On 5 July 1960, John XXIII issues a Latin congratulatory letter to Joseph Frings, celebrating the approaching 50th anniversary of his priestly ordination. The text enumerates Frings’ alleged natural virtues and pastoral merits: social sensitivity, organizational achievements in Cologne, international charitable initiatives, and his professed attachment to the Roman See, crowned by a gift of technical equipment for Vatican Radio so that the “voice” of Rome might better reach the world. The tone is uncritical eulogy, glorifying both the recipient and the new orientation of the structures occupying the Vatican.
John XXIII’s Cult of Human Virtue as Prelude to Conciliar Rupture
From Apostolic Benediction to Human-Centred Panegyric
Already the opening lines betray the spirit of the conciliar revolution. Instead of anchoring the jubilee in the sacrum character indelebile of the priesthood and in the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary as the centre of a presbyter’s life, John XXIII constructs an edifying narrative of psychological impressions, humanitarian activism, and institutional successes.
Key emphases include:
– Praise for Frings’ “natural” gifts, sympathy, love of Alps, music, letters.
– Emphasis on the motto “Pro hominibus constitutus” treated primarily in a horizontal sense.
– Long enumeration of social-charitable enterprises (aid to Japan, South Korea, South Africa, famine relief) as the distinctive glory of Catholic Germany.
– Special applause for Frings’ loyalty to the “See of Peter,” illustrated concretely by a technical donation to Vatican Radio that magnifies the “voice” of John XXIII to the ends of the earth.
– References to diocesan synod, church-building, Catholic gatherings under the slogan “Church sign of God among nations,” and Frings’ role in episcopal conferences and refugee affairs.
– Concluding with a plenary indulgence and a formal Apostolic Blessing.
Not one word about the gravity of the priestly office in sacrificing, absolving, teaching the integral faith in uncompromising opposition to error; instead, a canonization in all but name of an ecclesiastical politician who would soon collaborate decisively in the destruction of dogmatic order during Vatican II. This is not pastoral piety; it is the ideological self-portrait of the conciliar sect.
Factual Level: Selective Biography in the Service of Revolution
On the factual plane, the letter is deliberately one-eyed. Every chosen fact is marshalled to legitimise a new model of episcopate and a new religion.
1. Elevation of natural predispositions to quasi-theological status
John XXIII extols Frings’ temperament, cultural tastes, love of the Alps, music, letters, as if these “human qualities” were principal badges of episcopal excellence. Traditional Catholic doctrine never despised natural gifts, but subordinated them strictly to the supernatural order. Pius IX’s Syllabus had already condemned the naturalistic exaltation of human reason and culture detached from divine authority and revealed truth. Here, we see the reverse movement: the supernatural is a background hue; the foreground is personality.
– Integral Catholic teaching: the priest is configured to Christ the High Priest primarily to offer the propitiatory Sacrifice and guard the deposit of faith. His natural gifts are accidental, not constitutive.
– John XXIII’s narrative: natural virtue, charm, culture, and humanitarian sympathy become the main categories. This aligns with the condemned illusion that man’s natural goodness suffices to reform society without explicit submission to Christ the King.
2. Charity severed from dogma and missions without conversion
John XXIII highlights Frings’ involvement in international aid: Japan, South Korea, South Africa, global famine relief. There is no mention of explicit preaching of the Catholic faith, no insistence on conversion to the one true Church, no echo of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation). The missionary activity Pius XI described in Quas Primas—the spread of the Kingdom of Christ over nations through faith, baptism, and submission to His law—is replaced by logistical relief programmes and “aid.”
– This omission is not neutral. It exemplifies the condemned thesis that man may find salvation “in the observance of any religion whatsoever” and that “good hope” is to be entertained for those outside the Church as such (Syllabus errors 15–18).
– The letter presents cooperation and assistance to non-Catholic nations as self-justifying; there is no trace of the duty to teach them the only true religion. This anticipates the entire ecumenical and interreligious humanitarianism of post-conciliarism, where missions are quietly emptied of their supernatural end.
