Dated 16 December 1960, this very brief Latin chirograph of antipope John XXIII congratulates Ignatius Gabriel Tappouni, Syrian Patriarch of Antioch, on the fiftieth anniversary of his being clothed with the Roman purple, praising his fidelity to the Roman See and imparting an “Apostolic Benediction” for him and his flock.
Glorification of the Conciliar Usurper and the Eastern Appendage
The text appears, at first glance, almost negligible: a few courteous phrases, a paternal tone, a date and a signature. Yet precisely in such seemingly innocuous notes the *mens* of the conciliar revolution reveals itself. This is not an isolated pleasantry; it is a micro-manifesto of the new religion that would shortly be enthroned at the robber council convoked by John XXIII, the first in the uninterrupted line of usurpers sitting in the occupied Vatican since 1958.
The core lines of the chirograph can be rendered:
“To 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, We heartily offer congratulations, for the merits by which through so many years he, firmly bound in fidelity to the See of Peter, has provided for the benefit and adornment of the Church; and expressing good wishes, that, strengthened by heavenly grace, joyful in hope, vigorous 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 entrusted to him.”
Each word is calculated; each silence is deafening. There is praise of “merits,” “adornment,” “purple,” “fidelity” to John XXIII’s “See,” and a sugary “Apostolic Benediction.” There is no mention of *the Kingship of Christ over nations*, no confession of the *integral, exclusive truth of the Catholic religion*, no warning against the rising tidal wave of laicism, socialism, and masonic infiltration denounced by Pius IX and Pius X, no assertion of the duty of Eastern Catholics to reject schism, heresy, and indifferentism. This is not an oversight; it is a programmatic omission.
What presents itself externally as an edifying paternal note is in reality a tiny but luminous tessera of the new mosaic: the transformation of the Papacy from the organ of Christ the King and guardian of dogma into a ceremonial notary who validates ecclesiastical careers and cultivates a sentimental, decorative “unity” compatible with Modernism and ecumenism.
Praise of Purple Instead of Confession of Faith
At the factual level, the document does almost nothing but:
– underline the “Roman purple” bestowed in 1935;
– exalt “merits” in relation to the Roman See as understood by John XXIII;
– offer assurances of “good omens” and “heavenly grace” for continued pastoral work;
– extend an “Apostolic Benediction” to the patriarch and his flock.
None of these elements are evil in themselves when situated in the true Church: honor given to worthy pastors, the Roman Pontiff’s blessing, the recognition of genuine fidelity. But here the entire logic is inverted:
– The standard of evaluation is not explicit doctrinal integrity, but external loyalty to the person and policy of John XXIII.
– The silence regarding the dogmatic primacy of the Roman Pontiff as defined by Vatican I (*Pastor aeternus*) is striking. The patriarch’s fidelity is praised, but never anchored in those immutable definitions. Instead of reiterating that communion with Peter means unconditional submission to divinely assisted magisterium, the text reduces communion to an affective, horizontal loyalty to the reigning person and the “adornment” of the Church.
– The focus on “Romana Purpura” reveals the new optics: ecclesiastical dignity as a badge in an emerging conciliar aristocracy. The Church becomes an aesthetic object (*decus*), not the militant *Societas perfecta* charged with subjugating nations to Christ the King.
Integral Catholic teaching places honors and titles strictly in subordination to the defense and proclamation of dogma. Pius IX in the *Syllabus* rejects the liberal dissolution of the Church into a mere moral authority alongside the state; Pius XI in *Quas primas* teaches that peace and order are possible only when individuals and states publicly recognize the reign of Christ. Here, no such horizon appears. The patriarch is lauded without a single reference to the obligation to combat heresy, secularism, socialism, Freemasonry or the errors of religious liberty and ecumenism that were already in full advance and that the pre-1958 Magisterium had mercilessly condemned.
The message: career and courtesy first; doctrine, if mentioned at all, deferred to decorative formulas. This is theological bankruptcy disguised as etiquette.
Soft Bureaucratic Latin as Vehicle of Apostasizing Humanism
The linguistic texture is clinically revealing. Consider the principal expressions:
– “ex animo gratulamur” – we heartily congratulate.
– “merita, quibus … Ecclesiae emolumento et decori consuluit” – merits by which he has cared for the advantage and adornment of the Church.
– “bona omina facientes” – expressing good omens.
– “spe laetus, viribus integer” – joyful in hope, vigorous in strength.
– “Apostolicam Benedictionem … peramanter impertimus” – we most lovingly impart the Apostolic Benediction.
