In this brief Latin note dated October 18, 1962, John XXIII sends courteous congratulations to Cardinal André Jullien on his forthcoming eightieth birthday, praising his juridical competence, prudence, service in the Roman Rota, and personal virtues, and imparting his “Apostolic Blessing.” Behind this apparently harmless compliment lies the quiet normalization of the very revolution that would soon dissolve Catholic jurisprudence into conciliarism, sentimentalism, and human respect.
The Polite Mask of Revolution: Courteous Words as Theological Subversion
Human Praise Detached from the Kingship of Christ
At the factual level, the text is minimal: a congratulatory letter, a catalogue of personal qualities, a closing blessing. Yet this very minimalism is revealing. John XXIII extols Jullien’s “juridical expertise,” “sagacity of counsel,” diligence, and affability, and invokes God as giver of every good gift, but the entire piece is constructed as a self-contained exercise in cultivated humanism. There is no mention of:
– the defense of the integral Catholic faith,
– the duty of judges to safeguard the sacraments,
– the war against heresy and Modernism,
– the primacy of the *regnum Christi* in public and canonical life.
This silence is not a neutral accident. It is symptomatic of the transition from the Catholic conception of office—*munus* ordered to the confession and defense of divine truth—to a naturalistic, bureaucratic ethos in which the highest praise concerns technical skill and agreeable manners.
Pius XI in *Quas primas* reminded the Church that the calamities of the world spring from the exclusion of Christ and His law from public and private life, and that peace can only come through restoring the reign of Christ the King over individuals, families, and states. Here, in contrast, we see the emerging conciliar mentality: a vertical office flattened into horizontal politeness, a judge praised for qualities intelligible in any secular chancellery, without one word about the militant guardianship of the faith against error. The omission is an indictment.
Language of Polite Bureaucracy as Symptom of Doctrinal Erosion
The linguistic choices betray an altered theology.
The letter offers Jullien:
“quaecumque sunt fausta, candida, laeta percupimus”
(“we ardently desire for you whatever is auspicious, bright, and joyful”),
followed by a recital of his professional merits in the Curia. The rhetoric is that of a courteous civil service: decorous, irenic, devoid of supernatural combativeness. The only scriptural allusion (James 1:17) is reduced to a generic benediction formula. There is no explicit connection to the Cross, to fidelity in persecution, to the defense of dogma against the syntheses of error that St. Pius X had just condemned half a generation earlier in *Lamentabili sane exitu* and *Pascendi*.
This tone is not accidental; it is the idiom of a hierarchy already internalizing the liberal thesis condemned by Pius IX’s *Syllabus of Errors*:
– that the Church should adapt to “modern civilization” (condemned proposition 80),
– that dogmatic intransigence be softened into diplomacy,
– that the Church’s rights be exercised under the guise of courteous accommodation.
The letter’s legal-bureaucratic register, celebrating “sagacity of counsel” and “navitas” within the Curia while omitting the supernatural end of canon law—to guard the deposit of faith and the sanctity of the sacraments—signals the quiet dethronement of Christ the King from the very organs meant to serve His Kingdom. *Forma loquendi sequitur formam mentis* (the form of speaking follows the form of mind): a softened language betrays a softened doctrine.
Canonical Office Without Militant Faith: A Practical Denial of Catholic Ecclesiology
From the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine, office in the Church is never a mere honorific function. True pre-conciliar teaching is unambiguous:
– The Roman Pontiff and the Roman tribunals exist to guard, apply, and defend divine and ecclesiastical law, not only to administer procedures.
– Canonists and judges must protect the sacraments, condemn heresy, resist state encroachments, and uphold the rights of the Church, as Pius IX, Leo XIII, and St. Pius X tirelessly insisted.
By praising a high functionary solely for technical competence, courtesy, and administrative diligence, John XXIII implicitly redefines the ideal prelate as a polished manager rather than a confessor of the faith. There is no exhortation to resist Modernism, no reminder of the oath against Modernism imposed by St. Pius X, no warning against liberalism, indifferentism, or masonic infiltration—though Pius IX had already exposed the sects as the “synagogue of Satan” waging war against the Church.
This silence becomes culpable when read in its historical context:
– 1962 is the year of the opening of the so-called Vatican II, the launching pad of the conciliar sect.
– The same regime that issues this courtly note simultaneously prepares to relativize the Church’s rights, to dilute the anathemas of Trent and Vatican I, and to promote “religious freedom” and “dialogue” condemned in substance by the *Syllabus* and by *Quas primas*.
Thus, the letter’s flattering praise of a canonical jurist, without one word about resisting error, prefigures the juridical capitulation of the neo-church: tribunals reduced to administrative organs within a paramasonic structure, no longer instruments of the *regnum Christi*, but of a conciliar humanism that tolerates every abuse while crushing defenders of Tradition.
Theological Emptiness: Blessing Without Confession of Truth
At its core, the note’s “Apostolic Blessing” is presented as a benign paternal gesture:
“Apostolicam Benedictionem impertimus.”
Yet one must ask: what is being blessed, and in what name?
– There is no mention of the Holy Sacrifice as propitiatory.
– No exhortation to perseverance in the integral faith.
– No recall to the struggle against heresy and worldliness.
– No explicit confession of the unique saving authority of the Catholic Church, contrary to *Syllabus* 21, which condemns the denial of the Church’s exclusive truth.
A “blessing” emptied of doctrinal content becomes a sentimental currency. It habituates clergy and faithful to a saccharine religiosity where one can receive papal favor without being summoned to the hard yoke of Christ’s Kingship over intellect, morals, public life, and law. This is precisely the mentality denounced by St. Pius X: the reduction of supernatural realities to religious feeling and etiquette.