3. Episcopal conferences and technocracy as “merits”
The text praises Frings as head of episcopal assemblies in Fulda and as protector in refugee matters, and celebrates his donation of technical equipment to Vatican Radio.
– The glorification of episcopal conferences foreshadows the democratized, horizontal governance later weaponized to relativize primacy and dissolve clear jurisdictional lines—a deformation foreign to the pre-1958 ecclesiological structure in which bishops assist, not replace, the central doctrinal authority.
– Vatican Radio is presented as the great channel whereby the voice of John XXIII reaches “even the furthest coasts of Africa.” The implicit dogma: the more global, the more mediated, the more “communicative,” the more authoritative. But if the “voice” itself carries adulterated doctrine, then technology is an amplifier of apostasy. Pius IX explicitly exposed the machinations of paramasonic networks using modern means to wage war against the Church; John XXIII here unwittingly outlines the infrastructure of the new religion’s propaganda.
4. Frings’ real historical role (from secure sources)
Independently verifiable historical facts (prior to 1958’s doctrinal demolition and with sufficient documentation) confirm that Frings later became one of the major figures of the progressive bloc at Vatican II:
– He collaborated closely with theological advisers like Joseph Ratzinger.
– He publicly contested and helped overturn the prepared schemata of the Holy Office, undermining the anti-modernist barrier established by St. Pius X.
– His interventions catalysed the replacement of clear doctrinal condemnations with vague, “pastoral” formulations.
While the letter predates the council’s opening, it glorifies precisely those traits—“openness,” activism, episcopal-conference leadership—that would become the levers of conciliar subversion. The panegyric is therefore not an innocent biographical note; it is a deliberate staging of a new “type” of bishop: more diplomat than confessor, more administrator than guardian of dogma.
Linguistic Level: Sentimental Humanism Veiling Supernatural Abdication
The rhetoric of the letter is revealing. Its vocabulary and silences are soaked in the new anthropocentric “theology.”
1. Absence of the language of sin, error, combat
Nowhere does John XXIII:
– Mention the gravity of doctrinal error ravaging Germany and Europe.
– Refer to modernism as “omnium haereseon collectum” (the synthesis of all heresies) as St. Pius X had done in Pascendi.
– Speak of hell, judgment, or the necessity of preaching against heresy, indifferentism, socialism, liberalism, or the condemned masonic conspiracies described unambiguously by Pius IX.
Instead, the tone is soft, emotive, decorous:
– “serene judgments”, “generous liberality”, “widely extending mercy”.
– “splendid” initiatives, “singular” example, “golden letters” for history.
Such sentimentalism displaces the combative vocabulary of the pre-conciliar Magisterium, which constantly invoked divine rights, objective duties, absolute dogmas, and the necessity of rejecting error. The modernist tactic is visible: replace theological precision with emotive adjectives and thereby dismantle moral and doctrinal vigilance.
2. Sanctification of horizontal action
The letter presents natural and social works as if they were direct evidence of sanctity:
– International charity is described as the unique glory of the German “Church.”
– Administrative achievements and the motto “Church sign of God among nations” are highlighted as luminous indicators of ecclesial vitality.
But stripped of dogmatic content, “sign of God among nations” becomes an empty slogan, perfectly compatible with religious pluralism. It is telling that John XXIII chooses this phrase as a crowning lemma, instead of repeating the perennial teaching: the Catholic Church is the one Ark of Salvation, outside of which there is no true religion.
3. Instrumental use of Augustine
Augustine is quoted: “Otium sanctum quaerit caritas veritatis, negotium iustum suscipit necessitas caritatis” (“Holy leisure is sought by the charity of truth; just work is undertaken by the necessity of charity”).
– Torn from its doctrinal context, this maxim is employed to give a patristic sheen to Frings’ activism.
– But Augustine’s “caritas veritatis” is inseparable from adherence to defined dogma and rejection of heresy; it is precisely Augustine who ruthlessly denounces innovators and schismatics.
– John XXIII evacuates the martial Augustinian dimension and keeps only a decorative aphorism, turned into a flexible legitimisation of “contemplation and activity” in general, without specifying their content.
This pattern—patristic citations without patristic edge—is a standard conciliar strategy.
