John XXIII’s Latin note “Quintam et vicesimam” (29 December 1961) is a brief congratulatory letter to Aloisio Traglia on the 25th anniversary of his episcopal consecration. John XXIII praises Traglia’s services in the Roman Curia, his role as vicar in Rome, and as president coordinating Catholic Action and lay apostolate in Italy, extols his “doctrine, diligence, devotion, urbanity,” and imparts an “apostolic blessing” upon him and those present. This apparently innocuous panegyric is in fact a synthetic manifestation of the new anthropocentric, bureaucratic, and pseudo-ecclesial order by which the conciliar sect enthroned itself against the Kingship of Christ and the divine constitution of the Church.

---

Courtly Flattery as Manifesto of the Neo-Church

John XXIII’s text is outwardly a conventional Roman curial compliment. Yet, judged by *integral Catholic doctrine* (the only legitimate standard), it exposes in miniature the inverted theology of the emerging neo-church: exaltation of men, structures, and “apostolate” techniques, with systematic silence about the Cross, sin, dogma, the Most Holy Sacrifice, and the absolute sovereignty of Christ the King.

The letter’s content is simple; its implications are grave.

I. The Factual Frame: A Bureaucratic Laudatio in Place of Apostolic Speech

The key elements of the text, stated accurately and succinctly:

– John XXIII addresses Aloisio Traglia on the 25th anniversary of episcopal ordination.
– He states that he wishes to be “present in mind and thought” among those congratulating him.
– He heaps praise on Traglia’s:
– services in the Roman Curia,
– role “vice sacra in Urbe Antistes,”
– function as “Cardinal Provicarious” in Rome,
– presidency of the “Episcopal Council for regulating Catholic Action and lay apostolate in Italy.”
– He commends his “doctrine, diligence, zeal, religionis studium, affability, eloquence.”
– He calls down divine help for his continued work, especially “to increase the ancient Christian piety of the city of Rome.”
– He gives an “Apostolic Blessing.”

On the surface: nothing “spectacular.” Precisely here the mask of the conciliar revolution is most revealing.

Measured against pre-1958 Catholic Magisterium, several factual and structural points emerge:

1. The entire text is horizontal: an exercise in human recognition of a functionary of structures administering “Action Catholique” and lay activism.
2. There is total absence of doctrinal content:
– no mention of defined dogma,
– no mention of guarding the flock against heresy and Modernism (explicitly condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi and Lamentabili sane exitu),
– no reference to the Roman Pontiff’s duty to “confirm thy brethren” (Luke 22:32) in the Catholic faith.
3. The “episcopal” dignity is treated as the occasion for institutional celebration and mutual compliments, not as the grave charge to preach, govern, and sanctify in the name of Christ the King, under threat of judgment (cf. Trent, Sess. XXIII; Pius XII, Ad Sinarum Gentem).

The factual “emptiness” is itself an accusation. At a moment (1961) when Modernism, condemned as *omnium haeresum collectum* (“the synthesis of all heresies”), was rampaging in seminaries, biblical institutes, and lay movements, John XXIII offers not one syllable of warning, correction, or defense of the faith. This is not omission by accident; it is programmatic.

II. The Language of Flattery as Symptom of Doctrinal Collapse

The rhetoric exemplifies the new cult:

– John XXIII says he rejoices to manifest the “love” and “great esteem” in which Traglia “flowers” before him:

…caritatem, qua te prosequimur, et egregiam existimationem, qua apud Nos fiores, palam testari.

– He enumerates Traglia’s administrative and social virtues: “doctrina, diligentia, sedulitate… suavitate animi, morum comitate, diserti oris placida gratia.”
– He presents him as beloved of “every good person.”

