John XXIII’s Latin letter to Joseph Urtasun for the Avignon commemorations superficially praises Innocent VI and Urban V as exemplary pontiffs, celebrates their Avignon sojourn as providentially useful for peace and ecclesiastical discipline, and culminates in an exhortation to esteem the papal office and unite spiritually with Rome, especially in view of the impending Second Vatican Council, depicted as a source of grace for the whole human family. Its polished rhetoric, however, functions as a veneer to legitimize the conciliar revolution and the authority of a manifest modernist usurper by parasitically invoking genuine pre-modern papal figures and the traditional theology of the papacy that he is simultaneously preparing to subvert.
Appropriating Tradition to Crown Revolution
This letter is an official act of John XXIII, the inaugurator of the conciliar upheaval. The very form is revealing: an apparently innocuous commemorative epistle that quietly performs three operations:
– It wraps John XXIII in the mantle of Avignon popes recognized by the true Church.
– It reaffirms a lofty doctrine of the Roman Pontiff as Christi Vicarius and “head indivisible” precisely while the author prepares and convokes the assembly that will dissolve this doctrine in practice.
– It presents the coming Vatican II as a providential extension of the same papal authority and continuity, thereby canonizing rupture under the label of “tradition.”
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, this is not a harmless historical homage; it is a calculated misuse of authentic Catholic doctrine as a façade for the nascent *conciliar sect*.
Historical Evocation as Instrument of Legitimation
On the factual plane, the letter rehearses a series of points:
– Innocent VI (Etienne Aubert) is praised for juridical competence, efforts to restore ecclesiastical discipline, promotion of religious life, concern for Rome, and his mandate to Cardinal Albornoz to prepare the restoration of papal temporal authority.
– His burial and later solemn translation of his remains back to the restored Villeneuve-lès-Avignon charterhouse, with the approval of the “Apostolic See,” are recounted as a sign of continuity.
– Urban V (Guillaume de Grimoard) is extolled as a Benedictine, learned and austere, created pope while traveling in Italy on Roman business, who accepted election “cum tremore et timore,” supported letters and arts, sought unity with Eastern Christians, came to Rome, then under pressure returned to Avignon, and was honored as Blessed (confirmation of cult by Pius IX).
– From these two figures, John XXIII draws an exhortation: the faithful should learn to esteem the papal office and adhere to it wholeheartedly, citing St Bonaventure’s strong language on the primacy: “primus et summus pater spiritualis… caput indivisum, Pontifex summus, Christi vicarius”.
– He then relativizes historical crises (including non-Roman residence) as providential trials, quoting Augustine on God not abandoning His Church.
– Finally, he claims that in contemporary times many—even non-Catholics—turn their eyes to Rome, disillusioned by worldly ideologies, recognizing that in the “chair of unity” the doctrine of truth is placed, and he connects this directly to the upcoming Second Vatican Council as a universal blessing for Church and humanity, asking for prayers in Avignon for its success.
This chain is presented as a seamless tapestry of continuity. The key deceit: the author uses genuine papal and patristic affirmations to sanction an enterprise—Vatican II—that, in its texts and implementation, undermines precisely the dogmatic papal primacy, ecclesiology, and social kingship he cites.
Bureaucratic Piety and the Absent Supernatural
The linguistic and tonal character of the letter exposes its internal duplicity.
1. Aestheticized, horizontal emphasis:
– The text warmly notes how Avignon residence allowed popes “to promote peace among rulers” and to foster letters and arts. These are legitimate secondary goods, but they are foregrounded as if diplomatic mediation and cultural patronage were the distinctive fruits of pontifical mission.
– The letter praises the civil authorities of France for restoring the monastery and organizing solemn translation of Innocent VI’s remains, subtly harmonizing spiritual significance with modern secular power. There is not a single serious admonition about the duty of states to submit to the reign of Christ the King and reject the anti-Christian laicism condemned in the Syllabus of Errors.
