithful of Palestrina wishing to celebrate their bishop. John XXIII not only approves; he “honors with merited praise” the plans of public veneration and elaborated festivities:
Quae quidem pia fidelium proposita fervidosque apparatus non modo Nostra probatione confirmamus, sed merita laude honestamus…
There is no warning against clerical self-glorification; no reminder that episcopal dignity consists in guarding the deposit of faith *usque ad sanguinem* (even unto blood); no call to penance, catechesis, or resistance to modern errors. Instead:
– The bishop’s longevity is celebrated as such.
– The public cult of personality blends with Marian imagery and indulgences.
This inversion of priorities is subtle but deadly. Pre-1958 Popes, when praising bishops, inserted doctrinal exhortations, insisted on vigilance against heresy, and recalled their grave duty as successors of the Apostles. Here, the emphasis is on human milestones and ceremonies. It is the beginning of the episcopal caste as ceremonial dignitaries of a humanistic religion, rather than generals in the Church militant.
This mentality matures in the conciliar sect, where “bishops” preside over endless assemblies, anniversaries, and photo-op liturgies while tolerating or promoting catechetical ruin, moral dissolution, and sacrilegious rites. The document, though very brief, is already impregnated with this spirit: episcopal existence as a festivity, not as a crucified guardianship of divine truth.
Silence on the Reign of Christ the King and the Condemned Liberal Order
The context: 1959. The world is dominated by secular states, Masonic influence, communist regimes, and liberal democracies imposing laicism. The encyclical *Quas Primas* (Pius XI) had solemnly taught that:
– True peace and order are impossible unless states recognize and publicly honor Christ the King.
– Secularism and the exclusion of Christ from public life are mortal plagues to be condemned.
In the letter to Aloisi Masella, however, the horizon is purely intra-ecclesial: a diocesan event, a monument, an indulgenced celebration. There is:
– No word that these celebrations must witness to the rights of Christ over society.
– No exhortation that civil authorities and public life in Palestrina submit to the law of God and His Church.
– No reference to the battle against Freemasonry and liberalism so forcefully denounced by Pius IX.
Instead, the Church is implicitly portrayed as a spiritual-cultural body celebrating its own internal anniversaries. This is the exact shift condemned by Pius XI: replacing the militant assertion of Christ’s public kingship with a privatized piety. Such silence is not neutral; it is complicity with the liberal order.
From the perspective of unchanging doctrine, such omissions in official documents at that historical moment are not excusable politeness. They are signs of orientation: from the Church that anathematizes liberalism to the neo-church that blesses “religious freedom,” “dialogue,” and the rights of man over the rights of Christ.
Conciliar Symptom: Ceremonial Continuity Serving Doctrinal Revolution
This letter fits precisely into the staged strategy later fully visible:
1. Stage of Apparent Continuity:
– Keep Latin, talk of indulgences, invoke the Blessed Virgin, praise diocesan clergy.
– Avoid open contradiction of previous dogmas.
– Modify the tone: no more anathemas, no more named enemies, only pastoral sweetness.
2. Stage of Doctrinal Reorientation:
– Convene and promote an ecumenical council aimed at aggiornamento.
– Introduce principles explicitly condemned: collegiality, religious liberty, ecumenism with heretics and schismatics, anthropocentrism.
3. Stage of Liturgical and Disciplinary Subversion:
– Fabricate new rites of “Mass” and “sacraments” which dilute or contradict Catholic theology of sacrifice, priesthood, and grace.
– Fill episcopal sees with men aligned to the new program.
– Use the same external titles and structures to mask the internal rupture.
The 24 May 1959 letter is a specimen of stage one: ceremonial Catholicism as a vehicle for a new orientation. While citing no explicit error, it habituates the faithful and clergy to accept John XXIII as legitimate Pope, to attach indulgences and Marian devotion to his authority, and to celebrate a clergy that will soon become the instrument of conciliar revolution.
Thus, its theological bankruptcy lies not in overt heresy, but in:
– The usurped exercise of papal functions.
– The exploitation of sacred forms without the Catholic intention to defend the deposit.
– The symptomatic absence of militant doctrine precisely where modernism and liberalism are ravaging the Church and society.
Integral Catholic Response: Reject the Masked Continuity
Measured by the standard of pre-1958 magisterium:
– The Church is a *societas perfecta* (perfect society) with divine constitution, possessing inalienable rights against secular states (Pius IX, *Syllabus*).
– Dogma does not evolve; any attempt to adapt it to “modern man” is the essence of Modernism (St. Pius X, *Lamentabili*, *Pascendi*).
– The papacy cannot be reduced to a ceremonial presidency of a world-religious federation sympathetic to liberalism.
– Marian devotion, indulgences, and episcopal honors must be subordinated to the defense of the faith and salvation of souls, not to the self-legitimation of a conciliar sect.
Therefore:
– The authority claimed in this letter must be denied. A line of usurpers beginning with John XXIII cannot dispense indulgences nor bind consciences with “apostolic” blessings.
– Marian consecrations and public devotions orchestrated under such usurped authority, instead of being sources of grace, risk becoming tools of deception, attaching piety to a counter-magisterium.
– The sweet tone of the letter is not a sign of charity, but of dereliction: no mention of the doctrinal war that the Popes before 1958 still waged; no guarding of the flock against wolves, but a gentle pat on the back of shepherds soon to open the fold.
In sum, this brief epistle is a crystalline microcosm of the conciliar sect’s method: retain the language of devotion, strip it of its militant dogmatic edge, place it at the service of a paramasonic structure, and thus accustom souls to confuse the Church of Christ with the Church of the New Advent. Against such perfidious continuity, the only Catholic stance is an unambiguous refusal of the usurped authority and a return to the doctrinal and liturgical integrity upheld by the pre-1958 Magisterium.
Source:
Fideles Praenestini – Ad Benedictum S. R. E. Card. Aloisi Masella, Episcopum praenestinum, Patriarchalis Basilicae Lateranensis Archipresbiterum ac Sacrae Congregationis de Disciplina Sacramentorum Pr… (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025