The text is a brief congratulatory letter in Latin from John XXIII to Pietro Ciriaci on the fiftieth anniversary of Ciriaci’s priestly ordination. It praises his academic, curial, and diplomatic career; commends his service to the Holy See in Czechoslovakia and Portugal; extols his role as Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Council and head of the Pontifical Commission for interpreting the Tridentine decrees; and imparts an “Apostolic Blessing” upon him and those celebrating this jubilee. It is presented as a simple paternal commendation of a “faithful servant” of the Apostolic See. In reality, this letter is a concise manifesto of the conciliar revolution: a humanistic cult of career, diplomacy, and bureaucratic expertise, entirely devoid of supernatural gravity, issued by an antipope to an accomplice in the dismantling of Catholic authority.
Commending the Architects of Ruin: John XXIII’s Praise of a Conciliar Functionary
Naturalistic Panegyric Without Supernatural Substance
Already at the factual surface, the letter is revealing.
John XXIII (the first usurper of the conciliar line) addresses Cardinal Pietro Ciriaci on his sacerdotal jubilee. The essential elements of authentically Catholic praise for a priest of fifty years are conspicuously absent:
– no mention of the *Most Holy Sacrifice* offered daily for souls,
– no emphasis on the salvation of sinners, the horror of mortal sin, or the Four Last Things,
– no call to perseverance in defending the faith against error,
– no clear reference to the objective ends of the priesthood: *sacrificium, doctrina, regimen* (sacrifice, teaching, governing) ordered to the glory of God and salvation of souls.
Instead, the focus is horizontal:
– Ciriaci’s cursus honorum, posts, functions, “duties of weight,” diplomatic successes.
– Repeated highlighting of his “acumen,” “vigour of intellect,” “dexterity and experience,” his “virile love” for the “See of Peter,” understood here as an institutionally occupied power center, not as the guardian of unchanging doctrine.
– His role in executing tasks that “brought about things beneficial to the Catholic name”—with no doctrinal content specified.
This is not an omission by accident; it is symptomatic. Pius XI in *Quas Primas* teaches that peace and order flow only from the public reign of Christ the King, and bluntly attributes modern disasters to the expulsion of Christ and His law from public and private life. Here, in contrast, the conciliar usurper writes an entire jubilee letter without once invoking the reign of Christ the King in the sense defined by Pius XI; the “benefit” is institutional and diplomatic, not doctrinal or salvific.
Such silence in an official text of praise for a long priestly life is itself an accusation: the supernatural mission is eclipsed by technocratic service to a politico-ecclesiastical apparatus.
Eloquent Silence on Doctrine and the Cure of Souls
On the linguistic and thematic plane, what is most damning is not what is said, but what is excluded.
The letter:
– does NOT mention:
– the defense of the faith against heresy,
– the Syllabus of Pius IX,
– the anti-Modernist struggle crowned in *Lamentabili sane exitu* and *Pascendi*,
– the duty to resist liberalism, socialism, secret societies, or state usurpation of Church rights,
– the necessity of preaching repentance, conversion, and adherence to all defined dogmas.
– instead envelops Ciriaci’s activity in bland, courtly formulas about “arduous tasks” and “increasing” dossiers, praising his handling of them with “prudence and diligence.”
The entire ethos is that of a polished civil service, not of the militant Church described by Pius IX and St. Pius X. Those pontiffs condemned:
– *indifferentism* (Syllabus, prop. 15–18),
– the subordination of the Church to state or worldly powers (Syllabus, 19–21, 39–45),
– the “progress,” “modern civilization,” and liberalism that demand reconciliation at the price of truth (Syllabus, 80).
Here, John XXIII writes as if those battles belonged to a bygone world; as if the perfect response to modern apostasy is to congratulate a curial official on his efficiency in managing a swelling bureaucracy. The supernatural is domesticated into etiquette.
Silence about:
– the state of grace,
– the reality of hell,
– the duty of public profession of the one true faith and rejection of all errors,
– the gravity of the modernist onslaught,
is not neutral; it is a betrayal. It implicitly affirms what Pius IX condemned: that religion may be reduced to private sentiment and institutional continuity without dogmatic militancy.
Perverted Understanding of the Priesthood: From Altar to Administration
A crucial theological distortion emerges in how Ciriaci’s priesthood is presented.
The letter highlights:
– his role as professor of philosophy and theology at Propaganda Fide,
– his service in the Roman Curia,
– his positions as Apostolic Nuncio,
– his responsibilities in interpreting the Tridentine decrees,
– his management of “arduous and ever increasing” matters.
What is missing:
– praise of him as *sacerdos in aeternum*, configured to Christ the High Priest for the offering of the Unbloody Sacrifice,
– mention of his fidelity to Tridentine doctrine against novel errors,
– stress on his pastoral charity in bringing souls from sin to grace.
