Quinque celebranti as Manifest of the Curial Oligarchy’s Self-Adoration
This brief Latin letter of John XXIII congratulates Joseph Pizzardo on the fiftieth anniversary of his creation as “cardinal,” praising his services in the Roman Curia, in Catholic Action, and in overseeing seminaries and universities, invoking God’s protection and imparting an “Apostolic Blessing” as a token of goodwill and gratitude. It is a seemingly harmless, courtly compliment; in reality, it is a concentrated symptom of a human-centered, bureaucratic, and theologically evacuated mentality that prepared and justified the conciliar revolution and the demolition of Catholic formation.
Celebration of a System That Had Already Betrayed Its Mandate
On the surface, John XXIII’s text appears merely laudatory, almost banal. Yet precisely this banality is damning.
He extols Pizzardo for his work:
“in Actionis Catholicae campo… fructuosam operam impendisti… in Romana Curia… praegravibus perfunctus es muneribus; cumprimis vero Sacro Consilio Seminariis Studiorumque Universitatibus praeposito Praefectus… praeclara tibi comparasti merita”
Translation: “in the field of Catholic Action… you have rendered fruitful service… in the Roman Curia… you have fulfilled very weighty offices; especially as Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and Universities… you have acquired distinguished merits.”
From the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine before 1958, this congratulation is not neutral:
– By 1962, the very domains being praised—Catholic Action, seminaries, Catholic universities—were already deeply infiltrated by the Modernist errors condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili sane exitu. John XXIII neither recalls these condemnations nor calls for doctrinal vigilance. Instead, he confirms the system that had demonstrably failed to extirpate Modernism.
– Pizzardo’s Dicastery was responsible for preserving the purity of priestly and academic formation. That same institutional milieu allowed the theologians of the conciliar revolution—Rahner, Küng, Congar, de Lubac, Schillebeeckx, and others—to flourish, publish, and then dominate Vatican II. For a true Catholic mind, this failure is not cause of jubilee, but of trembling.
The letter is thus not merely a personal compliment; it is a public ecclesiastical endorsement of a compromised apparatus. It canonizes mediocrity and complicity precisely where the pre-conciliar Magisterium required militant vigilance. This inversion is the hinge of the entire crisis.
Language of Courtly Flattery Instead of Supernatural Seriousness
The rhetoric is revealing. The text is woven from polite formulas, void of doctrinal gravity:
– “tam felicis eventus memoriam votis ominibusque” – emphasis on a “happy event” with wishes and auspices.
– “magna provincia… praeclara merita” – bureaucratic success language, not spiritual combat.
– “magno corde et animo volenti” – the blessing is characterized psychologically and sentimentally (“with great heart and willing spirit”) rather than as a juridically and theologically objective communication of supernatural authority ordered to truth and salvation.
On the linguistic level, we observe:
1. Total absence of reference to doctrine. No mention of the defense of the faith, the condemnation of errors, the integrity of the sacraments, or the obligation to form priests in anti-modernist rigor. For a letter to the man responsible for seminaries and universities during the most critical doctrinal onslaught since the Reformation, this silence is catastrophic.
2. Flattening of supernatural priorities into careerist praise. The criteria are longevity, efficiency, loyalty to the Curia, “merits” in organization—not fidelity to Pius IX’s Syllabus, not obedience to Pascendi or the Oath against Modernism, not zeal for the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary.
3. Naturalistic and administrative tone in place of spiritual fatherhood. An authentic Roman Pontiff, writing in 1962 amid the advance of condemned errors (religious liberty, ecumenism of relativism, biblical “criticism” against inspiration), should recall the grave obligations: “Ecclesia… ius habet, immo officium, errores proscribendi” (the Church has the right and indeed the duty to proscribe errors). Instead, we see genial compliments.
This bureaucratic, almost Masonic politeness is not accidental. It is the style of a structure that has already shifted from guarding Revelation to managing a human institution. Lex orandi, lex credendi (“the law of prayer is the law of belief”): when the language of pastors loses the note of dogmatic vigilance, it reveals a mutated belief.
Systematic Omission of the Real Battle Against Modernism
The most damning aspect is what the letter does not say.