Theological Level: Subversion of the Priesthood and the Kingship of Christ
At the deepest level, the document must be judged according to the integral Catholic faith as taught consistently until 1958. Measured by that rule, its deficiencies are not accidental; they are doctrinally symptomatic.
1. Priesthood reduced to social function
The entire letter purports to honour 50 years of priesthood, yet barely touches the essential realities:
– No robust affirmation of the priest as alter Christus, ordained primarily to offer the Most Holy Sacrifice, forgive sins, and guard the flock from wolves.
– No stress on the absolute duty of the bishop to condemn error, excommunicate obstinate heretics, and preserve the purity of doctrine as solemnly required by Trent, Vatican I, and the anti-modernist documents.
Instead, the “priest” appears as:
– A refined humanitarian.
– A coordinator of aid programmes.
– A member and leader of episcopal conferences.
– A promoter of technical outreach.
This is a practical denial of the sacrificial and sacramental essence of Holy Orders. It aligns with the progressive tendency later visible in the new rite of episcopal consecration and the post-conciliar “presbyterate” theology, where the priest becomes primarily president of the assembly and social facilitator.
2. Silencing of the Kingship of Christ and the rights of the Church
Pius XI in Quas Primas (1925) taught with crystalline clarity:
– Peace and order are possible only when individuals and states submit publicly and privately to the reign of Christ the King.
– The Church must claim full freedom and independence from the state, and rulers must honour Christ and conform laws to His commandments.
In this 1960 letter:
– No demand that nations (including those aided: Japan, Korea, African states) embrace the reign of Christ.
– No call for Catholic Germany to resist secularism or liberal legislation.
– No denunciation of masonic and liberal persecutions, despite the well-documented role of secret societies in waging war on the Church (as Pius IX described).
Charitable work is extolled abstractly, devoid of its Christological and ecclesiological telos. This omission effectively subordinates the supernatural mission to the liberal-humanitarian paradigm condemned in the Syllabus, particularly error 80: that the Roman Pontiff must reconcile himself with “progress, liberalism, and modern civilization.”
3. Modernist ecclesiology in nuce
The letter, though outwardly pious, implicitly propagates several modernist propositions solemnly condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi:
– Treating the Church primarily as a historical, sociological subject evolving via conferences, synods, and collective experiences (cf. condemned propositions 53–55).
– Emphasizing pragmatic, pastoral, and social achievements over doctrinal clarity and over the immutability of teaching (cf. 58–60).
– Presenting the “voice” of the “pope” as a quasi-absolute living norm, detached from the binding anti-modernist Magisterium of his predecessors.
By exalting Frings as an exemplar of this evolving, dialogical, socially engaged episcopate, John XXIII canonizes in advance the very orientation that the pre-1958 Magisterium identified as the road to apostasy.
Symptomatic Level: The Letter as Manifesto of the Conciliar Sect
This text is not an isolated courtesy. It must be situated within the historical trajectory of the conciliar usurpation starting with John XXIII.
1. Rewarding and empowering future saboteurs of dogma
Joseph Frings would soon, as is verifiable from council records and contemporary documentation, play a pivotal role in attacking the Holy Office and the safeguards against modernism. John XXIII’s exuberant praise, including the symbolic amplification of Frings’ status, signals to the episcopate the new regime’s preferences:
– Bishops who embody openness to the world, participate in large-scale humanitarian cooperation, and show readiness to reshape ecclesial praxis are honoured.
– Militant defenders of doctrinal integrity, faithful to the anti-modernist line of Pius IX–Pius XII, are marginalized.
Thus the letter performs a programmatic function: it marks the axis along which the neo-church will choose and reward its cadres.
2. Horizontal solidarity replacing supernatural militancy
By centring the narrative on famine relief, refugee care, international aid, radio equipment, and cultural refinement, the document inculcates a new spirituality:
– The highest expression of ecclesial life becomes cooperation for temporal welfare.
– The gravest “sins” become lack of dialogue, lack of openness, insufficient humanitarianism.
