This brief Latin letter of John XXIII to Cardinal Giuseppe Pizzardo praises the initiative of the Pontifical Roman Theological Academy to commemorate the nineteen centuries since the sending of the Epistle to the Romans, extols the Epistle as the summit of Pauline doctrine and foundation of Christian theology, encourages deeper theological study and pastoral application of Romans in Rome itself, and concludes with a blessing for increased wisdom and charity. One immediately perceives, however, the characteristic duplicity of the conciliar revolution: the usurper cloaks his future subversion of Pauline doctrine under a pious homage to the very Epistle that anathematizes the false gospel he was about to enthrone.
Celebrating St. Paul While Preparing to Contradict Him
Manifest Context of Usurpation and the AD Mode of Reading
From the outset, this document must be read as the act of an antipope, John XXIII (Angelo Roncalli), whose election and programme inaugurated the conciliar sect that has since systematically dismantled the doctrinal edifice St. Paul so magnificently expounds in the Epistle to the Romans.
The text itself, taken in isolation, appears outwardly orthodox: it praises St. Paul, cites St. John Chrysostom on the Pauline Epistles as inexhaustible mines and fountains of the Spirit, calls Romans an epitome of Apostolic doctrine and a foundation of theology, evokes Phoebe bringing this treasure to Rome, and encourages theologians and faithful to delve deeper into its teaching so that faith may flourish and charity and humility may abound.
Yet the gravity of the problem does not lie primarily in isolated phrases, but in the *contextus operis* and in what is deliberately omitted, twisted by subsequent deeds, and instrumentalized. *Contra facta non valent argumenta* (facts cannot be refuted by arguments): the same Roncalli who here solemnly venerates Romans will soon convoke the council that enthrones precisely those errors condemned by the pre-1958 Magisterium and diametrically opposed to Romans: religious indifferentism, naturalism, democratization of doctrine, glorification of the “human person” detached from Christ the King, the practical dissolution of anathema and dogmatic clarity.
Thus, we must expose:
– the factual dissonance between the beautiful words and the destructive programme,
– the modernist linguistic tactics already latent in this short letter,
– the theological inversion by which Romans is praised as “foundation,” while the subsequent conciliar sect tramples upon its dogmatic content,
– the symptomatic continuity between this text and the global post-1958 apostasy, particularly regarding justification, moral law, ecclesiology, and the public reign of Christ.
Factual Level: Pious Accents Masking a Revolutionary Trajectory
The letter states, in essence:
“It seemed very pleasing to Our estimation, that … the members of the Pontifical Roman Theological Academy, under your auspices, would with solemn celebration and gathering recall the nineteen centuries since the Apostle Paul sent the Epistle to the Romans.”
He continues by:
– Recalling that unforeseen grave events postponed the celebration.
– Citing Chrysostom to exalt Pauline letters as “metalla Spiritus et fontes”—mines and fountains richer than gold and never exhausted.
– Declaring that nowhere more than in Romans does Paul shine in revealing divine oracles, expounding moral law, and thus Romans holds a “praecipuum et pernobilem locum.”
– Calling Romans the epitome of Paul’s doctrine, foundation of Christian theology, guiding light for the history of salvation and “deplusor tenebrarum.”
– Emphasizing the special responsibility of Romans’ first addressees, the Roman faithful.
– Expressing the wish that this commemoration spur deeper study, more suitable exposition for the faithful, and a flourishing of faith in Rome.
– Linking doctrine with life: Christian faith as root of fruits of humility and charity, quoting Rom 12:15-16.
– Concluding with an “Apostolic Blessing.”
On the surface, nothing explicitly heretical is uttered. However, this is precisely how modernist strategy operates, as exposed authoritatively by St. Pius X in *Pascendi* and the condemnation *Lamentabili sane exitu*: they retain orthodox formulas while introducing a new orientation and preparing their future subversion. They praise Scripture and Tradition to gain trust, and then interpret them historically, evolutionarily, and pastorally against their perennial sense.