John XXIII writes to the Prefect over seminarians and universities in December 1962, during the first session of Vatican II, at the moment when:
– The anti-modernist safeguards imposed by St. Pius X were being practically shelved.
– The theologians previously silenced or warned under Pius XII were rehabilitated and elevated.
– The preparatory schemas faithful to doctrine were being discarded to make room for ambiguous, adaptable texts.
Yet the letter contains:
– No recall of Syllabus Errorum of Pius IX rejecting religious indifferentism, liberalism, and the exaltation of “progress” against the rights of Christ the King.
– No reference to Lamentabili or Pascendi, despite their explicit condemnation of the very trends that were entering seminaries and universities under the banner of “renewal.”
– No admonition regarding the non-negotiable dogma of the uniqueness of the Catholic Church, against the ecumenical relativism that would soon dominate.
– No mention of Hell, judgment, the necessity of the state of grace, or the grave obligation to form priests as defenders of dogma against the world.
This silence is not a neutral stylistic choice. In view of the doctrinal context, it is a functional endorsement of quiet apostasy.
St. Pius X had warned that Modernism, “omnium haereseon conlectum” (the synthesis of all heresies), primarily corrupts seminaries and universities and hides under obedience and institutional decorum. When John XXIII praises, without qualification, the very machinery that allowed this to happen—calling its fruits “praeclara merita”—he confirms the betrayal.
Contradiction with the Pre-1958 Magisterium on Formation
The true Catholic Magisterium prior to 1958 defined with crystalline clarity the duties of those responsible for clerical and academic formation:
– Pius IX in the Syllabus condemns the thesis that the Church has no right to direct doctrine, education, and public teaching (propositions 45–48). The Church must control teaching; lay or secular control is an error.
– Leo XIII in his encyclicals insists that philosophical and theological studies in seminaries must be grounded in Thomism, obedient to Revelation, and hostile to liberalism and rationalism.
– St. Pius X in Pascendi and in his regulations for seminaries orders vigilance, exclusion of modernist professors, strict supervision of publications, and doctrinal uniformity.
Measure the letter’s content against these principles:
– John XXIII praises Pizzardo’s governance of seminaries and universities, yet without a single reminder that their raison d’être is to defend, not “update,” doctrine.
– There is no insistence on St. Thomas as the norm, no denunciation of “new theology,” no warning against those very tendencies that the pre-1958 Magisterium repeatedly branded as destructive.
Thus the letter operates as a subtle yet clear repudiation in practice of the previous teaching. Without daring to state it doctrinally, it normalizes a regime that contradicts it existentially. It is the courteous face of rebellion.
Cult of Human Merit and Institutional Loyalty
The entire structure of the text exalts:
– tenure (“quinque lustra” in the purple),
– bureaucratic diligence,
– activity in “Catholic Action” framed as organizational achievement,
– administrative leadership over educational institutions,
all crowned by benign paternal approval.
Missing entirely is:
– reference to martyrdom of doctrine,
– defense of the flock from wolves,
– hatred of heresy (odium haeresis),
– the Cross as criterion of ministry.
Instead we have a spiritualized form of career recognition: an ecclesiastical jubilee card. This spirit directly contradicts the earlier understanding that episcopal and curial office is terrifying responsibility, where silence in the face of error is a sin.
Pius XI in Quas Primas taught that peace and order are only possible where Christ reigns socially and that states and institutions that reject His rights pave the way to ruin. By 1962, the “Church of the New Advent” was preparing to adapt itself to pluralism, religious liberty, and interreligious “dialogue”—precisely the positions condemned by Pius IX and Pius XI. Yet the Prefect responsible for the intellectual bastions of the Church is not exhorted to defend the social Kingship of Christ, but is simply praised for his past work.
This indicates a tacit shift: from servire Regi Christo (to serve Christ the King) to serving the smooth operation of a worldwide religious administration seeking accommodation with the modern world.
Theological Emptiness of the “Apostolic Blessing”
The closing formula is emblematic:
“Apostolicam Benedictionem ‘magno corde et animo volenti’ impertimus, quae caritatis in te Nostrae novum tibi sit testimonium et pignus.”
“We impart the Apostolic Blessing ‘with a great heart and willing spirit,’ which may be for you a new testimony and pledge of Our charity toward you.”
