In this short Latin letter dated 9 January 1961, John XXIII sends congratulatory wishes to Jaime de Barros Câmara on the 25th anniversary of his episcopal consecration. He praises his activities in various dioceses of Brazil, his role for Eastern-rite faithful, his position as Military Ordinary and president of the Brazilian episcopal conference, highlights the 1955 International Eucharistic Congress in Rio de Janeiro, commends his initiatives for schools, and grants him the faculty to impart, in the name of the “pope,” a blessing with plenary indulgence on a chosen day.

---

The Hollow Episcopate of John XXIII: Flattery Without the Faith

Praise Without Doctrine: Sentimental Rhetoric in Place of the Gospel

Already in the opening lines the mask drops. John XXIII frames his congratulations as an act that “befits” the Apostolic ministry: a supposed shepherd who reduces the Roman primacy to sending polite anniversary cards. Instead of speaking as successor of Peter, guardian of faith and judge of error, he speaks as a courteous official of a religious bureaucracy, distributing compliments and decorations.

Key traits of this text:

– No mention of fides as supernatural assent to defined dogma.
– No mention of the necessity of belonging to the one true Church for salvation, as solemnly taught by the Magisterium (e.g. the condemnation of indifferentism in the Syllabus).
– No mention of sin, penance, the danger of hell, or the need for conversion of the flock.
– No doctrinal exhortation to the “jubilarian” to guard his people from errors, especially from the very modernist currents already condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi.

Instead, the entire letter is a litany of human achievements, ecclesiastical functions, organizational successes, and sentimental recollections—precisely the naturalistic, horizontal “church” that the pre-1958 Magisterium denounced.

The letter is, in nuce, an anti-program of the Catholic episcopate.

From Supernatural Mission to Sociological Management

On the factual level, John XXIII enumerates roles held by de Barros Câmara:

– administration of Mossoró and Belém do Pará,
– long tenure in Rio de Janeiro,
– jurisdiction over Eastern-rite Catholics in Brazil,
– military vicariate,
– presidency of the Brazilian episcopal conference,
– organizer of a great Eucharistic Congress,
– promoter of parochial schools and pastoral visitations.

All of these, in themselves, could be occasions to reaffirm the traditional doctrine that:

– the bishop is first of all a defender of the true faith,
– a judge of doctrine and morals,
– a vigilant shepherd who must, if necessary, resist the world and the powers of this age.

But notice what John XXIII selects and how he frames it.

1. He exalts the multiplication of offices (episcopal conference leader, military vicar, etc.) as if ecclesiastical power were measured by administrative extension.
2. He highlights the International Eucharistic Congress as a “sweet memory” and “lasting stimulus” to Eucharistic devotion, but absolutely refuses to connect the Eucharist with:
– the propitiatory nature of the Most Holy Sacrifice,
– reparation for sin,
– the kingship of Christ over nations, as insisted upon by Pius XI in Quas Primas.
3. He praises the fundraising for parochial schools as “of the highest moment,” but does not state that such schools must be bastions against liberalism, naturalism, and secularism, as Pius IX so sharply demanded in the Syllabus (errors 45–48).

In other words: the supernatural content is systematically evacuated; only the external shell remains.

This contradicts the integral Catholic view of the episcopal office:

– The Council of Trent, St. Pius X, and pre-1958 papal teaching insist that bishops are primarily defenders of orthodoxy, obliged to condemn heresy, forbid dangerous books, and ensure that Catholic schools transmit sound doctrine. John XXIII’s text is entirely silent on these duties.
– The omission is not accidental; it manifests a different religion, oriented around human activities, institutional visibility, and sentimental “communion,” not around the absolute demands of divine Revelation.

Here the principle applies: silentium de maxime necessariis est signum perfidiae (silence about what is most necessary is a sign of treachery).

The Linguistic Sugarcoat: Euphemism as a Veil for Apostasy

The rhetoric of the letter is a laboratory sample of conciliar style before the Council: velvety, indulgent, “pastoral” in the degraded sense of refusing to admonish.

Typical phrases:

“libenter quasi sertum quoddam imponimus”

“we gladly as if place a garland [upon this commemoration]”

“candida gaudia pastoris”

“the pure joys of the shepherd”

“egregiae Nostrae voluntatis nuntia”

“tokens of Our singular goodwill”

These expressions are not evil in themselves. The problem is their exclusive predominance. The whole text is woven of such phrases, without:

– the grave juridical and dogmatic tone of St. Pius X in Lamentabili or of Pius IX in the Syllabus,
– the royal, objective proclamation of Christ’s rights over individuals and states, as in Quas Primas.

