Dated January 31, 1959, this Latin letter of John XXIII designates Gregory Peter Agagianian, then Armenian Patriarch and head of the Congregation of Propaganda Fide, as papal legate to preside over a Marian Congress in Saigon, linked to the Lourdes apparitions and enriched with plenary indulgences for the faithful of Vietnam, praising confidence in the Immaculate and promising spiritual benefits under his name and authority. The entire text, though wrapped in pious language, is a strategic consolidation of the nascent conciliar revolution: a sentimental Marian scenery masking the authority-void usurpation of the Apostolic See and conditioning the faithful to accept a new, pseudo-Catholic cult built on apparitionism, psychologized devotion, and papal personality rather than the immutable faith of the Church.
Exeunte Iubilari: Marian Ornament for a Vacant Throne
The Factual Shell: Marian Congress, Political Theater, and Manufactured Legitimacy
John XXIII’s letter can be summarised in its own essential moves:
– He recalls the Marian jubilee in honour of Lourdes.
– He praises the Vietnamese bishops for convoking a solemn Marian Congress in Saigon.
– He extols trust in the Immaculate Virgin as the channel of “all the treasures of Redemption.”
– He appoints Cardinal Agagianian as his legate to preside, in his name and with his authority.
– He grants the legate faculty to impart the Apostolic Blessing with plenary indulgence to those who attend under the usual conditions.
On the surface nothing appears novel: Marian piety, missionary solicitude, indulgences, careful mention of suffering Catholics. This is precisely the danger. The text functions as a liturgical-political seal upon the usurpation inaugurated in 1958: it drapes a Marian veil over a new regime that has already begun to prepare the demolition of integral Catholic doctrine.
Historically verifiable points (all checkable from the reproduced text and AAS 51 [1959], pp. 88–89):
– John XXIII styles himself as Roman Pontiff and issues a letter to Agagianian appointing him legate.
– The context is a Marian Congress in Saigon tied to Lourdes.
– Indulgences are attached under his claimed authority.
None of this proves true papal authority; it documents how the emerging conciliar sect immediately leans on Marian and missionary imagery to normalize its power. The very need for such ornamental displays, at the threshold of the aggiornamento, is symptomatic of a usurped office seeking devotional cover.
Language as Smoke: Sentimental Devotion Against the Gravity of Dogma
The letter’s rhetoric is short yet revealing. Its vocabulary is intentionally affective, not doctrinally precise:
– “Nihil enim christifideles facere possunt magis frugiferum ac salutare, quam validissimum Immaculatae Virginis patrocinium sibi conciliare” – “Nothing more fruitful and salutary than winning the powerful patronage of the Immaculate Virgin.”
– “Nonne Dominus totum nos habere voluit per Mariam?” – “Did not the Lord will that we receive everything through Mary?”
There is an orthodox sense in which the tradition speaks of per Mariam ad Iesum (through Mary to Jesus), especially in St. Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort, provided it is strictly subordinated to Christ’s unique mediation. But observe what this letter does NOT do:
– It does not anchor Marian mediation in the defined dogmas (Divine Maternity, Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, Assumption) as taught by the pre-1958 Magisterium.
– It does not tie Marian devotion to conversion from error, rejection of false religions, or the necessity of incorporation into the one true Church.
– It replaces doctrinal precision with soft, comprehensive formulas, aligning easily with a later ecumenical, interreligious Marianism.
The tone is programmatically irenic, promotional, bureaucratically smooth. It speaks of congresses, legations, solemnities, and indulgences with no corresponding doctrinal militancy against secularism, communism, or modernist apostasy. Compared with the vigor of Pius IX and St. Pius X, such language is anaemic. Where Pius IX, in the Syllabus of Errors, anathematizes indifferentism and liberalism, John XXIII’s sweetness is conspicuous for its failure to name and condemn the reigning doctrinal plagues.
This is not accidental style; it reveals a reoriented conception of the “papal” office: from guardian of dogma and hammer of error to smiling sponsor of events.
Theological Evasion: Apparitionist Pietism without the Kingdom of Christ
Measured by the integral pre-1958 Magisterium, the deficiencies of this text are grave—not by what it affirms superficially, but by what it systematically omits.
1. Silence on the Kingship of Christ:
– Pius XI in Quas primas teaches that peace and order are only possible when states publicly recognize and submit to the social reign of Christ the King; he explicitly condemns laicism and the relegation of Christ to the private sphere, insisting that rulers and nations are bound ex iure divino to profess the true faith.
– In this letter, dealing with Vietnam—a land ravaged by communism, paganism, and sectarianism—there is no call for the public recognition of Christ the King, no admonition addressed to civil authorities, no insistence on the Catholic confessional state. Instead we are given a Marian congress as a self-contained event: spectacle without royal mandate.