This omission is not accidental rhetoric; it reflects a modernist inversion: the priest is assessed primarily as expert, negotiator, administrator—an ecclesiastical technocrat. This aligns perfectly with the errors condemned by St. Pius X: the reduction of supernatural realities to historical-functional categories, the belief that institutions “evolve” with society, and the subordination of dogma to “life.”
Authentic Catholic doctrine (Council of Trent, session XXIII) defines the priesthood essentially by:
– offering the propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead,
– remitting and retaining sins,
– feeding with sound doctrine,
– guarding the flock from heresy.
By praising a “jubilee” of such a high-ranking figure without mentioning those essential duties, John XXIII implicitly denies their primacy. The “honour” attributed to Ciriaci is institutional, not sacrificial. This is *theologia practica modernistica*: the Church is an organism of functions, not the Mystical Body ordered to Calvary.
Subversive Use of Trent: From Bulwark of Dogma to Instrument of Adaptation
One passage demands particular attention. John XXIII commends that Ciriaci was put in charge of the “Sacred Council for interpreting the Tridentine decrees,” and he lauds how he settles difficult and multiplying cases with prudence and zeal.
On the surface, this looks like fidelity to Trent. In reality, in its historical context it is deeply suspect.
By 1959:
– the same circle was already gestating the Second Vatican pseudo-council,
– the agenda of “aggiornamento” (updating) was being advanced: openness to religious liberty, false ecumenism, collegiality, democratization of authority,
– modernist theologians, previously censured under Pius XII, regained influence.
To have the head of Tridentine-interpretation structures praised by John XXIII is not a sign of loyalty to Trent, but a sign that the fortress is now under new management.
Trent solemnly:
– anathematized indifferentism and the denial of the unique salvific necessity of the Church,
– defined the sacrificial, propitiatory nature of the Mass,
– reaffirmed the sacramental priesthood distinct from the laity,
– condemned justification by faith alone and all naturalistic reductions of grace.
The conciliar project—culminating in religious liberty, ecclesial pluralism, dialogue with heretics, recognition of false religions, and a new “liturgy” that obscures sacrifice—stands in direct opposition to Trent’s unchanging doctrine.
Thus the letter’s praise of Ciriaci’s role is a cruel irony: the very office meant to guard Tridentine decrees is placed in the hands of those who will “interpret” them into irrelevance. The method is typically modernist:
– keep the words,
– empty them of their original sense,
– invoke the authority of past councils to justify present apostasy.
This perversion is precisely that condemned in *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*: the notion that dogma evolves and that historical reinterpretation can silently overturn eternal truths. To celebrate such an official as exemplary is to canonize treachery.
The Language of Courtly Flattery as Veil for Apostasy
Linguistically, the letter is saturated with:
– soft paternalism (“Dilecte Fili Noster”),
– sentimental reminiscence,
– terms of human respect: “optima aestimatio,” “benevolentia,” “virilis amor,” “prudentia,” “sollicitudo,” “diligentia,” “decor.”
This is not accidental style; it is a strategy.
Several features reveal the underlying deformation:
1. Anthropocentrism:
– The focus is on human excellence, administrative competence, diplomatic success.
– There is virtually no language of fear of God, judgment, sin, or penance.
– God is invoked to grant “light and strength” so that Ciriaci may continue to labour “for the usefulness and honour of this See of Peter,” that is, to adorn the institution, not primarily to save souls.
2. Institutionalism:
– The “See of Peter” is treated as a political-moral symbol to which one owes “virile love,” abstracted from its doctrinal content.
– No mention that this See is bound by the Syllabus, Trent, Vatican I; its unchangeable definitions are not named, only its prestige.
3. Affective fog:
– The text avoids precise doctrinal affirmation or militant condemnations.
– It bathes its subject in vague, agreeable terms, characteristic of the conciliar rhetoric that will later celebrate “dialogue,” “openness,” and “pastoral sensitivity” while gutting faith and worship.
This style is not neutral. It mirrors what Pius X unmasked: *sentimental humanism* displacing the supernatural note of the Church. When the teaching office speaks like a ministry of culture congratulating a senior civil servant, it has already betrayed its mission.
From Anti-Masonic Vigilance to Conciliar Accommodation
Within the pre-1958 magisterium, there is a consistent, violent opposition to the forces that seek to enslave or dissolve the Church:
– Pius IX exposes the “sects… masonic or under any other name” as the backbone of the “synagogue of Satan” warring against Christ’s Church, warning that governments and elites have been infiltrated and corrupted.
– The Syllabus condemns the separation of Church and State, religious indifferentism, and the cult of progress.
Against that backdrop, it is significant that the letter:
– contains not a word about the grave threats to the Church from liberal regimes, communist persecution, and organized anti-Christian forces;
– presents the nunciatures in Czechoslovakia and Portugal purely as diplomatic assignments successfully executed, without mention of witnessing to Christ the King against impious states.
