The letter of Ioannes XXIII to Maurilio Fossati on the commemorations of St Joseph Cafasso is a brief panegyric: it praises Cafasso as a model priest, educator of clergy, consoler of prisoners and the condemned, and uses his centenary as an occasion to exalt priestly associations under episcopal guidance as supports of holiness, patience, diligence, and social healing, culminating in a wish that “the law and love of Christ” safeguard individuals and communities, sealed with the so‑called “Apostolic Blessing.” From the perspective of integral Catholic teaching, this apparently pious text is a polished veil: a clericalist, sentimental manifesto of the nascent conciliar sect, exploiting an authentic saint to legitimize a new, man-centred, naturalistic religion.
Sanctity Instrumentalized to Crown an Antipontiff’s Revolution
From Catholic Epistle to Antichurch Manifesto
The document (16 December 1959) is signed by Ioannes XXIII, the initiator of the conciliar revolution and first in the line of usurpers identified in the instructions. The URL and rubric (“IOANNES PP. XXIII”) clearly locate it within the official acts of the post‑1958 structure; therefore, AD mode applies: it must be read not as a harmless devotional note, but as part of the coherent project to subvert the unchanging Church from within.
Key observable points in the letter’s own claims (paraphrased and occasionally quoted verbatim; Latin kept where needed for precision):
– Cafasso is extolled as “a pure gem” of the Turin clergy, model of doctrine, work, and charity.
– His labours: formation of priests, spiritual direction in the Ecclesiastical College, consolation of prisoners and those condemned to death.
– Ioannes XXIII associates Cafasso’s memory with:
– the flourishing of “ecclesiastical associations” under bishops,
– reinforcement of priestly piety and doctrine,
– support for the hierarchy,
– encouragement, in “calamitous times,” of constancy, patience, and industriousness,
– advancement of a time when “Christ’s law and love” protect individuals and social communities and “purify” them.
On the surface: orthodox vocabulary, a canonized saint, emphasis on priestly life. But exactly this combination — saintly veneer, selective virtues, and sociological rhetoric — reveals the deeper subversion.
Three fundamental diagnostic facts:
1. Ioannes XXIII is historically and doctrinally inseparable from the convocation of Vatican II and the “aggiornamento” program, condemned in its principles by prior papal teaching (cf. Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors n. 80; Pius X, Pascendi, Lamentabili).
2. The letter appears in 1959, between his election and the Council’s opening — the incubation phase of the conciliar sect within Catholic structures.
3. The text uses Cafasso (1811–1860), an unimpeachably pre‑conciliar saint, as a legitimizing emblem for the planned recasting of priesthood and Church.
Thus the praise of Cafasso is weaponized as a shield for an already-operative revolution: traditiones simulare, ut traditionem destruas (“to simulate tradition in order to destroy Tradition”).
Factual Inversions and Instrumental History
Factual level: What is said, and what is suppressed?
1. The letter rightly recalls Cafasso’s:
– firm doctrine,
– seriousness in priestly formation,
– heroic charity toward the poorest and condemned.
These points are consistent with historical sources and with the traditional cultus of Cafasso, recognized by true popes prior to 1958.
2. But Ioannes XXIII:
– never mentions Cafasso’s unwavering adhesion to the counter‑revolutionary papal line of Pius IX, his support for the temporal sovereignty of the Roman Pontiff, and his opposition to liberal and Masonic tendencies devastating 19th‑century Italy;
– never connects Cafasso’s priestly ideal with doctrinal militancy against errors, with the necessity of rejecting liberalism, naturalism, and indifferentism — all central themes in pre‑1958 Magisterium.
Instead he dilutes Cafasso into:
“an excellent educator of clergy… an exquisite consoler… particularly of those in chains and those punished with death…”
True, but partial to the point of falsification by omission. A Saint of anti-liberal fortitude is remodelled as a sentimental chaplain of social misery.
