This Latin letter of John XXIII to Antonio Caggiano commemorates the 25th anniversary of Caggiano’s episcopal ordination, praising his work in Rosario and Buenos Aires: diocesan expansion, seminary construction, promotion of Catholic Action, collaboration of laity, and pastoral zeal. John XXIII grants him the faculty to impart, in his name, a blessing with a plenary indulgence to the faithful present at a solemn pontifical Mass marking the jubilee.
From the standpoint of unchanging Catholic doctrine, this apparently pious congratulation reveals a systematic naturalization of the episcopal office, a politicized cult of “Catholic Action,” and an abuse of spiritual authority in the hands of men steering souls into the conciliar revolution.
Episcopal Panegyric as a Manifesto of the Conciliar Revolt
From Apostolic Office to Bureaucratic Careerism
On the factual level, the letter is short and, at first glance, benign: a formal laudatory message for a silver jubilee. Precisely this brevity exposes its essence.
John XXIII addresses Caggiano with warm paternal language, recalling his “viginti quinque anni” in episcopal office, and extols his achievements:
“…valde adaucto paroeciarum numero, pulcherrimis Sacri Seminarii aedibus exaedificatis, religiosa institutione promota, Ecclesiasticae Hierarchiae adiutore laicorum apostolatu incohato…”
“…the number of parishes greatly increased, the beautiful buildings of the Sacred Seminary constructed, religious formation promoted, the laity’s apostolate begun in aid of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy…”
In traditional Catholic doctrine, *episcopatus* is not an honorific career but participation in the *plenitudo sacerdotii* (fullness of the priesthood), principally ordered to:
– the right worship of God in the *Unbloody Sacrifice*,
– the integral preaching of the deposit of faith,
– the guarding of the flock from error and moral corruption.
Compare the gravity of Trent (Session XXIII, can. 1-7; Denz.-H. 1767 ff.), where the bishop is a watchman accountable for blood if he fails (cf. Ez 3:17-21), with the bureaucratic, triumphalist tone here. Caggiano is praised primarily for:
– structural expansion,
– organizational implementation of Catholic Action,
– collaboration of laity in hierarchical initiatives.
What is nearly absent? Any mention of:
– the fight against heresy and Modernism,
– safeguarding the integrity of doctrine against the already-condemned errors exposed in *Pascendi* and *Lamentabili sane exitu*,
– the supernatural end of episcopal government: salvation of souls, the state of grace, preparation for judgment.
Integral doctrine, reaffirmed with terrifying clarity by St. Pius X, teaches that *Modernismus est haereticorum omnium conlectus* (*Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies*). Yet this letter, dated 1960—on the very eve of the council that would enthrone modernist principles—contains no hint of vigilance against this plague. The silence is deafening and therefore accusatory.
Naturalistic Metrics and the Eclipse of the Supernatural
On the linguistic and theological level, notice the operative criteria of praise:
– “pulcherrimis…aedibus” – beauty of buildings,
– “adaucto paroeciarum numero” – numerical increase,
– “Actionem Catholicam…aptis structuris temperasti” – structuring Catholic Action in line with papal directives,
– “operosa caritas” – active, industrious charity.
All these, considered in themselves, can be legitimate. But in the letter:
– They are presented as the chief titles of merit.
– They are abstracted from the dogmatic and sacramental rigor that alone gives them Catholic meaning.
– They function as naturalistic indicators of success: numbers, organization, infrastructure.
This is precisely the mentality condemned by earlier popes:
– Pius IX in the *Syllabus Errorum* rejects the notion that the Church is a mere socio-moral institution governed by modern liberal standards rather than divine law.
– Pius XI in *Quas primas* teaches that true peace and order flow only from the social reign of Christ the King, not from human structures detached from explicit submission to His law.
Here, the bishop is crowned not as defender of *regnum Christi* in the public order, but as an efficient manager of Catholic Action and diocesan expansion within an emerging concordat with secular, Masonic democracies. The letter’s vocabulary of accomplishments harmonizes disturbingly well with the liberal, statist narrative that treats the Church as an NGO with sacral decoration.
The omission of:
– the Kingship of Christ over nations,
– condemnation of liberalism, socialism, Freemasonry (all raging in Argentina in that period),
– the duty of rulers to recognize the true Church,
is a practical denial of what *Quas primas* unequivocally affirms. Silence here is not neutral: *qui tacet consentire videtur* (he who is silent is seen to consent).