2. Calculated deployment of high theology:
– St Bonaventure is invoked: the pope as “primus et summus pater spiritualis… caput indivisum, Christi vicarius”. The language is accurately traditional. Yet placed in the mouth of one who will convoke an assembly to dilute his own claimed supremacy into collegial “co-responsibility” and to subordinate the exercise of authority to “dialogue,” it becomes a mask.
– Augustine is cited to present past dislocations (non-residence in Rome) as providential shakings through which God confirms His Church on the rock. The implication: present turmoils around the council and its “aggiornamento” are likewise divine pedagogy, thus immunizing future doctrinal novelties from criticism.
3. The telltale silence:
– There is no call to penance, no emphasis on the necessity of the state of grace, no mention of the Four Last Things, no insistence on the dogmatic obligation to reject condemned errors. The sacraments appear only marginally and historically.
– The letter thematically orbits around “esteem for the papal office,” historical memory, and an upcoming “conventus” that will benefit “the entire human community.” This horizontal, communitarian language prefigures precisely the anthropocentric accents of the conciliar and post-conciliar texts.
– In a context where Pius IX’s Syllabus and St Pius X’s Lamentabili and Pascendi had already denounced the modern errors tearing Christian society apart, the omission of any reference to these binding condemnations is itself a grave symptom.
In Catholic terms, maxima accusatio est silentium supernaturalis ordinis (the greatest indictment is silence on the supernatural order). When an official papal letter uses high ecclesiological rhetoric yet omits the concrete hard edges of dogma and moral obligation, it catechizes the faithful into a sentimental cult of office detached from its doctrinal content.
Doctrinal Parasitism: Using True Papal Theology to Support a Usurper
At the theological core, the text commits a more serious maneuver: it borrows exact formulas of true doctrine to fortify the legitimacy of a man and a process that systematically oppose that doctrine.
1. Authentic doctrine quoted:
– Traditional papal teaching, especially from the ultramontane 19th century, affirms:
– The Roman Pontiff is the visible head, universal pastor, and Vicar of Christ.
– The See of Peter is the “chair of truth,” to which all must submit (cf. Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus).
– The unity of the Church and the stability of dogma are guaranteed through this divinely instituted primacy.
– Pius XI in Quas Primas insists that peace and order are only possible where Christ reigns socially and publicly; Pius IX in the Syllabus condemns religious indifferentism, the separation of Church and State, and the subordination of the Church to liberal modernity.
2. How John XXIII twists this:
– He accurately extols the papacy as supreme spiritual fatherhood and indivisible headship—and immediately channels this toward uncritical acceptance of Vatican II as the next self-evident act of the same authority.
– But Vatican II, convoked and directed by John XXIII and his successors in the conciliar sect, promulgated principles directly incompatible with the pre-1958 Magisterium:
– The affirmation of a right to public exercise of false religions (“religious liberty” as in Dignitatis humanae) flatly contradicts the Syllabus propositions 15, 77-80.
– The ecumenical and collegial orientation dissolves the exclusive identity of the Catholic Church and subverts papal monarchy, in tension with Vatican I.
– The “opening to the world,” cult of human dignity detached from Christ, and embrace of modern political forms are those very errors condemned by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St Pius X.
– Thus the letter functions as theological bait: “Since the Pope is Christ’s Vicar, and since Vatican II proceeds from the Pope, Vatican II is guaranteed.” The appeal to Bonaventure and Augustine becomes a rhetorical trap to disarm resistance to the impending revolution.
This is the hallmark of Modernism as condemned by St Pius X: errors masked inside orthodox-sounding formulas, employing traditional vocabulary while altering the underlying meaning and practical consequences. Lamentabili and Pascendi expose exactly this method: doctrinal evolution, relativization of dogma under historical pretexts, and reduction of the faith to a living experience shaped by contemporary needs. John XXIII’s letter is a miniature of that strategy.
From Avignon to Vatican II: False Continuity and the Conciliar Sect
The symptomatic level reveals how the text situates the conciliar project as heir to authentic historical trials:
– Avignon residence, though irregular, did not entail doctrinal rupture; the same faith, sacraments, and condemnation of heresy remained.