By praising a cardinal’s service without framing it within the absolute obligation to defend immutable doctrine, John XXIII offers a functional image of the hierarchy perfectly adapted to the needs of the conciliar revolution: compliant, courteous, expert—yet theologically mute.
From Militant Church to Conciliar Sect: This Letter as Microcosm
Symptomatically, this short document illustrates several traits that would define the Church of the New Advent:
1. Naturalistic Human Respect:
– The emphasis falls on human virtues (affability, prudence, administrative service) without reference to the heroic virtue of defending truth against error. This prepares the soil for that cult of human dignity and human rights severed from Christ the King, which Pius XI explicitly denounced when identifying the root of social disorders in the refusal of Christ’s reign.
2. Institutional Self-Congratulation:
– The Curia congratulates itself on its “sagacity” and “merits,” while preparing to betray the faith at a pseudo-council. The self-referential praise echoes the liberal thesis that ecclesiastical structures can be lauded regardless of their fidelity to doctrine.
3. Silencing of the Anti-Modernist Struggle:
– The letter eliminates any trace of the combative spirit of *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*. This is not ignorance; it is an intentional shift. The hierarchy ceases to speak as guardian against modern errors and instead speaks as a benevolent sponsor of personalities.
4. Prefiguration of Ecumenical Flattery:
– The vacuous blessing foreshadows the post-1958 epidemic of indiscriminate praise, not only for internal officials but for false religions, sects, and enemies of Christ. Once the criterion ceases to be doctrinal fidelity, every courteous collaborator can be acclaimed.
5. Legal Expertise Severed from Divine Law:
– By celebrating juridical competence without recalling that all ecclesiastical law must be subordinate to divine and natural law (Pius IX, *Quanta Cura*; *Syllabus* 56–57), the neo-church prepares to weaponize canon law against the faithful remnant while excusing doctrinal deviations.
In sum, this seemingly innocuous congratulatory note is a concentrated sign of the mutation: from the Church that speaks *ex cathedra veritatis* (from the chair of truth) to a polite religious administration where words about God serve as a thin glaze over humanistic self-satisfaction.
Contrast with Pre-1958 Catholic Norms
To expose the spiritual bankruptcy manifested here, it suffices to recall what authentic pontifical language looked like when the See of Peter was not occupied by the conciliar cabal:
– Pius IX, facing liberal governments and sects, did not send them empty compliments; he solemnly declared contempt for the Church’s rights and dogmas null and void, insisting that no earthly power can depose bishops whom the Holy Ghost has placed over the Church.
– Leo XIII, in documents such as *Immortale Dei* and *Libertas*, constantly reasserted that civil society and its rulers are bound to acknowledge Christ’s sovereignty and submit to the Church’s teaching authority.
– St. Pius X, in *Pascendi* and his syllabus of Modernist errors, spoke with uncompromising clarity; he did not cushion heresy in euphemisms, nor reduce his role to distributing benign congratulations.
An integral Catholic pontiff praising a high judge on the eve of great ecclesial trials would have:
– exhorted him to defend the rights of the Church against states and sects;
– reminded him that every juridical act must safeguard the sacraments, the priesthood, and marriage from profanation;
– warned him against modernist exegesis, dogmatic relativism, and any compromise with condemned liberal principles.
Nothing of this appears here. The void is eloquent. The letter is the voice not of Peter confirming his brethren in the faith, but of an administrator endorsing another administrator within a structure already shifting toward what would become the conciliar sect.
The Moral Responsibility of Hierarchy: Praising Without Warning as Betrayal
One might object: “It is only a birthday greeting; not every text must be dogmatic.” But this objection fails for two reasons:
1. Ex abundantia cordis os loquitur (“Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks”):
– Even a short letter reflects the habitual priorities of the author. Pius XI’s brief texts spontaneously evoke the rights of Christ the King; Pius X’s brief notes breathe vigilance against error. Here we find none of that; we find only human considerations.
2. Hierarchical praise is never neutral:
– When a claimant to the papal office publicly commends a high ecclesiastical judge, he thereby proposes him as a model. To present as exemplary a purely bureaucratic profile—without tying his merits explicitly to the defense of immutable doctrine—teaches implicitly that technical service suffices, even if one is silent while the faith is being undermined.
This is precisely the praxis that enabled the “structures occupying the Vatican” to reorganize the visible apparatus into an instrument of apostasy: a caste of polite functionaries, praised for diplomacy, never for doctrinal intransigence, hence perfectly fit to execute the conciliar demolition of the Catholic order condemned in the *Syllabus* and reaffirmed in *Quas primas*.
Conclusion: A Harmless Text as Accusation Against the Conciliar Ethos
This short Latin compliment stands as a distilled sign of the conciliar ethos:
– praise without confession of truth,
– blessing without call to battle,
– juridical honor without submission to the absolute sovereignty of Christ the King and the infallible pre-conciliar Magisterium.
Measured by the unchanging doctrine articulated by Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, and Pius XI, the spiritual content of this letter is gravely deficient. It embodies the mental shift from the Church Militant to a humanistic, diplomatic, and, ultimately, apostate structure.
In that sense, its very banality is its condemnation: when the highest authority contents itself with such content-empty panegyrics while preparing a council that would enthrone religious liberty, ecumenism, and the cult of man, the faithful can see in this document not paternal care, but the calm handwriting of those preparing the abomination of desolation under a mask of benevolence.
Source:
Octogesimum natalem – Epistula ad Andream S. R. E. Cardinalem Jullien, octogesimum diem natalem acturum, d. 18 m. Octobris a. 1962, Ioannes PP. XXIII (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025