3. The document proposes as “propitious occasion” that:
“ecclesiastical associations, under the guidance and auspices of the Bishops, may more and more flourish, be vigorous and be enlarged; if this happens, it will greatly benefit the piety and doctrine of priests, and offer to the Prelates helps of great value…”
Factually:
– It advertises corporate priestly structures as instruments at the disposal of the hierarchy.
– Contextually (1959), it encourages a dense network of obedient clerical associations that will:
– be the vehicle of the coming conciliar reforms,
– form a disciplined apparatus executing the aggiornamento.
The saint is used as brand name for an institutional machine that will later demolish everything Cafasso represented doctrinally.
Soft Rhetoric as Symptom of Doctrinal Weakening
Linguistic level: The tone and vocabulary betray the ideological agenda.
1. Endless clerical compliments:
– “pure gem” of Turin clergy,
– “exquisite consoler,”
– praise of “ecclesiastical associations” as episcopal instruments.
This language is self-referential: the focus is not Christ’s Kingship, not the salvation of souls in the face of hell and error, but the inner splendour and mutual support of the clerical caste.
2. Abstract “calamitous times.”
Ioannes XXIII writes of:
“calamitous times, in which we are pressed…”
No mention of:
– the organized apostasy of states from Christ the King,
– the Masonic penetration denounced repeatedly by Leo XIII and Pius IX,
– Modernism, condemned as “the synthesis of all heresies” by Pius X (Lamentabili, Pascendi),
– the errors of religious liberty, ecumenism, and naturalism already fermenting.
Instead, calamity is vague and sociological. Suffering is a neutral backdrop inviting “patience” and “industry,” not a battleground demanding doctrinal combat and public confession of Christ’s reign.
3. Diluted invocation of “Christ’s law and love.”
The letter aspires to:
“that time when Christ’s law and love protect individuals and social communities and purify them with a salutary remedy.”
Where Pius XI in Quas Primas dogmatically asserts the objective and public Kingship of Christ over states and laws, denouncing laicism as a plague, Ioannes XXIII’s phrasing is soft, almost therapeutic:
– Christ’s “law and love” become a “salutary remedy” within human society,
– no explicit demand that states subject their laws to the Church,
– no condemnation of indifferentist “human rights” ideology as supreme arbiter.
The rhetoric is pre‑conciliar on the surface, but its centre of gravity is horizontal and sentimental.
Theological Subversion Under a Devout Facade
Theological level: Measured against the integral pre‑1958 Magisterium, the letter is gravely deficient and symptomatic of the new religion.
1. Silence on the Church’s exclusive salvific mission.
An authentic Catholic praise of a priest-saint, written in “calamitous times,” would normally stress:
– *Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus* (Outside the Church, no salvation): defined by the Fourth Lateran Council, reaffirmed by Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam, repeated by Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius XI, Pius XII.
– The necessity of sound doctrine and rejection of error.
– The dread realities of mortal sin, judgment, hell, and the urgent call to conversion.
Here:
– No mention of hell.
– No warning against heresy or schism.
– No affirmation that Cafasso’s ministry to the condemned aimed first at saving their souls from eternal damnation.
– No insistence that the priest is alter Christus because of valid sacramental orders and adherence to the true Faith.
This is not an accidental omission: it aligns with the conciliar sect’s systematic muting of supernatural eschatology in favour of humanitarian comfort.
2. Social and political Kingship of Christ is emptied.
Pius XI in Quas Primas, which we must receive in its unchanging sense, teaches that:
– Peace and order are impossible where Christ is not publicly acknowledged as King.
– States must recognize the Catholic religion.
– Secularist separation of Church and state (Syllabus n. 55) is condemned.
In the letter:
– Christ’s action on society is framed in terms of “protection” and “purification” but not juridical submission.
– There is no rebuke of liberal or Masonic domination.
– There is no assertion of the Church’s right to legislate, judge, and command.