– The letter suggests that just as Providence used those atypical circumstances, so now Providence uses the modern situation and an ecumenical council to bring new graces to the Church and “the whole human community.”
This analogy is specious.
1. Nature of the Avignon papacy:
– Innocent VI and Urban V governed with the same doctrine as their predecessors; they did not redefine the Church’s relation to error, did not propose universal religious liberty, did not dilute the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation. Their failings were circumstantial, not dogmatic.
– Pius IX’s later confirmation of Urban V’s cult demonstrates continuity with the same integral faith.
2. Nature of the conciliar revolution:
– The so-called Vatican II, prepared and then implemented by John XXIII and his successors in the neo-church, constituted a systemic reorientation:
– It legitimated “dialogue” with sects and false religions in a manner irreconcilable with the Syllabus’ rejection of indifferentism.
– It replaced the language of Christ’s universal kingship and the Church’s exclusive salvific mediation with ambiguous formulas about subsistence and shared elements.
– It promoted the democratization and horizontalization of ecclesial life condemned by previous popes.
3. Mechanism of deceit:
– By invoking Augustine’s assurance that God does not abandon His Church and using language about the “chair of unity” as source of light and strength, the letter suggests: “Whatever comes from this See now—especially the council—is necessarily guided by God.”
– But Catholic theology clearly teaches (and the sources in the provided material emphasize) that:
– A manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church or remain in office; he ceases to be a member and thus cannot be its head.
– No authority has power to teach errors contrary to the already defined Magisterium; if such teaching appears, it is proof not of a new guidance of the Holy Spirit but of a usurping structure.
– Therefore, when a man uses papal language to authorize what contradicts prior infallible teaching, he unmasks himself not as successor of Peter but as a foreign body occupying the structures.
John XXIII’s letter is precisely such an act: he appeals to the solemn, pre-conciliar doctrine of the papacy while laying the groundwork for its practical nullification through Vatican II. The continuity claimed is rhetorical, not real.
Horizontal Universalism and the Eclipse of Christ the King
A particularly grave subtext emerges in the closing sections, where John XXIII speaks of:
“multi homines… ex iis etiam, qui catholico non censentur nomine, oculos tollunt [ad hanc Romanam arcem]… perspectum enim habent vana esse et cassa saeculi huius praesidia… hinc lucem emitti… viresque suppeditari… Peculiari vero studio iidem ad Romanam hanc Sedem in praesenti convertuntur, quod hic… Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum Secundum…”
Translation: many, including non-Catholics, raise their eyes to Rome, see worldly supports as vain, recognize that from the chair of unity comes truth and strength, and turn especially now toward Rome because of Vatican II.
At first glance this seems pious. But measured against authentic doctrine:
– Pius XI in Quas Primas teaches that peace and social restoration depend on the explicit public reign of Christ the King and the acknowledgment of His law by individuals and states. The remedy for modern chaos is return to the integral reign of Christ through His one true Church, not a humanistic gathering that “benefits the entire human community” by affirming natural dignity while muting exclusive claims.
– Pius IX in the Syllabus definitively condemns:
– The notion that all religions can be equally professed.
– The idea that civil and social order can be built on religious neutrality.
– The reconciliation of the Papacy with liberal, Masonic notions of progress.
John XXIII, in this letter, does not explicitly teach those condemned errors, but he carefully prepares their acceptance:
– By speaking of Vatican II as a gift “even for all humanity,” he shifts focus from conversion of individuals and nations to Catholic truth, toward a vague universal uplift.
– By stressing how non-Catholics look to Rome while omitting any mention that their salvation requires entry into the one true Church, he habituates the faithful to a non-confrontational, irenic, and ultimately indifferentist posture.
Thus the letter exhibits the classic modernist displacement: from the supernatural sovereignty of Christ over nations to a spiritualized humanitarian influence of Rome among peoples. It is a muted denial of Quas Primas’ central thesis: “Peace is only possible in the kingdom of Christ”, concretely realized in the Catholic social and doctrinal order, not in a religiously neutral “family of nations.”