– Combat against error, insistence on exclusive truth, and rejection of liberalism are silently retired as “negative” and unworthy of emphasis.
This is precisely the spiritual dynamic which Pius X identified as Modernism’s essence: transforming the faith into a religious sentiment adjusting itself to human needs and historical circumstances, dissolving fixed dogma into praxis and “pastoral” concerns.
3. Instrumentalization of indulgences
At the end, John XXIII grants Frings the faculty to impart, on a chosen day, the Apostolic Blessing with plenary indulgence. In itself, such faculties are traditional; but here they are embedded in a context where:
– The entire preceding narrative suggests that the merits crowning the jubilee are humanitarian and institutional rather than sacrificial and doctrinal.
– The faithful are led to associate spiritual privileges with the new postures of the conciliar sect.
Thus elements of traditional piety are co-opted to rubber-stamp a humanistic, liberal ecclesiology. The shell remains; the content is altered.
Omissions That Condemn: The Silence More Eloquent Than the Words
From the perspective of unchanging Catholic doctrine, certain silences in this letter are more incriminating than explicit deviations.
1. No reference to the universal apostasy and internal enemies
St. Pius X warned with apostolic fire against the “enemies of the Church within her very bosom,” modernist theologians and clergy who sought to demolish the faith from inside. Pius IX had already unmasked secret societies and liberal governments as instruments of the “synagogue of Satan” waging total war against the Church. By 1960, the crisis was far advanced.
John XXIII, instead of alerting a German “cardinal” (in a land ravaged by rationalism, Protestantism, and modernist theology) to his duty to extirpate error:
– Says nothing about vigilance against heresy.
– Offers no exhortation to defend the faithful against poisonous university theology and neo-modernist exegesis.
– Ignores the infiltration of paramasonic and liberal forces.
This silence is not ignorance; it is complicity. It manifests the shift from a Church that fights for Christ’s rights to a neo-church that coexists with, and ultimately embraces, the anti-Christian world.
2. No word of the Cross as scandal to the world
The language of the Cross—of suffering for the truth, persecution for fidelity, uncompromising witness even to blood—is absent. The only “patience” mentioned is generic, part of a vague wish to “act and suffer for the name and glory of God” without specifying that this will concretely mean conflict with the world’s errors and with temporal powers that reject Christ the King.
Without this, the call to suffering becomes a harmless moralism compatible with liberal democracy and interreligious collaboration.
3. No assertion of exclusivity of the Catholic Church
A true Roman Pontiff, when praising a bishop’s international works, would underscore that:
– The ultimate charity is to lead souls into the one Church founded by Christ.
– All other religions lack salvific authority and must be evangelized, not affirmed.
John XXIII suppresses this note entirely, aligning in spirit with the Syllabus’s condemned proposition 77–80 about reconciling with modern pluralism. This anticipates the later horrors of Assisi-style interfaith theatrics, religious liberty errors, and practical relativism.
Conclusion: A Courtesy Letter as an Icon of Doctrinal Abdication
Under the guise of a benign congratulatory epistle, John XXIII offers a concise manifesto of the conciliar sect’s anthropology and ecclesiology:
– Exaltation of human virtues, culture, and activism over the supernatural essence of the priesthood and the rights of God.
– Substitution of missionary zeal with humanitarian programmes that leave false religions unchallenged.
– Glorification of episcopal conferences and media expansion as instruments, not of safeguarding defined dogma, but of broadcasting a new, diluted message.
– Systematic silence regarding modernism, Freemasonry, liberalism, and the necessity of public submission to Christ the King.
Measured against the immutable doctrine taught by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII, this text stands condemned by its omissions, its euphemistic rhetoric, and its underlying premises. It is one more piece of evidence that what speaks here is not the voice of the perennial Roman Church, guardian of the deposit of faith, but the voice of a new orientation preparing, celebrating, and protecting those men—such as Frings—who would serve as architects of the great conciliar defection.
Source:
Proximo mense – Ad Iosephum tit. S. Ioannis ante Portam Latinam presb. Cardinalem Frings, Archiepiscopum coloniensem, quinquagesimum ab inito sacerdotio impletum annum celebraturum (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025