Instrumentalizing “Catholic Action” against the Church
The letter lauds as a key merit:
“…Argentina tibi plurimum debet, quod per eius fines Actionem Catholicam ad Romanorum Pontificum placita et praescripta aptis structuris temperasti.”
“…Argentina owes you very much because throughout its territory you have organized Catholic Action, adapted by suitable structures to the wishes and prescriptions of the Roman Pontiffs.”
On the surface, a reference to Pius XI’s and Pius XII’s promotion of Catholic Action. But by 1960, in the hands of men of Caggiano’s milieu and under John XXIII’s encouragement towards the coming council, “Catholic Action” was already:
– a vehicle for the horizontalization of the apostolate,
– a laboratory for democratizing ecclesial life and diluting clerical authority,
– a training ground for “engaged laity” whose criteria were sociological and political rather than dogmatic and sacramental.
This letter crowns that apparatus as exemplary, without any warning against:
– infiltration of Modernism,
– subordination of supernatural ends to temporal “engagement,”
– the blurring of lines between ordained hierarchy and lay activism.
Integral Catholic teaching, from Leo XIII through Pius XII, always subordinated lay action strictly to the hierarchical apostolate and the defense of dogma. When “Catholic Action” becomes a self-referential mobilization machine whose orthodoxy is guaranteed only by obedience to men who are themselves diluting doctrine, it mutates into a paramasonic instrument of the conciliar sect.
By praising Caggiano’s Catholic Action “structures” on the eve of Vatican II, John XXIII effectively blesses the machinery that would soon:
– propagate false ecumenism,
– promote religious liberty against the *Syllabus*,
– support the cult of man later applauded by the usurping successors.
The letter is thus a quiet charter for using “lay apostolate” not to defend the Faith, but to reorganize society and “Church” along modernist, democratic lines.
Selective Piety and the Suppression of Anti-Modernist Witness
The rhetoric is saturated with soft, affective vocabulary: “suave,” “gratulamur,” “placidae sapientiae,” “operosa caritas,” “paternae benevolentiae vinculum.”
Notice what is missing:
– No reference to the anti-modernist oath (still formally in force in 1960).
– No reminder of the condemnations of:
– *Lamentabili sane exitu*,
– *Pascendi Dominici gregis*,
– the decrees against the Sillon, etc.
– No call to guard the seminaries—so ostentatiously praised architecturally—from heretical professors and curricula.
St. Pius X, in renewing the Church’s condemnation of Modernism, explicitly warned against those who, while externally conforming, in practice empty doctrine of its substance. Here, the very episcopal jubilee that should be a memento mori and a summons to doctrinal fidelity is converted into an occasion for:
– humanistic compliments,
– institutional self-congratulation,
– distribution of indulgences as a decorative flourish.
This is symptomatic of the conciliar mentality: the supernatural vocabulary (grace, blessing, indulgence) is retained as a thin veneer over a fundamentally horizontal project.
Abuse of Indulgences to Legitimize Subversion
The letter grants Caggiano a faculty:
“…ut, cum sacris pontificali ritu operatus fueris, adstantibus christifidelibus Nostro nomine Nostraque auctoritate benedicas, plenaria indulgentia sueta lege lucranda proposita.”
“…that, having celebrated the sacred rites in pontifical form, you may bless in Our name and by Our authority the faithful present, with a plenary indulgence offered under the usual conditions.”
Within the integral Catholic framework, indulgences are part of the Church’s treasury of merits, applied under strict conditions, presupposing:
– the state of grace,
– detachment from sin,
– true submission to the Catholic faith and hierarchy.
Here they are attached to a panegyric celebrating the very type of episcopal governance that has:
– replaced doctrinal combat with organizational activism,
– instrumentalized Catholic Action,
– prepared the ground for the council that will overthrow the anti-modernist bulwark.
Thus:
– The indulgence is wielded to reinforce loyalty to a human program.
– The faithful are invited—under penalty of appearing “ungrateful” or “disobedient”—to spiritually ratify the direction embodied by Caggiano and blessed by John XXIII.
This constitutes a moral abuse: *gratia Christi* is rhetorically tied to adherence to men who are in fact steering away from the prior magisterium. It prepares consciences to receive subsequently the entire conciliar revolution as if it were guaranteed by the same authority that attaches indulgences.
