John XXIII’s Latin letter “Mox quinquagesima” is a brief congratulatory message to Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini on the 50th anniversary of his priestly ordination, praising his academic work, seminary formation efforts, architectural initiatives, Marian and synodal activities in Sicily, charitable works, and granting him the faculty to impart a blessing with plenary indulgence on that jubilee day.
Beneath its seemingly pious compliments, this text is a distilled manifestation of the conciliar mentality: a cult of institutional activism and episcopal efficiency severed from the integral Roman faith, already masking and normalizing the usurpation of authority by the coming conciliar revolution.
Epistolary Incense over an Emerging Counterfeit Hierarchy
Selective Praise in the Shadow of the Coming Revolution
The letter, dated 13 June 1960, is issued by John XXIII to Ernesto Ruffini, Archbishop of Palermo and titular Cardinal of Santa Sabina, on his sacerdotal golden jubilee.
Key elements:
– It:
– Applauds “fifty years” of priesthood and “long life” as a channel of “heavenly benefits.”
– Extols his work:
– Teaching Sacred Scripture at the Lateran and Propaganda Fide.
– Serving in the Roman Curia (seminaries and universities).
– Governing Palermo.
– Founding two seminaries, the “Saint Curé of Ars” institute, new churches, embellishment of the cathedral.
– Organizing the Sicilian plenary council, Marian congress, diocesan synod.
– Assisting the poor.
– It urges him to:
– Persevere in zeal.
– Continue cultivating Sacred Scripture.
– Add “new merits” in humility.
– It grants:
– Faculty to impart, in John XXIII’s name and authority, a blessing with plenary indulgence to the faithful present at his jubilee Mass, under the usual conditions.
This is, on the surface, a harmless jubilee greeting. But issued by the very architect of the upcoming “aggiornamento” and Vatican II, and couched in impeccably curial flattery while entirely silent about the impending doctrinal onslaught, it reveals a deeper deformation: the reduction of the Church’s mission to institutional self-congratulation, merit badges, and juridical gestures anchored in a nascent usurped authority.
Factual Level: Anodyne Piety as a Screen for Structural Subversion
1. Omission of the Real Battle of the Time
1960 is not an arbitrary year. It stands:
– After the solemn anti-modernist stance of St. Pius X (*Pascendi*, *Lamentabili sane exitu*; cf. provided text) and the Oath against Modernism.
– After Pius XI’s *Quas primas*, which commands the public social reign of Christ the King against laicism.
– After Pius IX’s *Syllabus Errorum*, which condemns liberalism, religious indifferentism, state absolutism, and Masonic infiltrations (cf. provided Syllabus text).
– On the threshold of Vatican II, conceived and convoked by John XXIII as a “pastoral” aggiornamento, which would in practice rehabilitate precisely those errors earlier condemned.
In such a context, a letter evaluating half a century of a cardinal’s priesthood that:
– Says nothing about the integral defense of the faith against Modernism,
– Says nothing about the battle against laicist and Masonic subversion noted by Pius IX,
– Says nothing about guarding the flock from doctrinal corruption,
but delights in buildings, academic roles, and smooth administration—
is already a factual falsification by omission.
Quod tacetur, saepe magis clamat quam quod dicitur (what is kept silent often cries louder than what is said). When a supposed supreme pastor in 1960 praises an eminent prelate and never once names:
– the intrinsic evil of liberalism,
– the peril of doctrinal novelties,
– the duty to uphold the pre-1958 magisterium intransigently,
he thereby presents a distorted picture of authentic Catholic episcopal merit.
2. Institutional Metrics Over Doctrinal Guardianship
The text measures Ruffini’s greatness almost entirely by:
– the number of institutions,
– his roles in Pontifical universities,
– his organizational achievements (plenary council, Marian Congress, synod),
– architectural embellishment,
– and generic “aid to the poor.”
What is absent:
– Explicit affirmation that he defended dogma against modernist exegesis condemned by *Lamentabili*.
– Any mention that seminary formation must exclude the very errors the conciliar sect will soon enthrone.
– Any insistence that Sacred Scripture must be explained according to the constant teaching of the Church, not historico-critical relativism.
Given the pre-1958 doctrinal framework:
– The Holy Office decree reproduced in the provided “Lamentabili sane exitu” text explicitly condemns the idea that biblical criticism may relativize the Magisterium, deny plenary inspiration, or reduce dogma to historical evolution.