From the standpoint of Catholic theology:

– The bishop is primarily:
– defender of the deposit of faith,
– guardian of right worship,
– judge against error and heresy,
– pastor who must be ready to shed blood for the flock.
– Pius IX and Pius X insist, repeatedly and solemnly, that bishops who tolerate liberalism, naturalism, or Modernism betray their office.
– Pius IX, in the Syllabus (prop. 80), condemns the idea that the Roman Pontiff can reconcile himself to “progress, liberalism and modern civilization.”
– St. Pius X in Pascendi and Lamentabili denounces the minimization of dogma, doctrinal relativism, and the domination of lay “public opinion” in religion.

Yet John XXIII’s letter is pure courtly compliment. The language reveals:

1. A substitution of supernatural categories (sanctity, fidelity to dogma, combat against error) with bourgeois virtues (pleasant manners, “placid grace,” organizational competence).
2. An implicit anthropology: the key criterion of episcopal excellence becomes success in conciliarized lay movements (Catholic Action) and bureaucratic governance, not zeal for the integral faith.
3. A systematic omission of any military, ascetical, or sacrificial language beloved of traditional Magisterium for bishops (cf. Leo XIII, Pius XI, Pius XII): no suggestion of being “milites Christi,” no mention of the *munus docendi* under anathema.

This is not neutral style. It embodies the neo-church’s program: disarm the episcopate, enthrone diplomacy, sentiment, and human respect. The bishop becomes a “moderator” of activism inside a paramasonic structure, rather than an apostolic successor bound by divine and canon law.

III. Theological Vacuum: A “Blessing” Detached from the Deposit of Faith

The letter’s “blessing” is formally pious yet theologically hollow:

Uberrima auxilia et solacia a Deo… ut… praesertim urbis Romae priscae christianae pietati adaugendae te asserere pergas, Apostolicam Benedictionem tibi… impertimus.

Translated sense: he asks copious help from God so that Traglia, strong in soul and body, may continue, especially, to increase the ancient Christian piety of Rome; then he imparts the Apostolic Blessing.

Grave problems emerge:

1. No doctrinal content is attached to “piety.” What piety?
– Not explicitly the piety inseparable from dogma, sacraments, and submission to the perennial Magisterium.
– Not explicitly opposition to the revolution of laicism, condemned by Pius XI in Quas Primas.
– Rather: a vague, nostalgic “priscam pietatem,” perfectly compatible with a musealized, folkloric Christianity emptied of binding truth.

2. The “Apostolic Blessing” is invoked without assertion of the immutable conditions of apostolicity:
– Apostolic Succession in doctrine: *eodem sensu eademque sententia* (in the same sense and the same judgment), as taught by Vatican I and Pius IX.
– Public rejection of condemned errors (Syllabus, Lamentabili, Pascendi).

3. Silence where Catholic pontiffs spoke with thunder:
– Pius XI, in Quas Primas, explicitly links social peace and the true good of nations only to the public recognition of Christ’s Kingship and the obedience of states to His law: any other foundation is condemned.
– Pius X, in Pascendi, orders bishops to root out Modernist poison relentlessly.

John XXIII, instead, on the eve of his revolutionary council, gives unqualified endorsement to a man at the center of the Roman apparatus coordinating “Catholic Action” and the lay apostolate — precisely the channels soon used to spread conciliar doctrines of religious liberty, ecumenism, and democratization of the “people of God.”

A blessing severed from truth is not paternal; it is complicity. *Gratia non destruit naturam sed supponit* (grace does not destroy nature but presupposes it) — analogously, a true apostolic blessing presupposes integral Catholic faith, not its gradual dissolution.

IV. Catholic Action and Lay Apostolate: Instrumentalization for the Conciliar Revolution

Particularly revealing is John XXIII’s praise of Traglia as:

Praeses Episcopalis Consilii Actioni Catholicae et laicorum apostolatui in Italia temperandis

i.e., president of the episcopal council for coordinating Catholic Action and the lay apostolate in Italy.