Two decisive factual observations:
1. John XXIII praises Romans as “fundamentum christianae theologiae.” Genuine Catholic theology—as codified, for example, at the Council of Trent—is precisely the rigorous dogmatic unfolding of Romans and the other Pauline epistles. Yet the council he convokes will deliberately relativize Trent, obscure anathemas, and open the doors to Protestant, liberal, and masonic principles condemned by Pius IX’s *Syllabus of Errors* and Pius X.
2. He insists on fruits of joy, compassion, humility, and charity, but is completely silent on the central theses of Romans most offensive to modernism: divine wrath against apostasy (Rom 1:18), the condemnation of unnatural vices (Rom 1:26-27), the absolute necessity of supernatural faith and grace, the gratuity of justification as defended dogmatically by Trent, the horror of schism and heresy, and the universality of Christ’s reign. This silence is not accidental; it is programmatic.
Hence the factual contradiction: the same figure who invokes Romans as luminous beacon will preside over an ecclesial revolution that contradicts its dogmatic heart. What appears as homage is, in reality, liturgical-diplomatic varnish over an impending betrayal.
Linguistic Level: Soft Rhetoric as Veil for Doctrinal Neutralization
The tone is emblematic of the new conciliar style: smooth, irenic, sentimental, and antiseptically “spiritual.” Several traits deserve attention:
1. Exaggeratedly courteous flattery:
– The initiative is “valde probandum,” Pizzardo is praised, the Academy is honoured. There is an ethos of polite academic celebration rather than of Apostolic authority commanding the guardianship of Pauline doctrine in all its severity.
– The rhetoric places emphasis on “solemn celebration and gathering,” i.e., event culture, rather than on binding doctrinal and disciplinary consequences.
2. Idealized presentation of Paul:
– Paul is styled “semper gravis, elatus, sublimis,” pouring out treasures of heavenly riches. True.
– But his most terrifying and necessary teachings—on sin, wrath, judgment, anathema, the obedience of faith, ecclesial discipline—are never even alluded to. The lexical field is exclusively laudatory and aesthetic.
3. Psychologizing of doctrinal fruits:
– The desired outcome is that study “cogat et acuat” minds and that doctrine be adapted (“accommodata interpretatione”) to the capacity of Christians so that faith “reflorescat,” and that humility and charity shine.
– While legitimate in itself, this language, severed from any reminder of dogmatic obligation, ecclesiastical authority, and condemnations of error, anticipates the conciliar sect’s obsession with “pastoral” adaptation, which quickly becomes doctrinal relativism.
4. Deliberate absence of militancy:
– No mention of *error*, *heresy*, *apostasy*, or the *enemies of the Church*, despite the fact that St. Paul in Romans relentlessly unmasks idolatry, moral corruption, Jewish and Gentile infidelity, false confidence in the law without grace, and pronounces clear dogmatic judgments.
– The noble severity of Paul’s Latin and Greek diction—*ira Dei, reprobatus sensus, anathema sit*—is replaced with a soft, bureaucratic “we wish, we praise, we exhort,” devoid of corrective edge.
By contrast, Pius IX in the *Syllabus* calls out specific propositions and crushes them with clarity. Pius X in *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi* names modernists as internal enemies, a “synthesis of all heresies.” Pius XI in *Quas primas* speaks with royal clarity of the kingship of Christ, of the need to submit states and societies. The letter under scrutiny inhabits another atmosphere: diplomatic, harmless, and thus subversive by omission.
Theological Level: Romans as Condemnation of the Conciliar Agenda
Taking seriously the claim that Romans is “fundamentum christianae theologiae,” we must confront this text—and the subsequent conciliar revolution—with key Pauline doctrines, all secured by the pre-1958 Magisterium. The letter’s silence and later praxis amount to a practical rejection of those doctrines.
1. Exclusivity of the True Faith and Condemnation of Indifferentism
Romans opens with the proclamation that the Gospel is “the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes” and immediately denounces idolatry, denial of the Creator, and monstrous moral perversions as objects of divine wrath (Rom 1:16-32). Paul’s supernatural exclusivity stands in direct opposition to:
– The error condemned by Pius IX: the notion that man can find eternal salvation in any religion whatsoever (Syllabus, 16), or that “good hope” should be entertained for all outside the true Church (17), or that Protestantism is another form of the true religion (18).