– Pius X added excommunication for those opposing these anti-modernist measures.
John XXIII, instead of re-arming Ruffini with these norms, simply tells him: perge Sacras Litteras penitus amanterque colere – “continue to cultivate Sacred Scripture deeply and lovingly” – without the crucial doctrinal delimitations demanded by Pius X. This studied vagueness is not innocent; it accommodates the very “new theology” ferment that will soon dominate Vatican II.
3. Presumed Legitimacy of Jurisdiction and Indulgences
The letter confers, “in Our name and by Our authority,” a plenary indulgence bound to John XXIII’s claimed jurisdiction.
Pre-1958 doctrine (e.g., Bellarmine as presented in the provided sedevacantist file; canon 188 §4 of 1917 Code; *Cum ex Apostolatus Officio* of Paul IV):
– A manifest heretic cannot hold papal office.
– Public defection from the faith vacates ecclesiastical office *ipso facto*.
– Election of one who has deviated from the faith is null.
John XXIII’s programmatic acts—most notably calling a “pastoral council” to reframe doctrine, cultivating ecumenical tones already tending toward condemned religious liberty and false unity—are coherent with tendencies condemned by Pius IX (Syllabus 15–18, 55, 77–80) and Pius X. In such a framework, his jurisdictional acts are not presupposed as valid; rather, they are themselves under grave suspicion.
Thus, the indulgence formula in this letter is not a neutral devotional bonus, but a juridical signature of a man on the trajectory of manifest rupture. The document must be read, therefore, not as an act of the Vicar of Christ, but as one more brick in the juridical façade of the emerging conciliar structure.
Linguistic Level: Perfumed Rhetoric Masking Doctrinal Emptiness
1. Hyper-politeness and Flattery as Technique
The letter is drenched in curial courtesies:
– “Dilecte Fili Noster”
– “pii gaudii quasi sertum”
– “existimationis et studii Nostri aperta index”
– “egregie meritus es”
– “solertia,” “alacritas,” “adsidua navitas”
This stylistic perfume accomplishes several things:
– It projects harmony, consensus, institutional serenity—in 1960, precisely when a true successor of Pius X should be sounding the alarm against deepening modernist infiltration in seminaries and universities.
– It avoids any sharp doctrinal note. There is no *anathema*, no warning, no reminder that episcopal dignity is primarily ordered to guarding dogma and the Most Holy Sacrifice, not to multiplying buildings.
The contrast with pre-1958 magisterial style is stark:
– Pius IX’s *Syllabus* bluntly condemns errors: “It is false that…”
– Pius X in *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi* uses precise, judicial, condemnatory language.
– Pius XI in *Quas primas* speaks with clarity about the objective obligation of nations to submit to Christ the King and denounces laicism as a “plague.”
Here, John XXIII dissolves the combat vocabulary into sentimental congratulation. This rhetorical de-fanging is itself symptomatic of theological decay.
2. Absence of Militant Catholic Categories
Notably absent:
– No reference to *fides catholica integra et inviolata* (the integral and inviolate Catholic faith).
– No reference to the duty to reject condemned propositions.
– No invocation of the *Syllabus*, *Quas primas*, *Pascendi*, or the anti-modernist oath.
– No echo of the classic formula that bishops are primarily defenders of doctrine and guardians of the flock against wolves.
Instead, Ruffini is praised as:
– administrator,
– academic,
– builder,
– convenor of meetings.
This is a quiet semantic replacement of the bishop as *custos fidei* (guardian of the faith) with the bishop as efficient manager of ecclesiastical infrastructure.
3. Indulgence Language Detached from the Fight for Truth
The faculty to impart a plenary indulgence is presented in purely devotional terms, without tying it to:
– profession and defense of the integral faith,
– rejection of modernist errors,
– public witness to the social kingship of Christ.
Indulgences, in authentic Catholic tradition, are tied to:
– the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints,
– the jurisdiction of the true Church,
– works of piety and penance ordered to conversion and defense of the faith.
Here, the indulgence is reduced to a ceremonial ornament of jubilee euphoria, reinforcing the person and authority of John XXIII without calling to doctrinal vigilance.
Theological Level: Systematic Evasion of Integral Doctrine
1. Silence on Modernism: A Condemning Omission
By 1960, no bishop could be ignorant of the modernist crisis:
– *Lamentabili sane exitu* and *Pascendi* had defined and condemned its propositions (cf. provided file).