Absent are the strong categories that mark pre-1958 papal language when addressing pastors:
– no mention of *fides catholica integra ac inviolata* (the Catholic faith integral and inviolate);
– no exhortation to guard the flock against named heresies;
– no insistence on the condemnation of indifferentism, naturalism, liberalism, Modernism, socialism or secret societies, all solemnly proscribed by the authentic Magisterium (cf. Pius IX, *Syllabus*; Leo XIII, *Humanum genus*; St. Pius X, *Lamentabili*, *Pascendi*);
– no reminder that the episcopal and patriarchal office is a charge to suffer and fight for truth, not to bask in purple.
Instead, the patriarch is celebrated for contributing to the “adornment” of the Church, as though the Bride of Christ needed liturgical and institutional cosmetics rather than uncompromising defense of dogma in an age of rebellion. It is the rhetoric of a cultured ecclesiastical bureaucracy, not of the successors of the Apostles who warned that *“even if an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which you have received, let him be anathema”* (Gal 1:8).
This sugary register is not accidental; it embodies the anthropocentric, irenic, and horizontal orientation that would penetrate all conciliar sect documents: sentimental benevolence replacing the supernatural seriousness of salvation and damnation.
Silence on Christ the King: A Condemnation by Omission
The gravest accusation is the silence. In 1960, the world was saturated with those very errors denounced by the true Popes:
– states throwing off all public profession of the Catholic religion;
– the cult of “religious liberty” and pluralism advancing in legislation;
– Marxism and socialism attacking the natural and divine order;
– Freemasonry, described by Pius IX as the “synagogue of Satan,” operating in politics, academia, and within ecclesiastical circles;
– Modernism, “the synthesis of all heresies” (St. Pius X, *Pascendi*), infiltrating seminaries and theological faculties.
The Syrian patriarchate faced the permanent threat of Islam, secular Arab nationalism, and dangerous “ecumenical” currents with monophysite and schismatic groups. The only truly Catholic response is that laid down by the pre-1958 Magisterium:
– insist on the exclusive truth of the Catholic Church and the necessity of union with the See of Peter as defined by Vatican I;
– form clergy and laity in anti-liberal, anti-modernist doctrine;
– preach the social Kingship of Christ and reject the error of the separation of Church and state (*Syllabus* 55, condemned);
– condemn as pernicious any leveling of Catholic truth with Eastern schisms and heresies.
Yet the chirograph:
– does not mention the necessity of conversion of heretics, schismatics, Jews, Muslims, or pagans;
– does not sharpen the patriarch’s responsibility to guard against false ecumenism;
– does not call him to oppose the laicization of states or to demand civil recognition of Christ and His Church;
– does not recall the solemn condemnations of Modernism, though many of its infected were already raising their heads in the East and West.
This is not innocent brevity. *Qui tacet consentire videtur* (he who is silent is seen to consent). The text’s omissions align perfectly with the new agenda: replacing the hard edges of dogmatic militancy with diplomatic courtesies, preparing minds to accept the conciliar betrayal of the Kingship of Christ in Dignitatis humanae and the ensuing ecumenical delirium.
Pius XI taught with crystalline clarity that peace cannot shine upon nations until they recognize and submit to the reign of Christ the King. Here, John XXIII christens a purely immanent “good omen,” devoid of reference to that royal and juridical dominion; his words could be applauded by any religious liberal.
Transformation of Hierarchy into Conciliar Ornament
The document praises Tappouni as one “firmly bound” to the See of Peter and credits him with providing for the “benefit and adornment” of the Church over many years. But given that the signatory is John XXIII, this “fidelity” in fact means:
– acceptance of the new ecumenical and irenic orientation;
– submission to the project of convoking a “pastoral council” whose very presuppositions contradict the spirit of Trent and Vatican I;
– integration into the emerging paramasonic structure in which Eastern rites serve as folkloric ornaments, proof of a “pluralistic” catholicity shorn of dogmatic exclusivity.
The patriarch is useful as a symbol: an Eastern hierarch, cardinal in purple, apparently in harmony with Roman central authority. Yet this authority is no longer that of Pius IX, who anathematized the dreams of a national or collegial church independent of the Papacy, nor that of Pius X, who silenced Modernism. It is the authority of a usurper who deliberately muted doctrinal condemnations in favor of “aggiornamento.”