– The conciliar sect’s later cult of religious liberty, ecumenism, and dialogue, which treats false religions as paths enriched by “elements of truth.”
The letter praises Romans but does not reaffirm its absolute exclusion of religious relativism. This omission is fatal, especially on the lips of the architect of a council that would enthrone precisely those condemned principles. It is a classic modernist tactic: celebrate Scripture, refuse to draw its uncompromising dogmatic consequences.
2. Justification and the Council of Trent
Romans is central to Catholic dogma on justification, formally defined by Trent (Sess. VI). Trent—interpreting Romans—anathematizes the Protestant doctrine of “faith alone” understood as a merely fiducial, extrinsic imputation; affirms the necessity of interior renewal and sanctifying grace; and insists that man must cooperate with grace in freedom, while all merit is rooted in Christ.
John XXIII’s letter calls Romans the foundation of theology, but:
– Offers no explicit linkage to the dogmatic canons of Trent.
– Offers no warning against Protestant distortions of Romans, even though those distortions dominate modern “biblical scholarship” and ecumenical dialogues which the conciliar revolution will later embrace.
This studied silence, given the time and the audience (Roman theological academia), is not neutrality: it is complicity. A true Roman Pontiff, in 1959, addressing theologians on Romans, would have explicitly recalled Trent’s decrees, condemned modern exegesis that relativizes inspiration and miracles (already condemned by *Lamentabili*), and demanded absolute adherence to the traditional understanding. Instead, we find a vacuous “go deeper” devoid of doctrinal guardrails, thus implicitly legitimizing the very subjectivist methods condemned by St. Pius X.
3. Moral Law: Silence About Sins that Cry to Heaven
Romans 1 gives a frightful picture of pagan depravity, including unnatural vice: “their women changed the natural use,” etc. The pre-1958 Magisterium never hesitated to identify and condemn such sins as abominations, manifestations of apostasy and of the wrath of God.
John XXIII, while extolling Romans, prudently avoids any mention of the moral clarity and severity of the Epistle. This omission becomes devastatingly eloquent in light of the subsequent conciliar sect’s indulgence, excuses, and practical acceptance of moral perversion within its own ranks, turning a Pauline trumpet blast into a sentimental whisper.
Silence in such a context is not pastoral; it is betrayal.
4. Ecclesiology: Romans and the True Roman Primacy vs. Neo-Church
Paul writes “to all that are at Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints,” and gives Rome a special role by his mission and martyrdom. This Epistle, enveloped by the Apostolic tradition, is one of the sources of the unique primacy of the Roman See, as the See of Peter and Paul, guardian of the faith of all Churches.
The letter under analysis recalls Phoebe bringing Romans to Rome, but then—by its author’s later deeds—empties this Roman primacy of its true content:
– The conciliar sect converts the Roman See from guardian of dogma into laboratory of aggiornamento.
– It subjects the deposit of faith to the “signs of the times” and the will of the masses, contrary to the constant doctrine reaffirmed by Pius IX and Pius X that the Church does not receive her rights and doctrine from the State or from public opinion.
One must compare this letter’s thin evocation of Rome’s example with Pius XI’s thunder in *Quas primas*, where Christ’s Kingship demands that Rome—and all states—submit publicly to His law, and with the *Syllabus*’s condemnation of the separation of Church and state (55). The later conciliar sect, prefigured in Roncalli’s bland rhetoric, will adopt the very errors condemned there. Thus Romans is praised as “pharus,” while its light is systematically dimmed in practice.
5. The Supernatural Order vs. Naturalistic Humanism
The letter notes that Christian faith is the root from which fruits of humility and charity should mature. But the metaphysical and supernatural depth of this is not unfolded. There is no mention of:
– The necessity of sanctifying grace.
– The danger of mortal sin.
– The last things: judgment, hell, heaven.
– The objective duty of states and societies to recognize Christ and His Church.
Instead, the vocabulary remains ambiguous enough to be co-opted into the conciliar cult of philanthropy, human solidarity, and vaguely “gospel-inspired” ethics severed from dogma.