This is precisely the Modernist strategy condemned by Pius X: maintain certain formulas while hollowing out their dogmatic content and practical demands.
3. Apotheosis of “ecclesiastical associations,” seedbed of conciliar corporatism.
The letter’s enthusiasm for priestly associations “under the guidance and auspices of bishops” must be read in light of the post‑1958 evolution:
– These structures, once infiltrated or directed by Modernist “bishops” and “cardinals,” became instruments to:
– impose the new pseudo-liturgy,
– propagate false ecumenism,
– silence resistance to doctrinal novelties.
Ioannes XXIII’s assertion that such organizations will provide “great helps” to bishops is prophetic — not of renewal, but of the efficient administration of apostasy.
Pre‑1958 papal teaching (e.g. Pius XII, in continuance of Pius X and Pius XI) recognizes associations only insofar as they are subordinated to sound doctrine and the true hierarchy. Once the head is corrupted, the same organizational emphasis becomes a weapon against the flock.
4. Undermining the gravity of priestly office by sentimentalism.
Cafasso’s charity is praised: especially toward prisoners and those sentenced to death. Authentic.
But there is no:
– insistence that his consolation was ordered to repentance and supernatural hope;
– mention of the justice of capital punishment as legitimate power of the state (affirmed in Tradition and implicitly defended by Pius XII);
– explanation that priestly tenderness is founded on unyielding doctrinal fidelity.
Ioannes XXIII’s presentation fits seamlessly into the later conciliar narrative: using Cafasso to suggest a proto-abolitionist, emotional chaplain of humanitarianism, while downplaying his orthodox, counter-revolutionary backbone.
Systemic Fruit of the Conciliar Revolution
Symptomatic level: How does this short letter reveal the DNA of the conciliar sect?
1. Canonizing the revolution through pre‑conciliar saints.
Pattern:
– Take an unquestionably holy figure (here Cafasso),
– Emphasize universally appealing qualities (kindness, pastoral care, community, “service”),
– Mute doctrinal combat, anti-liberal stance, strict asceticism,
– Present him as patron of the new ecclesial style: kind, dialogical, socially engaged, organizational.
This is the same method later applied (in more radical fashion) to other figures in the conciliar and post‑conciliar propaganda.
2. Clericalism without Catholicity.
The letter is a hymn to:
– “sacri ordinis viri” (men of the sacred order),
– “ecclesiasticae consociationes” under bishops,
– “auxilia magni pretii” for prelates.
But:
– It says nothing of the priest as guardian of dogma against Modernism.
– It says nothing of the duty to resist heretical superiors (a duty grounded in the axiom that a manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church, as expounded by St Robert Bellarmine in De Romano Pontifice and reaffirmed in the tradition summarized in the provided Defense of Sedevacantism file).
– It presupposes that the entire post‑1958 hierarchy is legitimate and deserves unconditional collaboration.
This is clerical corporatism in service of apostasy: a pseudo-sacral halo over an emerging paramasonic structure.
3. Naturalistic moralism replacing supernatural militancy.
The praise of virtues — constancy, patience, industriousness — is correct in itself, but presented in a purely immanent horizon:
– as psychological resilience in “calamitous times,”
– as means to social purification,
– without explicit reference to:
– sanctifying grace,
– necessity of the state of grace for merit,
– reality of Satan and eternal damnation,
– formal profession of the Catholic faith as the condition of salvific charity.
This naturalistic tonality conforms to the errors condemned in the Syllabus (notably nn. 3, 56–58) and in Lamentabili (e.g., propositions which reduce revelation and faith to evolving religious consciousness).
4. Sacralizing the usurper’s “blessing.”
The letter concludes by imparting an “Apostolic Blessing.”
However:
– Catholic doctrine, expressed by theologians and canonists prior to 1958, and summarized in the provided material, recognizes that a manifest heretic or public promoter of condemned errors cannot hold papal office and that jurisdiction is incompatible with public defection from the faith.