Under pre-1958 Popes, Catholic Action had a strictly defined role:

– It was to be an *instrumentum* subordinated to the hierarchy, aimed at:
– defending Catholic social doctrine,
– combating socialism, communism, liberalism, and Masonic influence,
– promoting public recognition of the Church’s rights and Christ’s Kingship.
– Pius XI and Pius XII, while using “lay apostolate” language, always anchored it in:
– doctrinal orthodoxy,
– sacramental life,
– anti-liberal combat (cf. Pius XI, Non abbiamo bisogno, Quas Primas; Pius XII’s addresses to Catholic Action).

In John XXIII’s letter:

– Catholic Action and lay apostolate are mentioned purely as administrative fields, without doctrinal content.
– There is no warning against the very tendencies St. Pius X condemned: the “democratization” of doctrine, popular pressure upon the Magisterium, and “public opinion” dominating theology.
– This omission is not neutral. In the very years when the conciliar sect was preparing to:
– proclaim religious liberty against the Syllabus,
– inaugurate ecumenical relativism,
– enthrone a “Church of the people,”
John XXIII exalts the coordinator of lay structures as an exemplary prelate, with no doctrinal qualifications.

From the perspective of unchanging doctrine:

– Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief):
– When ecclesial documents reduce the episcopal and lay apostolate to sociological, sentimental, and diplomatic functions, they reshape belief.
– This letter is a small but clear exemplar of that deformation:
– The laity are not exhorted to defend the one true Church against error.
– They are not warned against liberal, socialist, or Masonic infiltrations — despite explicit papal condemnations (Pius IX clearly attributes the contemporary war on the Church to such sects, identifying them with the “synagogue of Satan.”)
– Instead, they are placed under a system that, as seen in hindsight but rooted already in this mindset, becomes an instrument of aggiornamento, the conciliar revolution, and the dissolution of Catholic identity into “dialogue” and “human rights.”

V. Silence about Modernism and Apostasy: The Loudest Sentence in the Letter

Among the most damning traits of this text is its absolute silence regarding:

– the Modernist heresies systematically condemned in Lamentabili and Pascendi,
– the perversion of Scripture, dogma, and sacramentality by “new theology” and historical relativism,
– the growing cult of religious liberty and ecumenical relativism opposed to the Syllabus and Quas Primas,
– the Masonic assault on the Church’s rights and on Christ’s Kingship.

In the true Church:

– Popes and bishops are charged to warn, condemn, and protect: *“the Church, in condemning errors, has the right to require internal assent”* (against proposition 7 of Lamentabili).
– Pius X explicitly teaches that those who diminish the force of Roman Congregations’ condemnations are in grave error; he attaches excommunication to obstinate defense of Modernism.

John XXIII’s letter:

– Never mentions:
– safeguard of the deposit (*depositum custodire*),
– the duty to oppose error,
– the supernatural end of the episcopal office (salvation of souls from eternal damnation).
– Treats the episcopal jubilee as a secular anniversary: an occasion for compliments, not for recalling the terrifying obligation of judgment at Christ’s tribunal.

This is not pious discretion. It is an inversion of priorities:

– The greatest threat — Modernist apostasy “within the Church herself,” foretold and condemned by pre-1958 Popes — is entirely absent.
– Instead, there is serene self-celebration of the very administrative apparatus that would soon orchestrate the conciliar overthrow of previous condemnations.

Such silence is itself betrayal. *Qui tacet consentire videtur* (he who is silent is seen to consent) when duty compels speech.

VI. Anthropocentrism and the Erosion of Christ’s Social Kingship

Pius XI in Quas Primas teaches unequivocally:

– The calamities of modern society flow from “very many having removed Jesus Christ and His most holy law from their personal, family and political life.”
– True peace and order are possible only when individuals and states recognize and obey the reign of Christ the King publicly.

In the John XXIII letter under review:

– There is no assertion of the public rights of Christ over Rome and Italy.
– There is no demand that lay apostolate and Catholic Action strive to restore civil society to obedience to the divine law and to the one true Church.
– “Piety” is individualized, sentimentalized, detached from the social Kingship of Christ.