In Catholic theology, a papal blessing is not primarily a rhetorical flourish, but an act anchored in the munus Petrinum, ordered to strengthening in the faith and salvation of souls. Here, it is reduced to:
– a sign of personal affection,
– an affirmation of human “merits,”
– detached from any reference to the objective good of the Church’s doctrine.
Moreover, coming from one who inaugurated, led, and symbolized the conciliar revolution, this “blessing” seals not the defense of tradition, but its suspension. It functions as liturgical cover for institutional infidelity: an appearance of apostolic continuity used to ratify systemic discontinuity.
Symptom of the Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Deformation
This letter must be read as a micro-manifesto of the conciliar oligarchy’s mentality:
1. Shift from doctrine to diplomacy.
The priority is smooth relations, recognition, and morale within the hierarchy, not clarity of faith. The same mentality produced ambiguous conciliar texts, “pastoral” evasions, and subsequent doctrinal dissolving.
2. Institutional self-congratulation amid doctrinal collapse.
While modernist theology metastasized through seminaries and universities, the central authority patted itself on the back. This is not mere negligence; it is complicity. Those responsible for guarding the depositus fidei instead guaranteed impunity to its gravediggers.
3. Erasure of anti-modernist militancy.
Not once does John XXIII call Pizzardo to continue the line of Pius IX and St. Pius X. The anti-modernist Magisterium becomes a dead letter. In practice, lex silentii (the law of silence) is applied to binding condemnations.
4. Preparation of the new pseudo-ecclesial structure.
A hierarchy trained to value polite formulas, longevity, and “Catholic Action” activism over doctrinal vigor is the ideal instrument for the later neo-church: the “paramasonic structure” that preaches human rights, religious liberty, ecumenical parity, and the cult of man. This letter is a small but pure sample of that psychological conditioning.
Contrast with Authentic Catholic Norms for Shepherds
The Fathers, councils, and popes repeatedly defined what a bishop or cardinal must be:
– Defender of dogma, enemy of error.
– Watchman who does not sleep when wolves attack.
– Man of the Cross, not a courtier of worldly or intra-ecclesial powers.
St. Paul resisted Peter to his face when the truth of the Gospel was endangered. St. Pius X demanded that bishops root out modernists in their dioceses and seminaries, not caress them with congratulations. Pius IX fought liberal governments and secret societies, identifying in Masonic and liberal principles the “synagogue of Satan” that seeks to destroy the Church.
Against this, the letter presents an image of high office as serene administration crowned by papal compliments. No trace of the Pauline severity: “If anyone preach a gospel contrary to that which you have received, let him be anathema.” The anathema disappears; only applause remains.
Such a mentality is the exact opposite of the mandate given by Christ and exercised by the pre-1958 papacy. By their language and silences they witness against themselves.
Exposure of Spiritual Bankruptcy
The theological and spiritual bankruptcy manifested in this short text can be synthesized:
– Bankruptcy of purpose: No orientation to defending revealed truth; only institutional auto-celebration.
– Bankruptcy of vigilance: No acknowledgment of the greatest doctrinal assault of modern times, precisely in the fields under Pizzardo’s authority.
– Bankruptcy of supernatural realism: No mention of sin, Hell, judgment, the gravity of leading souls astray, or the responsibility of educators.
– Bankruptcy of continuity: De facto shelving of Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII’s constant teaching regarding education, Modernism, and the social Kingship of Christ.
The letter is therefore not “merely” polite. It is damning evidence of a hierarchy that had already ceased to think, speak, and act as the guardians of the deposit of faith. It exposes a shift from Ecclesia docens (the teaching Church) to an ecclesiastical club distributing honors. From such a spirit, the conciliar and post-conciliar disasters followed not as accidents, but as logical consequences.
Where the true pre-conciliar Church demanded odium erroris (hatred of error) and sacrificial guardianship of orthodoxy, this text offers sentimental approval and institutional comfort. Such is the soil in which the later abominations—false ecumenism, religious liberty ideology, the profanation of the sacraments, and the enthronement of man—took root and flourished.
Source:
Quinque celebranti – Epsitula ad Iosephum S. R. E. Cardinalem Pizzardo, Episcopum Albanensem et Praefectum S. Congregationis Seminariis Studiorumque Universitatibus praepositae, quinque implentem lust… (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025