Thus the praise of “adornment” is tragically precise: the patriarch, and with him the Eastern churches in union with Rome, are reduced to ornaments legitimizing the new conciliar ideology. The hierarchical structure is maintained externally but emptied of its original supernatural function: *custodire depositum* (to guard the deposit).
The whole scene depicts the neo-church’s modus operandi:
– preserve traditional vestments, titles, and ritual politeness;
– evacuate their content by eliminating explicit dogmatic and anti-modernist language;
– fill the vacuum with humanitarian well-wishes, psychological encouragement, and flowery blessings.
In this sense, the chirograph is a perfect miniature of the coming pseudo-council: everything styled as continuity, everything hollowed out from within.
Repudiation of Pre-1958 Magisterium by Practice
The pre-1958 Magisterium is unequivocal:
– Pius IX in the *Syllabus* rejects indifferentism, the separation of Church and state, and the notion that the Pontiff should “reconcile himself” to liberalism and modern civilization (prop. 80 condemned).
– Leo XIII in *Humanum genus* and others exposes masonic sects and their program for subverting Church and society.
– St. Pius X in *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi* condemns the very principles that would inform the aggiornamento: dogmatic evolution, historical relativism, reduction of faith to religious experience.
– Pius XI in *Quas primas* defines the social Kingship of Christ and denounces laicism as a plague.
If John XXIII were a true successor of Peter, his chirograph to a patriarch in 1960—on the cusp of so many assaults on the faith—would reflect this doctrinal continuity: an exhortation to defend dogma, to oppose religious liberty errors, to resist secularization, to guard the flock from Modernism and socialism, and to uphold the integral Catholic faith against Eastern heresies and Western liberalism.
Instead, we find:
– no echo of the *Syllabus*;
– no echo of *Pascendi*;
– no echo of *Quas primas*;
– only a gentle, sentimental, innocuous note that could have been issued by any religious humanist presiding over an ecumenical federation.
By practice—*lex orandi, lex credendi*—the chirograph witnesses to a rupture. The office is still named “Apostolic,” but its exercise and language betray a new spirit incompatible with the previous condemnations. This contradiction cannot be camouflaged by Latin niceties.
Apostolic Benediction as Mask of a Non-Apostolic Authority
Finally, the climax of the note: the “Apostolic Benediction.” Within the true Church, such a blessing is a real participation in the spiritual authority of Peter, carrying efficacy for those rightly disposed. But blessing presupposes authority from Christ and the profession of the true faith. *Non potest dare quod non habet* (one cannot give what one does not have).
When issued by one who inaugurates a council to soften, relativize, and quietly set aside the anti-modernist and anti-liberal bulwark of his predecessors; who orients the Church toward religious liberty and ecumenical equalization; who models the new posture of “dialogue” with error condemned by the *Syllabus*—such a so-called blessing becomes part of an abusive appropriation of Catholic signs in the service of a different religion.
The very ease with which John XXIII pronounces such a blessing upon a patriarch and flock without reminding them of the militant demands of the faith exposes the orientation: pastoral comfort without doctrinal combat, unity without truth, sacral language without supernatural content. This is precisely the pattern that would blossom into the “Church of the New Advent,” where sacraments, liturgy, and titles are simulated while doctrine is diluted.
Concluding Unmasking: A Tiny Cipher of the Larger Betrayal
This short chirograph is not important because of its length, but because of its purity as a specimen:
– It combines traditional vesture (Latin, purple, patriarchal dignity) with modernist omissions.
– It showcases the reduction of the Papacy to a dispenser of polite encouragement and decorative blessings.
– It instrumentalizes an Eastern hierarch as ornament for a pseudo-Roman authority preparing to enthrone religious liberty, false ecumenism, and the cult of man.
– It offers zero reference to the condemning force of prior Magisterium, thus functionally treating it as obsolete.
In the light of unchanging Catholic doctrine, such a note is not charming; it is chilling. It attests that already in 1960 the structures occupying the Vatican were using the language of fatherhood to conceal a program of silent repeal of the anti-liberal, anti-modernist stand of the true Church. Under the veil of congratulating one man for fifty years of purple, the antichurch normalizes its own counterfeit apostolicity.
The faithful who love Christ the King and venerate the authentic Magisterium before 1958 must read such documents not as benign archival curiosities, but as early tremors of the earthquake that would shake the visible structures and enthrone the “abomination of desolation” in the holy place. Where Christ’s social reign is unsaid, where Modernist errors go uncondemned, where titles and blessings are expended without dogmatic clarity, there operates not the spirit of Peter, but the spirit of dissolution.
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, d… (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025