This anthropocentric tone anticipates the conciliar sect’s ideology:

– replacement of the Kingship of Christ with the cult of “human dignity,” “religious freedom,” and “dialogue” with error;
– abandonment, in practice, of the condemnation of liberalism and indifferentism, contrary to the Syllabus and Quas Primas;
– transformation of clergy into managers of “participation” rather than guardians of dogma.

By praising Traglia as exemplary precisely in his role of moderating lay apostolate under this emergent horizon, John XXIII is effectively endorsing — in seed form — the later post-conciliar inversion: from *“Regnum Christi”* to “kingdom of man.”

VII. The Letter as Symptom of the Conciliar Sect’s Ecclesiology

If we situate this 1961 letter in the continuum of pre- and post-1958 teaching, a pattern appears:

– Pre-1958 popes:
– Speak with metaphysical clarity, condemn specific errors, invoke their office as guardians of objective, unchanging dogma.
– See the world’s crisis as rebellion against God and His Christ; they anathematize the notion that the Roman Pontiff must reconcile with liberalism (Syllabus 80).
– Identify and denounce Masonic and naturalist forces as the organized enemy.

– John XXIII’s text:
– Eliminates polemical clarity.
– Exalts personal virtues and institutional roles without doctrinal qualifiers.
– Treats episcopal governance and lay apostolate as neutral or self-evidently good, regardless of their doctrinal orientation.
– Is permeated by an irenic, sugary tone in which every sharp edge of previous condemnations vanishes.

In ecclesiological terms:

– The visible structure is praised while its supernatural raison d’être — guarding and transmitting the deposit *intact* — is not even mentioned.
– This is the psychology of a parallel structure: a “Church of the New Advent,” a paramasonic organism occupying buildings, offices, and titles, yet hollowing out their Catholic content.

Thus this letter, though short, reflects the essential traits of the conciliar sect:

– Elevation of men; eclipse of Christ the King.
– Celebration of lay activism; silence on the dogmatic criteria that alone make apostolate Catholic.
– Bureaucratic panegyric; absence of apostolic admonition.
– Amicable blessing; no call to defend the faith against the errors solemnly condemned by the pre-1958 Magisterium.

VIII. Conclusion: A Micro-Icon of Systemic Apostasy

Under the light of unchanging Catholic doctrine:

– A truly Catholic papal letter marking 25 years of episcopacy in the See of Peter’s own city would:
– praise fidelity to the defined faith;
– recall the grave responsibility to defend Rome against heresy, indifferentism, and Masonic penetration;
– exhort to promote the public Kingship of Christ and to reject liberal principles condemned by Pius IX and Pius XI;
– insist on guarding the faithful from Modernist novelties already anathematized by St. Pius X.

John XXIII’s “Quintam et vicesimam” does none of this.

Instead, it offers a polished mirror in which the nascent neo-church admires itself:

– harmonious, polite, organizationally efficient,
– surrounded by lay apparatuses of “apostolate” detached from doctrinal combat,
– serene in the face of Modernism, which it should have been relentlessly extirpating.

The text thus stands as a concise but telling document of spiritual inversion: where the language of paternal Catholic authority is retained externally, but evacuated of its supernatural substance and redirected toward the consolidation of a conciliatory, man-centered, dogmatically indifferent regime.

What appears as a harmless congratulation is, under scrutiny by the perennial Magisterium, a sign of the systemic betrayal that would soon manifest openly in the conciliar revolution and the construction of the post-conciliar abomination occupying the Vatican.

---

Source:
Ad Aloisium tit. S. Andreae Apostoli de Valle S. R. E. Card. Traglia, in Urbe Provicarium et Episcopalis Consilii Actioni Catholicae ac laicorum apostolatui in Italia temperandis Praesidem, quinto et …   (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025