– Modernist tendencies in biblical exegesis, sacramental theology, ecclesiology, had not vanished; they had gone underground and re-emerged under “new theology” labels.
An authentic Vicar of Christ, congratulating a cardinal-professor of Sacred Scripture and seminary leader, would:
– explicitly exhort him to uphold Pius X’s norms,
– warn against historical-critical relativism,
– command fidelity to the literal and traditional sense of Scripture as defended against modernist denials of inerrancy (condemned propositions 9–19 in *Lamentabili*),
– recall that Catholic dogma does not evolve in substance (*eodem sensu eademque sententia*), in line with Vatican I and Pius X’s condemnation of doctrinal evolutionism.
John XXIII does none of this. He endorses, generically and unqualifiedly, Ruffini’s scriptural and academic work, at precisely the node (seminaries, Pontifical universities) where modernism had been most active.
Qui tacet consentire videtur (he who is silent is seen to consent), especially when silence occurs where the Supreme Teacher must speak.
2. Ecclesiology of Human Respect and Activism
The letter’s ecclesiology is implicit:
– The Church is a harmonious institution, adorned with structures, guided by prudent administrators, dispensing blessings.
– There is no sense of the Church Militant engaged in doctrinal and spiritual warfare against heresy, secularism, and Masonic assaults explicitly unmasked by Pius IX and Pius X (see the strong anti-Masonic section in the provided Syllabus excerpt).
This omission is not neutral:
– Pius XI in *Quas primas* insists that the crisis of modern times stems from the refusal of Christ’s kingship in private and public life and demands explicit restoration of His social reign.
– Here, John XXIII does not even allude to the obligation that Ruffini, as archbishop in a Catholic land, publicly assert the full rights of Christ the King against secular usurpations.
– Instead, he extols decorative enhancements to the “tempio principi.”
This betrays a shift from supernatural, confessional, militant ecclesiology to an aestheticized, “respectable,” semi-naturalistic one—preparing precisely the soil on which:
– religious liberty,
– collegiality,
– ecumenism with heretics and infidels,
could be later sown by the conciliar sect.
3. Misuse of the Language of Merit and Holiness
The letter:
– Attributes to Ruffini “new merits” to be added “in humble love.”
– Treats institutional success as quasi-automatic evidence of God’s favor.
Authentic Catholic doctrine teaches:
– True merit arises from sanctifying grace, conformity to the will of God, and fidelity to revealed truth.
– Any praise of ecclesiastics must be subordinated to their defense of dogma and salvation of souls.
By divorcing praise from explicit doctrinal yardsticks and supernatural combat, John XXIII fosters:
– a mentality in which a bishop can be deemed “exemplary” without visible, explicit, public defense against modernist infiltration.
This is the ideological matrix of the conciliar sect: external continuity in forms (Latin letter, curial style, indulgence language) masking internal surrender in content.
Symptomatic Level: A Micro-Icon of the Conciliar Sect’s Method
1. Continuity of Forms, Rupture of Substance
“Mox quinquagesima” is a paradigmatic specimen of the conciliar sect’s operating procedure:
– Maintain:
– Latin.
– Curial epistolary protocol.
– References to prayer, zeal, Scripture, seminaries, synods.
– Devotional instruments such as indulgences.
– Remove:
– All precise condemnations that defined the integral Catholic position.
– All explicit invocation of anti-modernist, anti-liberal, anti-Masonic teaching.
– All emphasis on the exclusive salvific necessity of the Catholic Church against indifferentism.
This is how the neo-church advances: not by immediate explicit contradiction, but by systematic omission and sentimental dilution—preparing the faithful to accept later the overt novelties of religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, and the dethronement of Christ the King in public life.
2. Episcopal Praises as Tools of Co-option
The letter binds Ruffini—and through him, the Sicilian clergy and faithful—to John XXIII’s person and “pontificate” via:
– Emotional praise.
– Public recognition.
– Faculties regarding indulgences.
Thus:
– The more Ruffini is honoured under this new regime, the more any resistance to the impending council is psychologically and morally disarmed.
– The episcopate is integrated into the conciliar project not only by decrees, but by a web of flattering, apparently benign texts that presuppose and normalize the usurped authority.
3. Naturalistic Humanitarianism as the New Measure
Note the emphasis on:
– assisting the poor,
– building structures,
– social and charitable works.