Instead of anathema sit, there is only feliciter decurristi. Instead of lex suprema salus animarum (the supreme law is the salvation of souls), there is the supreme law of polite encouragement.

This “style” is the symptom of a doctrinal and spiritual deformation:

– Religious language is reduced to decoration for human successes.
– The Apostolic See is depicted as a beneficent fountain of congratulations and indulgences, not as the tribunal of Christ.
– The bishop is praised as an efficient manager and event organizer, not as a fighter against heresy and defender of the flock against wolves.

Such language forms consciences. It teaches bishops to seek applause, not martyrdom; to count congresses and projects, not converted souls and extirpated errors.

Theological Emptiness: An Episcopal Ideal Without the Cross

Measured by pre-1958 Catholic doctrine, this letter is theologically bankrupt.

1. No mention of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.
– Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius XII explicitly reaffirm the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation and condemn religious indifferentism. John XXIII, amid all his praise, never recalls that the bishop’s first duty is to ensure his faithful remain in the one true faith and reject error.
2. No mention of modern errors and their condemnation.
– Mid-20th-century Brazil was plagued by Freemasonry, socialism, liberalism, and nascent “Catholic” progressivism. Pius IX and Leo XIII repeatedly commanded bishops to unmask secret societies and liberal ideology. St. Pius X branded Modernism “the synthesis of all heresies.” John XXIII says nothing. He flatters; he does not arm.
3. No mention of guarding doctrine against corrupt “renewal.”
– Only four years earlier, Pius XII had reminded the Church (e.g., in Humani Generis) of the danger of new theological opinions that dilute dogma and subordinate it to modern philosophy. This letter ignores such concerns, as if the doctrinal struggle had ended.

The contrast is brutal: where the true Magisterium speaks with clarity, John XXIII’s text dissolves everything in diplomatic benevolence.

Episcopus in the Catholic sense is a watchman on the walls, ready to sound the trumpet (cf. Ezekiel’s watchman). In this letter’s paradigm, the bishop is a functionary of the conciliar sect, rewarded for his institutional integration and “collegial” roles.

The Symptom of the Coming Catastrophe: Collegial Bureaucracy and “Conferences”

One detail is particularly revealing: John XXIII explicitly lauds de Barros Câmara as president of the Brazilian episcopal conference.

Before the conciliar revolution, episcopal conferences had a modest, practical role; doctrine and supreme jurisdiction rested visibly and exclusively in the Roman Pontiff and individual diocesan bishops. Pius IX and Pius XII never presented conferences as doctrinal subjects. This 1961 letter, however, already:

– exalts the “collective” organism,
– privileges collegial structures,
– encourages a mentality in which the faith is administered by committees.

This anticipates the post-1965 deformation, where episcopal conferences:

– issue ambiguous documents,
– dilute the authority of each bishop,
– act as instruments of implementing modernist directives coming from the paramasonic structures occupying the Vatican.

Thus this letter is not an innocent courtesy. It participates in the ideological reconfiguration of the Church into a democratic, managerial, “synodal” body, in direct tension with the monarchical constitution defined by Christ and defended by the pre-1958 Magisterium.

Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem (what pleases the ruler has the force of law) applies only when the ruler is a true Pope, guardian of Tradition, not when an antipope uses the language of fatherly benevolence to consolidate a new, humanistic regime.

Abuse of Indulgences: Spiritual Currency for Naturalistic Works

Particularly striking is the closing grant:

“id tibi facultatis facimus, ut, quo volueris die, adstantibus christifidelibus nomine Nostro Nostraque auctoritate benedicas, plenaria Indulgentia proposita.”

“we grant you the faculty that, on a day you choose, you may bless the faithful present in Our Name and with Our authority, with a plenary indulgence attached.”

Within Catholic tradition, indulgences are intimately linked:

– to true authority,
– to works ordered to conversion, penance, and growth in sanctifying grace.

Here they are attached to the mere commemoration of a career milestone and the fundraising for schools, praised only in natural terms. There is:

– no call to deeper contrition,
– no exhortation to confession of sins,
– no reference to the temporal punishment due to sin,
– no reminder of purgatory or judgment.

This trivialisation of indulgences foreshadows the post-conciliar abuse where indulgences become motivational “bonuses” for “good causes,” cut off from the theology of the Cross and satisfaction.