The Cult of Office without the Content of Faith
One of the most striking aspects is the letter’s insistent call for adhesion to the papal office:
“Christifideles… causam accipient et invitamentum Summum Pontificatum recte aestimandi eique toto animo adhaerendi; qua in re dignitas ipsa munusque ipsum imprimis sunt consideranda…”
The faithful are urged to:
– Correctly esteem the papacy.
– Adhere to it wholeheartedly.
– Contemplate primarily the dignity and office, not (significantly) the doctrinal content of what the incumbent teaches.
Placed in 1962, on the eve of Vatican II, this appeal is extremely revealing. It prepares Catholics to:
– Suspend critical judgment with respect to the perennial Magisterium.
– Accept as binding whatever comes from the man they are told is “Christ’s Vicar,” even if it deviates from past teaching.
– Transform the papal office into a quasi-charismatic oracle whose every novelty must be received as the voice of the Holy Spirit.
But according to pre-1958 Catholic theology:
– The authority of the pope is absolute only within the bounds of the deposit of faith. He is the servant of Tradition, not its creator.
– If a teaching manifestly contradicts prior definitive doctrine, the faithful must hold to what has been always taught; they cannot be bound to error by any office.
– The Magisterium condemns the idea that the Church’s faith evolves by accommodation to modern thought (cf. Lamentabili propositions 58-65, condemned; Pascendi).
John XXIII’s call for unconditional adherence, detached from explicit reaffirmation of these limits, is an invitation to blind obedience to future innovations. It is an inversion: veneration of the shell of papal authority empties it of the traditional content that alone justifies obedience.
Ecclesial Romanticism and the Erasure of Militant Catholicism
The refined literary style, citations of Augustine and Bonaventure, evocations of medieval monasteries and saints, all serve a sentimental romanticism:
– The Church is presented as a venerable, almost aesthetic continuity of monuments, memories, and liturgical celebrations.
– The real, militant, dogmatic Church—the one that anathematizes heresy, condemns Masonic sects, and binds consciences—is conspicuously absent.
– Reference to modern persecutions, to state hostility, to the infiltration of secret societies so lucidly described by Pius IX in the appended Syllabus context, is omitted.
In an age already ravaged by secularism, socialism, and religious liberalism, such a letter from someone sitting in the Roman See would, if genuine, have been expected to:
– Recall the condemnations of the errors afflicting France and Europe.
– Warn civil powers that honoring the remains of a medieval pope while legislating against Christ is hypocrisy.
– Enjoin bishops and faithful to resist doctrinal corruption, especially modernism.
Instead, we find a serene, diplomatic, almost touristic contemplation of Avignon’s monuments, culminating in praise of an ecumenical council designed precisely to “reconcile” the Church with the modern world condemned by Pius IX and St Pius X. This is not negligence; it is programmatic erasure.
Conclusion: An Elegant Mask for the Abomination of Desolation
When subjected to the criteria of unchanging Catholic doctrine prior to 1958, John XXIII’s “Duplicis anniversariae” reveals itself as:
– Not a faithful continuation of Innocent VI and Urban V, but an instrumental appropriation of their memory to shore up the authority of a conciliar process that would contradict the very principles they embodied.
– Not an expression of the papal magisterium guarding Tradition, but a modernist rhetorical device: affirm the highest theology of the papacy in words, in order to deploy the office as an engine for transforming doctrine under the guise of continuity.
– Not a supernatural call to conversion and the social reign of Christ, but a horizontal, soft-focus appeal to a humanity vaguely looking to Rome for inspiration, in preparation for the “Church of the New Advent,” the paramasonic structure that would enthrone man where Christ should reign.
The letter’s gravest fault is its weaponization of truth in the service of error: it borrows orthodox formulas to demand adhesion to a project that would empty those formulas of meaning. In doing so, it is a paradigm of the conciliar sect’s method: an elegant mask placed over the approaching abomination of desolation in the holy place.
Source:
Duplicis anniversariae – Ad Iosephum Urtasun, Archiepiscopum Avenionensem, sexto exacto saeculo a pio Innocentii Pp. VI obitu et B. Urbani Pp. V ad Petri Sedem electione (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025