These are good in themselves, but in conciliar usage they become:
– substitutes for the hierarchical, doctrinal, sacrificial raison d’être of the Church.
– stage dressing for an ecclesiology that merges seamlessly into secular humanitarian discourse—precisely what Pius XI warned against when he identified laicism as a “plague” and insisted that true peace and order are only possible under the social reign of Christ the King (*Quas primas*).
In “Mox quinquagesima,” there is no call for:
– Catholic civil authority to submit to Christ,
– Catholic legislators to recognize His law,
– Catholic bishops to resist secular states that usurp educational and ecclesial rights condemned by the Syllabus (e.g., propositions 45–48, 55).
Instead, the Church’s mission is implicitly presented as pious management within the given secular framework, decorated with devotions and ceremonies.
Contrast with Pre-1958 Catholic Norms: The Indictment Deepens
To expose fully the bankruptcy of the attitudes in this letter, it suffices to juxtapose it with the authoritative pre-1958 doctrine provided.
1. Pius IX’s Syllabus
– Condemns the idea that Catholicism can reconcile itself with liberal progress and modern civilization understood as emancipation from the Church (prop. 80).
– Condemns religious indifferentism, state control of the Church, and total separation of Church and state (15–18, 39–40, 55, 77).
“Mox quinquagesima”:
– is entirely silent about this doctrinal line,
– offers no exhortation that Ruffini defend these non-negotiable principles in Sicily,
– and by its silence aligns with the coming policy of “reconciliation” with modern worldviews which Pius IX explicitly branded as erroneous.
2. Pius X’s Lamentabili and Anti-Modernism
The provided “Lamentabili sane exitu” text:
– condemns relativising Scripture, denial of inerrancy, evolution of dogma, reduction of sacraments and hierarchy to historical constructions.
John XXIII:
– praises Ruffini’s scriptural teaching and academic governance with no reaffirmation of these condemnations.
– encourages him to “continue to cultivate Sacred Scripture” without doctrinal parameters.
Thus:
– He implicitly normalizes a space in which the reprobated methods can thrive under the cover of “scientific” exegesis and “pastoral” theology—precisely what Vatican II and its implementation would exploit.
3. Pius XI’s Quas Primas
Pius XI insists:
– peace and order are impossible unless individuals and states publicly recognize Christ’s kingship;
– the Church demands full liberty and independence;
– secularism and laicism are mortal poisons.
“Mox quinquagesima”:
– does not instruct Ruffini to assert the social reign of Christ in Sicilian public life.
– does not recall his duty to resist secular encroachments on education, marriage, or ecclesiastical rights, as Pius IX and Pius XI did.
– presents Episcopal achievement primarily intra-ecclesially, not as the integral subjection of society to Christ.
This is not mere incompleteness; it is deformation by strategic silence, preparing the acceptance of the conciliar sect’s de facto endorsement of religious liberty and pluralism.
Conclusion: A Polite Seal on the Road to Apostasy
This short letter functions as:
– A token of John XXIII’s style: soft, flattering, irenic, studiously non-condemnatory.
– A sample of the method by which the old language and ceremonial apparatus are employed to validate a hierarchy that is being silently reoriented away from the militant, anti-modernist, confessional Catholicism of Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII.
– A symptom of the deeper usurpation: jurisdictional acts (indulgence faculties, approbation of seminaries and structures) issuing from one steering the institution toward precisely those errors solemnly condemned less than a century earlier.
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, faithful to the unchanging pre-1958 magisterium:
– The letter’s theological content is gravely deficient.
– Its tone is emblematic of the abdication of the Church Militant in favour of a humanistic, administrative religiosity.
– Its silence on Modernism, on the Syllabus, and on the social kingship of Christ is not a neutral gap, but a veiled consent to the conciliar revolution that would soon publicly manifest in the neo-church.
In “Mox quinquagesima,” we do not behold the voice of the perennial Roman Pontiff fortifying a bishop for doctrinal and spiritual combat; we witness the smooth, perfumed language by which a paramasonic, post-conciliar structure consolidates its personnel and prepares the faithful to accept the coming abomination of desolation under the appearance of continuity.
Source:
Mox quinquagesima – Epistula ad Cardinalem Ruffini, a suscepto sacerdotio quinquagesimum annum implentem, d. 13 m. Iunii a. 1960, Ioannes PP. XXIII (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025