Authentic Magisterium before 1958 treats indulgences with gravity, always in connection with conversion, mortification, and fidelity to dogma. The gesture displayed here—flowing from a usurped office, tied to essentially horizontal initiatives—illustrates the shift from supernatural soteriology to spiritualised public relations.

Silence about Modernism and Freemasonry: The Most Telling Omission

The letter is issued less than two decades after St. Pius X unequivocally condemned Modernism and warned of its infiltration into seminaries, faculties, and the hierarchy. Pius XI and Pius XII reiterated these warnings and denounced secret societies conspiring against the Church and Christian order.

In light of:

– the fierce activity of Freemasonry in Latin America,
– the spread of socialist and liberal ideologies,
– the documented penetration of modernist theology into Brazilian circles,

a true successor of Pius X would have reminded de Barros Câmara:

– to guard seminary formation rigorously,
– to purge teaching and preaching from Modernist theses condemned in Lamentabili,
– to defend the rights of Christ the King against secularist states, as Pius XI commands in Quas Primas,
– to expose the “synagogue of Satan,” as Pius IX names the masonic conspiracy.

Instead, there is total silence. This silence is damning.

Qui tacet consentire videtur (he who is silent appears to consent). The refusal to name the enemies of the faith, at a time when they were openly assaulting the Church, exhibits either culpable blindness or deliberate complicity. In either case, it is incompatible with the office of Peter as understood and exercised by the pre-1958 popes.

A Prototype of the Neo-Church Episcopate

This letter illustrates the essential features of the emerging conciliar sect:

– Horizontalism: Emphasis on structures, events, and social projects; absence of dogmatic clarity and supernatural urgency.
– Sentimentalism: Flattering language that avoids the hardness of the Gospel, the narrow gate, and the scandal of the Cross.
– Collegialism: Elevation of episcopal conferences and bureaucratic roles as badges of honour.
– Indifferentism by Omission: No assertion of the unique salvific necessity of the Catholic Church; no attack on errors or false religions.
– Abuse of Spiritual Goods: Indulgences and papal blessings attached to self-celebration, not penance and doctrinal fidelity.

Contrasted with:

– Pius IX, who denounces liberalism, naturalism, and masonic subversion by name;
– Leo XIII, who demands the social reign of Christ and the subordination of states to divine law;
– St. Pius X, who exposes Modernism as the destruction of dogma and commands bishops to root it out;

John XXIII’s text appears as a polite certificate of adaptation to the world. It is a micro-manifesto of a new spirit that replaces the militant, supernatural Church with a benevolent, institutional “community” basking in its own anniversaries.

From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, this is not an evolution but an abdication.

Conclusion: The Real Measure of an Episcopate

The letter “Haud minus” never once asks the essential questions:

– Has the archbishop preserved his flock from heresy?
– Has he defended Catholic doctrine against liberalism and modernism?
– Has he opposed masonic and socialist forces attacking the Church and the Christian order?
– Has he ensured that schools form children in the integral faith condemned by modern “civilization” and “tolerance”?
– Has he upheld the public Kingship of Christ, as defined by the constant Magisterium?

Instead, John XXIII offers only:

“Nihil denique Nobis restat nisi ut…”

“Nothing remains for Us except to impart Our Apostolic Blessing…”

But a blessing that ratifies silence about error and flattery of human achievements is not the blessing of Peter; it is the benediction of the neo-church, the conciliar sect that exalts man, dialogue, and institutional harmony above the immutable rights of God and the salvation of souls.

Lex orandi, lex credendi: a text like this reveals a belief system. What is not confessed is as telling as what is said. By systematically omitting the supernatural combat, the unique truth of the Catholic faith, and the duty to condemn heresy, this letter unmasks itself as one more stone in the construction of the post-1958 paramasonic edifice that would soon enthrone religious liberty, false ecumenism, and the cult of man.

Those who measure bishops and “popes” by such criteria of worldly approval have already abandoned the standard of the Catholic Church of all ages. The only authentic measure remains that of the pre-1958 Magisterium: fidelity to defined dogma, defense of the flock against every error, and unwavering proclamation of the Kingship of Christ over persons, families, and nations.

---

Source:
Haud minus  ad Iacobum Tit. Ss. Bonifatii et Alexii S. R. E. Presb. Card. De Barros Càmara, Archiepiscopum S. Sebastiani Fluminis Ianuarii, quinque lustra a suscepta episcopali dignitate implentem   (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025