– Ioannes XXIII openly inaugurated the aggiornamento and convoked a council which, in intent and effect, undermined doctrines previously presented as irreformable, thereby aligning with the Modernist agenda condemned by Pius X.
Therefore, his claimed “Apostolic Blessing” is void, a pious formula covering an authority that, according to integral Catholic principles, he does not possess.
To accept this blessing as legitimate would entail accepting the compatibility of Pius X’s anti‑Modernist condemnations with the programmatic Modernism of Vatican II — an impossibility under the principle of non-contradiction and the Church’s indefectibility.
Confrontation with Pre‑1958 Magisterium: Incompatibility Exposed
To make the indictment precise, contrast the letter’s spirit with binding pre‑conciliar teaching (sources verifiable and cited transparently):
1. Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors (1864):
– Condemns the separation of Church and State (n. 55),
– Condemns the notion that the Roman Pontiff must reconcile himself with “progress, liberalism, and modern civilization” (n. 80).
Ioannes XXIII’s entire pontificate is historically documented as a program of such reconciliation. This letter is part of that arc, where social language about “purifying” communities by Christ’s “love” prepares acceptance of liberal categories, devoid of clear condemnations.
2. Pius X, Lamentabili sane exitu (1907) and Pascendi:
– Condemn the reduction of dogma to religious experience and historical evolution,
– Condemn the denial of the Church’s right to judge, define, and bind.
The conciliar movement ignited by Ioannes XXIII proceeds exactly by:
– subjecting past teaching to “pastoral” reinterpretation,
– emptying condemnations of practical effect,
– putting “experience,” “signs of the times,” and humanism at the centre.
The sweetened rhetoric of this letter — celebrating virtues without doctrinal militancy, structures without supernatural clarity — is formally compatible with Modernist method, not with Pius X’s prescriptions.
3. Pius XI, Quas Primas (1925):
– Affirms that “the plague of our age is laicism,”
– Demands public recognition of Christ’s Kingship by states,
– Teaches that true peace is only possible in the Kingdom of Christ, understood as His social and political reign through the Church.
Ioannes XXIII’s text speaks of a future time when “Christ’s law and love” will protect individuals and communities, but omits:
– the obligation of confessional states,
– condemnation of false religions and indifferentism,
– assertion of the Church’s right to govern morally and doctrinally.
Such omission, in an official act, at that historical juncture, is not neutral; it is a step toward the later conciliar ideology of “religious freedom” and “pluralism,” formally opposed to Quas Primas and the Syllabus.
Conclusion: A Polite Mask for Systemic Apostasy
The letter to Fossati on Joseph Cafasso is externally orthodox in phrases, but internally coherent with the emerging conciliar sect:
– It instrumentalizes a true saint to sanctify a program of organizational clericalism under illegitimate authorities.
– It avoids all the anti-liberal, anti-Modernist, and explicitly supernatural elements central to 19th–early 20th century papal teaching.
– It replaces precise Catholic doctrine and the public Kingship of Christ with vague appeals to “love,” “purification,” and “calamitous times” remedied by more associations and more collaboration with the hierarchy — that very hierarchy drifting into apostasy.
– It presumes the “Apostolic” authority of Ioannes XXIII, which is incompatible with the binding theological principles articulated by the pre‑1958 Magisterium he effectively neutralizes.
Under integral Catholic criteria, this document is not a harmless devotional note but a symptom of a deeper revolt: the appropriation of the language and symbols of Tradition to consolidate a paramasonic neo‑church in which sentimentality covers the systematic abandonment of the Faith.
Source:
– Ad Maurilium Tit. S. Marcelli S. R. E. Presbyterum Cardinalem Fossati, Archiepiscopum Taurinensem, ob sollemnes illic celebritates indictas in honorem S. Iosephi Cafasso, saeculo exeunte a pientissi… (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025