Once the structures are occupied by the conciliar sect, all later “indulgences,” “canonizations,” and “feasts” seep into this precedent: spiritual favors as propaganda tools of apostasy. The mechanism is anticipated here in miniature.
Erasure of the Kingship of Christ and the Triumph of Liberal Catholicism
Pius XI’s *Quas primas* (1925) established the feast of Christ the King precisely:
– to condemn laicism and secularism,
– to reaffirm that rulers and states are bound in conscience to publicly recognize and obey Christ,
– to combat the errors later imposed by Vatican II on religious liberty and ecumenism.
By 1960, any integral bishop in Argentina would confront:
– Masonic and liberal political elites,
– aggressive secularization of institutions,
– hostile ideologies (socialism, communism, nationalism divorced from Christ).
John XXIII’s letter:
– says nothing about the duty of the Argentine state to recognize the true Faith;
– says nothing about the Kingship of Christ over Buenos Aires;
– glorifies diocesan development and Catholic Action without grounding them in open militancy against religious indifferentism and the separation of Church and State condemned in the *Syllabus* and by Leo XIII.
This omission is not accidental; it is programmatic. The text’s theological horizon is not:
– “Instaurare omnia in Christo” (St. Pius X),
but:
– “adapt structures,” collaborate, manage, build, organize.
Such language harmonizes with the soon-to-be promulgated conciliar documents that:
– praise “religious freedom” in direct tension with prior magisterium,
– promote “dialogue” instead of condemnation,
– extol the dignity of man over the social rights of Christ.
Thus the letter functions as a subtle prelude to the renunciation of the social reign of Christ. It is an episcopal jubilee drained of royal theology, precisely in the generation that will enthrone the cult of man.
Episcopal Praise Without Any Mention of the Cross
A final, damning symptom: in a letter commemorating 25 years of episcopal office, there is:
– no meditation on the cross of the bishop,
– no call to share in Christ’s Passion,
– no reference to persecution, confession of faith, or martyrdom in defense of truth.
Instead:
– triumphal language of “meritorum lucentior corona” (brighter crown of merits),
– hope for health and long life to realize more projects.
Catholic doctrine teaches that:
– the apostolic ministry is inseparable from suffering and conflict with the world (John 15, 2 Tim 4),
– true shepherds are hated by the enemies of the Church,
– friendship with the world and its powers is a sign of infidelity.
In the age when Freemasonry and anti-Christian governments wage war on the Church (as Pius IX forcefully reaffirmed), an episcopate publicly caressed by a figure like John XXIII for its institutional success and Catholic Action “structures” is manifestly not living the theology of the cross, but the theology of accommodation.
This concord between episcopal comfort, political respectability, and papal praise is one of the clearest sociological indicators of the conciliar sect: a counterfeit “pastoral” style in which:
– no one is denounced,
– no error is named,
– only mutual compliments and permissions circulate.
Conciliar Sect DNA Condensed in a Single Page
This brief letter encapsulates, in embryo, the defining traits of the post-1958 paramasonic structure:
– Institutionalism over dogma: The measure of an episcopate is counted in parishes, buildings, and organized movements, not in doctrinal fidelity or zeal against heresy.
– Horizontal activism over supernatural militancy: Catholic Action is honored as a structural and political tool, severed from its original subordination to a militant, anti-liberal apostolate.
– Sentimental rhetoric over doctrinal clarity: Soft, affective language replaces the precise, dogmatic, and condemnatory style of pre-1958 papal documents.
– Silence on Modernism and Freemasonry: At a time when both are visibly undermining the Church, there is not one word warning the jubilarian or his flock.
– Indulgences instrumentalized: Spiritual treasures are deployed to cement allegiance to the very men and projects that are about to impose the conciliar revolution.
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, such a text is not a harmless courtesy; it is a sign:
– that the one issuing it no longer speaks with the voice of the popes who condemned liberalism, Modernism, religious indifferentism, and Masonic infiltration;
– that the episcopal network receiving such praise is being confirmed not in the Faith, but in its mutation into the “neo-church.”
Where the true Magisterium—Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI—always waged open war against the errors of the age, this letter offers peace, recognition, and sacralization of a new orientation. The mask of continuity lies precisely in the use of traditional formulas to bless an anti-traditional program. This is the inner bankruptcy revealed by this deceptively small document.
Source:
Quoniam ab episcopali – Ad Cardinalem Caggiano vicesimum quintum a suscepto episcopatu annum implentem (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025