Pius XI makes it unambiguously clear: peace and order are possible only in the kingdom of Christ; the denial of His social kingship is the root of modern disaster (Quas primas). By contrast, Roncalli’s text—by omission—anticipates the horizontal, anthropocentric drift of the conciliar agenda.
Symptomatic Level: A Prototype of Modernist “Pauline” Rhetoric
Seen in the light of subsequent events, this letter is paradigmatic of how the conciliar sect instrumentalizes Scripture and Tradition.
1. Token Orthodoxy as Cover
The method condemned by St. Pius X in *Pascendi*:
– Modernists affirm formulas of faith but reinterpret them historically and subjectively.
– They invoke continuity while planning rupture.
Here:
– Romans is praised with highest words.
– But there is no insistence on its unchangeable, dogmatic sense.
– There is no reaffirmation of magisterial condemnations that secure its meaning.
– There is no warning against modernist exegesis already condemned in *Lamentabili* (e.g., denying full inspiration, proposing evolutive dogma).
Thus, the text is perfectly usable later to claim: “We have always honoured St. Paul and Romans,” even while permitting its deconstruction in seminaries and universities—the very institutions mentioned in the address.
2. Delegation to Academies: The Trojan Horse of “Scholarly” Subversion
The addressee is Cardinal Pizzardo as Prefect of the body overseeing seminaries and universities. The letter encourages theologians to “explain more deeply” what Paul teaches and to “adapt” their exposition to the faithful.
In a healthy Church, this would be a mandate to extract from Romans the unchanging dogmatic and moral doctrine and teach it clearly and authoritatively.
In the post-1958 paramasonic structure, however, that call becomes a mandate for:
– Historical-critical rereadings,
– Ecumenical reinterpretations that harmonize Romans with Protestant theories,
– Dilution of condemnation of sin and error,
– Reduction of Paul’s doctrine to existential, experiential categories.
All of this had already been prophetically identified and condemned in *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*. The letter’s trust in “eruditorum iudicio” (“the judgment of the learned”) without simultaneously binding them to prior condemnations is a deliberate loosening of the doctrinal ramparts.
3. Replacement of Militancy with Commemorative Sentimentality
The structure of the letter:
– Historical note (nineteen centuries)
– Praise of an initiative
– Literary-spiritual exaltation of Romans
– Wish for greater study and virtues
– Blessing
No call to battle against heresy, no recall of anathemas, no explicit continuity with Trent, Vatican I, the *Syllabus*, *Quas primas*, *Lamentabili*. It is a soft commemorative piece—exactly the idiom of the conciliar sect that will bury dogma under anniversaries, synods, “years of” (faith, mercy, etc.), and empty gestures.
But St. Paul did not write Romans to be commemorated; he wrote it to convert, judge, bind consciences, and establish a doctrinal foundation intolerant of error.
4. Absence of Any Warning Against the Real Dangers
At the time of this letter (1959):
– Modernism, condemned by St. Pius X, was regrouping in the shadows, especially in biblical institutes, seminaries, and faculties.
– Freemasonic and liberal forces were intensifying their assault on the Church, as Pius IX and Leo XIII had described: sects conspiring to subject or destroy the Church, to separate Church and State, to establish secularist civilization.
Yet John XXIII, addressing the very institutions tasked with protecting doctrine, limits himself to literary panegyric of Romans. *Qui tacet consentire videtur* (he who is silent is seen to consent). By refusing to name the errors, he allows them to continue metastasizing under the facade of scholarly freedom.
In contrast, Pius IX explicitly identified masonic sects as instruments of the “synagogue of Satan,” and Pius X bound theologians to reject modernist propositions under pain of excommunication. The difference is not nuance; it is inversion.
Romans Against the Conciliar Sect: Exposing the Deep Incompatibility
To fully expose the theological and spiritual bankruptcy behind the soothing phrases of this letter, we must juxtapose some core themes of Romans with the principles of post-conciliarism that John XXIII set in motion.
– Romans proclaims the universality of sin and total need for grace. The conciliar sect exalts the “dignity of the human person” as if nature were not wounded, speaks as if all men are implicitly united to Christ, undermining the dogmatic urgency of conversion.