2. Silence on Modernism and the Internal Enemy:
– St. Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi unmasks Modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies”, condemning precisely the historicized, sentimental, experiential religion that would later dominate the conciliar sect.
– This 1959 text, issued on the very threshold of the so-called Council, contains not a single word warning against modernist subversion, communism, Masonic infiltration, or doctrinal dissolution. Instead, John XXIII deploys a harmless Marian vocabulary that can be seamlessly integrated into the coming revolution.
3. Reduction of Indulgences to Hollow Currency:
– Authentic indulgences presuppose:
– True jurisdiction.
– Unity in the one true faith.
– Detestation of sin, sacramental confession, Holy Communion, and prayer according to the intentions of a true Pope.
– By 1959, the man signing as “Ioannes XXIII” is inaugurating, in fact, the line of manifestly modernist usurpers. The “plenary indulgence” offered here depends entirely on a legitimacy that is doctrinally indefensible once his program and subsequent conciliar acts are considered.
– This disconnect turns the indulgence-formula into a propaganda tool: canonical language used as liturgical camouflage for an authority already oriented against the previous Magisterium.
4. Apparitionism as Substitute for Dogma:
– The whole context of the “jubilee year” is tied to Lourdes. Even leaving aside the (here required) critical stance toward apparition-cults, the letter treats the Lourdes context as a self-evident organizing principle instead of using it to reiterate binding dogma.
– Marian piety is weaponized, not to deepen adherence to defined truth and to denounce error, but to create an emotional, supra-dogmatic unity around shared devotions that can later be reinterpreted in an ecumenical and anthropocentric sense.
Thus the letter exemplifies a piety that is horizontally mobilizing and vertically emptied: a proto-conciliar affective Catholicism detached from dogmatic militancy.
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi: Manipulation of Rites and Congresses
The principle lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief) is central: whoever shapes the public worship and great “congresses” of the faithful shapes faith itself.
In this text John XXIII:
– Approves a large Marian congress.
– Sends a high-profile legate.
– Attaches indulgences and the pontifical blessing.
– Projects Roman favour over Vietnam through ceremonial presence.
Yet:
– There is no insistence upon the Most Holy Sacrifice as propitiatory, no exaltation of the altar of Calvary against the world, the flesh, and the devil.
– There is no warning against profanation of the sacraments, no call to rigorous catechesis, no command to uphold pre-conciliar discipline.
– The congress becomes a stage for the new orientation: feeling, gathering, celebration; preludes to the later cult of assemblies that would culminate in the mutilation of the rite of Mass.
Given what followed—Vatican II, liturgical devastation, ecumenical syncretism, moral collapse—it is not speculative but observational to see here a soft-run of the method: control the grand liturgical-symbolic events to transition the faithful from integral doctrine to a new pseudo-magisterium.
Symptomatic Evidence of the Conciliar Sect’s DNA
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, certain features of the letter are not incidental details but signs of systemic apostasy germinating under a Marian perfume.
1. Ecumenical-Ready Marianism:
– Emphasis on “patronage” and “treasures of Redemption” mediated by Mary, detached from sharp doctrinal boundary, prepares a Marian language that can be shared with non-Catholics and even non-Christians.
– This corresponds to the growing post-1958 usage of Marian devotion as a sentimental bridge, while simultaneously diluting her role as destroyer of heresies (omnes haereses sola interemisti in universo mundo – “you alone have destroyed all heresies in the whole world”) in the concrete doctrinal sense.
2. Politicized Legations:
– The sending of Agagianian, then a prominent figure, functions as both geopolitical gesture and internal advertisement of the new regime’s international reach.
– The letter’s whole structure is that of political liturgy: an elegant certificate of presence legitimizing both the usurper and the new global Marian congress culture, which will perfectly serve the conciliar program of religious “dialogue” and “encounter.”
3. Total Absence of Militant Anti-Error Language:
– Pius IX’s Syllabus vigorously rejects:
– Religious indifferentism (prop. 15–18).
– Separation of Church and State (55).
– Liberalism and unrestricted freedom of cult (77–80).
– St. Pius X denounces those who seek to “reform” doctrine, worship, and ecclesiastical authority to align with modern thought.
– In this letter there is no echo of that divine intransigence. Its silence prepares the later betrayal, when the same line of usurpers will praise “religious liberty,” “dialogue,” and “modern civilization,” precisely what Pius IX condemned as incompatible with the Catholic religion.
4. Saccharine Piety as Anesthetic:
– Appealing phrases about the “sweetest Mother,” “beloved children,” “abundant fruits” are deployed without a call to penance, without a reminder of judgment, hell, or the narrow way.