Ciriaci is praised as one who, through “dexterity and experience in affairs,” brought about “many things beneficial to the Catholic name” in complex political conditions. But what were these “benefits”? Without doctrinal specification, this language is the perfect vehicle for the conciliar compromise:
– negotiation instead of witness,
– concordats without confession of truth,
– cohabitation with error in the name of “prudence.”
The shift is tell-tale: from Pius IX’s open denunciation of masonic machinations to John XXIII’s bland court praise of those who manoeuvre within worlds often dominated by those same forces, without a word of warning. The *lex orandi* and *lex loquendi* (law of prayer and of speech) now submit to the liberal order.
Instrumentalizing “Apostolic Blessing” in a Counterfeit Hierarchy
The closing bestowal of an “Apostolic Blessing” is the theological climax of the letter:
– it purports to seal with supernatural favour a life defined, in this text, by administrative service and diplomacy;
– it extends this blessing to all who assist or participate in the jubilee.
Here emerges the deepest problem. A manifestly liberal, modernist, aggiornamento-driven usurper, who initiates the conciliar revolution, distributes what he calls “Apostolic” blessing upon an apparatus preparing the systematic demolition of the pre-1958 order.
From the perspective of unchanging Catholic doctrine:
– authority is given *for edification in faith and truth*; when seized or exercised against defined dogma, it is no longer authentic ecclesiastical authority.
– St. Pius X warns that Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies. To crown its exponents and organizers with ecclesiastical honour is to invert the order of Christ’s Kingdom.
– Pius IX, Pius X, and Pius XI make clear that the Church cannot “come to terms with” liberalism and modern civilization understood as emancipation from Christ’s reign; yet John XXIII’s entire pontificate is marked by precisely such a process.
Thus, the “blessing” here operates as an anti-sacramental sign:
– it appears to confirm grace, but in fact seals complicity in a system that will attack the Most Holy Sacrifice, relativize dogma, and enthrone human dignity in place of Christ the King.
– it illustrates *abominatio desolationis* (abomination of desolation) in germ: a counterfeit auctoritas using Catholic forms to advance anti-Catholic substance.
A Symptom of Systemic Apostasy: The Letter as Microcosm of the Conciliar Sect
When read closely, this short text condenses the essential traits of the Church of the New Advent:
1. Horizontalism and Human Respect:
– The priesthood is praised chiefly for institutional and diplomatic career.
– The supernatural purpose of the priest—offering sacrifice, preaching truth, saving souls from hell—is tacitly marginalized.
2. Doctrinal Emasculation:
– No explicit reaffirmation of pre-existing condemnations of liberalism, indifferentism, modernism.
– No militant confession of the unique truth of the Catholic faith against error.
– Silence, where the true Magisterium had thundered, becomes a method of revision.
3. Rhetorical Modernism:
– Soft, emotive, non-dogmatic language replaces crisp doctrinal affirmation.
– Catholic dogmatic terminology is almost absent; the vocabulary signals a shift from *militia Christi* to “pastoral fraternity.”
4. Instrumentalization of Trent:
– The decrees of Trent are mentioned only institutionally, as objects of administrative interpretation.
– Those tasked with “interpreting” will, in the coming years, help neutralize Trent under the banner of a pseudo-council.
– Thus the very citadel of doctrine is emptied from within.
5. Pseudo-Apostolic Blessing:
– The usurper assumes the posture of father and shepherd while engineering the conditions of doctrinal collapse.
– Compliance and efficient service to this new order are rewarded with praise and “benediction.”
This letter, modest in length, stands as a precise snapshot of the mutation: from the Church that issued the Syllabus, *Quas Primas*, and *Lamentabili*, to a paramasonic structure of smiling self-congratulation, preparing to enthrone man, dialogue, and religious pluralism.
Conclusion: The Jubilee of Betrayal
From the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine before 1958, the true scandal of this document is not some spectacular, explicit heresy; it is something more insidious:
– the replacement of the supernatural with polite institutionalism,
– the refusal to speak as the Bride of Christ in the age of apostasy,
– the benediction of men whose “prudence” and “dexterity” will serve the conciliar sect in disfiguring the visible face of the Church.
Where Pius IX saw masonic sects drilling away at the foundations and sounded the alarm, where St. Pius X anathematized Modernism as the synthesis of all heresies, John XXIII writes a letter in which:
– the great battles are forgotten,
– fidelity is reduced to career competence,
– and the “honour” of the See of Peter is invoked without any serious confession of the doctrines that constitute that honour.
In such a context, the fiftieth anniversary of priesthood as celebrated here is no longer the jubilee of a soldier of Christ; it is the jubilee of an official of the conciliar regime. To expose this inversion is not an exercise in rhetoric; it is a duty of justice to the immutable Magisterium, which judged in advance the very mentality this letter exudes.
Source:
Quinquagesimum Natalem – Ad Petrum Tit. S. Praxedis S. R. E. Presbpterum Cardinalem Ciriaci, Sacrae Congregationis Concilii Praefectum, quinquagesimum natalem sacerdotii celebraturum, die 28 m. Novemb… (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025