– Romans condemns idolatry and false worship, and God “gave them up” who exchanged divine worship. The conciliar sect engages in interreligious ceremonies, recognizes false religions as “ways” or “partners,” contradicting the *Syllabus* and the very logic of Romans 1.
– Romans sets forth a doctrine of justification secured by Trent and incompatible with Protestantism. The conciliar sect creates “ecumenical” formulas that blur or relativize Trent’s anathemas, effectively aligning with modernist propositiones condemned in *Lamentabili*.
– Romans teaches obedience of faith to “the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret”—a fixed dogmatic content. The conciliar sect proposes an evolving understanding of dogma, hermeneutics of continuity masking rupture, exactly what Pius X condemned as the corruption of revelation into historical flux.
– Romans (chap. 13) calls for legitimate authority to be seen as minister of God, under divine law. Pius XI develops this into the doctrine of Christ’s social kingship in *Quas primas*. The conciliar sect proclaims religious liberty as a civil right and promotes separation of Church and state, rejecting the teaching reinforced by the *Syllabus* and *Quas primas*.
The letter’s failure to link the commemoration of Romans to these non-negotiable doctrines is not a minor omission but a signature of the new orientation: empty honours paid to Scripture while preparing to strangle its doctrinal voice.
The Gravity of Omission: Silence as Practical Apostasy
The most devastating accusation against this letter is not what is said, but what is left unsaid in such a decisive moment and context.
– No reaffirmation that Romans, as word of God, is fully inspired in all its parts, free from all error—against the modernist error condemned in *Lamentabili* (propositions 9-12).
– No reminder that the Magisterium has the authority to determine the definitive sense of Scripture (condemning proposition 4 of *Lamentabili*).
– No condemnation of those who subject Romans to historicist or Protestant exegesis (contrary to propositions 19, 24).
– No integration of Romans with the binding decrees of Trent and the *Syllabus*, as the authentic interpretative context.
Such silence, uttered by one who holds (or appears to hold) the supreme office, disarms defenses, flatters dangerous tendencies among theologians, and paves the way for the conciliar sect to reinterpret Paul according to the “needs of modern man.”
Where pre-1958 Popes speak like Paul—clear, sharp, dogmatic, militant—Roncalli speaks like an ecclesiastical diplomat, hiding behind vague exhortations. The shepherd’s staff is replaced by the orator’s pen. This is not pastoral kindness; it is abdication.
Conclusion: The Epistle to the Romans as Indictment of the Conciliar Revolution
If we take John XXIII’s own statement seriously—that Romans is the “epitome of Apostolic doctrine and foundation of Christian theology”—then this letter becomes an unwitting self-indictment of the conciliar sect he inaugurated.
For Romans, read in the unbroken light of Trent, the *Syllabus*, *Lamentabili*, *Pascendi*, and *Quas primas*, annihilates:
– the cult of man,
– religious indifferentism and ecumenism,
– historicist evolution of dogma,
– the secularist separation of Christ from public life,
– the naturalistic reduction of faith to immanent experience,
– the democratization and relativization of the Magisterium.
By praising Romans without reaffirming these doctrinal ramparts, and by unleashing a council that would embody everything Romans and the pre-1958 Magisterium reject, John XXIII reveals the full contradiction between the integral Catholic faith and post-conciliarism.
The Epistle to the Romans is indeed *metalla Spiritus et fontes*—but for the conciliar sect, it is an intolerable mirror. Its true, integral doctrine exposes the spiritual bankruptcy of those who applaud Paul with their lips while overturning his faith in their deeds.
The only coherent response is not to soften Romans to fit the conciliar revolution, but to judge the conciliar revolution by Romans and by the perennial Magisterium—and to recognize that any structure, “letter,” or “council” that refuses this judgment places itself outside the Catholic Church that St. Paul addressed and for which he shed his blood in Rome.
Source:
Existimationi Nostrae – Ad Iosephum S. R. E. Card. Pizzardo, Episcopum Albanensem et S. Consilii Seminariis Studiorumque Universitatibus praepositi praefectum, undevicesimo revoluto saeculo, ex quo S…. (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025