– This naturalistic sweetness is not neutral; it anesthetizes supernatural vigilance. It transforms Marian devotion from a banner of battle into a decorative veil over the coming cult of man.
Contradiction with the Pre-1958 Magisterium
Using exclusively the unchanging doctrine before 1958 as the standard, we can articulate the core incompatibilities revealed by this text.
1. On Authority and Heresy:
– Integral doctrine (e.g., St. Robert Bellarmine; the common teaching summarized in pre-conciliar manuals; Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code) affirms that a manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church; if one defects publicly from the faith, he loses office ipso facto.
– John XXIII’s subsequent actions and the council he convoked promulgated teachings and orientations irreconcilable with the Syllabus and with Pascendi. This letter participates in the same trajectory: no longer guarding, but preparing a new direction.
– Therefore, the indulgences and legations enacted under his usurped claim do not possess the guarantee of Catholic authority promised by Christ to His true Vicars.
2. On Mission and Social Kingship:
– The Church’s mission is to teach all nations, baptizing them, and to order temporal society according to the law of Christ.
– Quas primas insists that rulers and laws must publicly acknowledge Christ; Pius IX condemns the separationist thesis.
– The letter treats the Vietnamese context as an occasion for devotional gathering, not for the assertion of Christ’s rights over the nation. This omission is more than prudential; it reflects a different theology of Church–state relations—the very liberal position condemned before.
3. On True Devotion versus Deviant Apparitionism:
– Authentic Marian devotion is inseparable from:
– Full adherence to Catholic dogma.
– Rejection of all heresy, superstition, and freemasonry.
– Deep union with the Most Holy Sacrifice.
– Here, Marian devotion is functionally used to crown a new governance already orienting itself toward aggiornamento. Such use of Marian imagery in service of a revolutionary agenda is not veneration; it is instrumentalization.
Marian Congress in Saigon as Prototype of the New Religion
Consider what this letter effectively engineers:
– A large assembly centered on Marian themes, not on precise doctrinal condemnation of errors.
– Liturgical solemnity presided over by a legate of a modernist usurper.
– A focus on indulgences and blessings detached from explicit preaching of the full, hard demands of the faith.
This configuration is the embryo of the conciliar-extravaganza model:
– The faithful are habituated to:
– Gather in big events.
– Hear optimistic speeches.
– Receive collective blessings.
– Feel part of a “universal Church” defined phenomenologically by communion with the reigning “pope,” not by integral doctrine.
Simultaneously:
– There is no catechesis against the abominations that would soon follow:
– Liturgical disfigurement.
– Doctrinal relativization.
– False ecumenism.
– Religious liberty ideology.
– Cult of man and of “human dignity” over the rights of Christ the King.
Thus the Saigon Marian Congress, as framed here, is not a remedy but a rehearsal: it trains souls to accept an authority that will betray them.
Condemnation of the Underlying Mentality
From the standpoint of the perennial Magisterium:
– Any claimant to the papacy who:
– Refuses to wield the condemnatory sword against modernism.
– Cloaks his program of aggiornamento in vague Marian rhetoric and sentimental pastoral gestures.
– Substitutes congresses and public relations for doctrinal clarity and juridical firmness.
– Manifests the spirit condemned in Lamentabili and Pascendi: the preference for experience, feeling, and history over immutable truth.
This letter, modest in length yet rich in symptom, showcases precisely that mentality. Its theological-spiritual bankruptcy lies not in explicit blasphemy but in the more insidious poison of omission:
– No proclamation of Christ’s absolute Kingship over nations.
– No mention of the gravity of sin, necessity of penance, state of grace, or the last things.
– No denunciation of communism, freemasonry, liberalism, or modernism, despite their evident assault on Vietnam and the world.
– No robust confession of the uniqueness of the Catholic Church as the only ark of salvation, as reaffirmed relentlessly by true popes.
Instead, we encounter a carefully curated image of gentle, universal, event-based religiosity that could, with minimal adjustment, be applauded by the very enemies condemned by Pius IX and St. Pius X.
Non possumus (“we cannot”) accept such a counterfeit as continuous with the Church of all ages. Measured against the stringent clarity of the pre-1958 Magisterium, this letter is a minor yet clear document of a new orientation: a paramasonic, conciliatory, apparition-decorated posture that paves the way for the neo-church and its cult of man.
Source:
Exeunte Iubilari Anno – Ad Gregorium Petrum Tit. Sancti Bartholomaei in Insula, S. R. E. Presb. Card. Agagianian, Ciliciae Armenorum Patriarcham ac Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide propraefect… (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025