This brief Latin missive of John XXIII congratulates Antonio Caggiano, archbishop of Buenos Aires, on the twenty-fifth anniversary of his episcopal ordination. It praises his administrative achievements in Rosario (new parishes, seminary buildings, organization of lay apostolate and “Catholic Action” according to papal directives), commends his present governance in Buenos Aires, grants him the faculty to impart the papal blessing with a plenary indulgence on the jubilee celebration, and ends with a paternal “Apostolic Blessing.”
Commending the Architecture of Apostasy: A Hollow Panegyric as Symptom of the Conciliar Sect
Glorification of a Systemic Collaborator: Factual Premises Exposed
The text is outwardly modest: a conventional jubilee letter to a “beloved son,” replete with compliments for pastoral zeal, institutional expansion, and promotion of “Catholic Action.” Yet precisely this apparently harmless character reveals its poison.
Key factual elements highlighted by John XXIII:
– He extols Caggiano’s governance of Rosario for:
– multiplying parishes,
– erecting “most beautiful” seminary buildings,
– promoting “religious formation,”
– initiating lay apostolate and “Catholic Action” in harmony with Roman directives.
– He praises his transfer to Buenos Aires as wise and energetic leadership.
– He cites “Catholic Action” structured according to “the wishes and prescriptions of the Roman Pontiffs” in Argentina as a major merit.
– He confers the faculty to impart a papal blessing with attached plenary indulgence on the occasion of the episcopal jubilee.
On the factual level, what is being celebrated is not supernatural fidelity, but the consolidation of a politico-ecclesiastical apparatus that would, in the following years, seamlessly serve the conciliar revolution. John XXIII’s panegyric is, in truth, an endorsement of a man and a model of episcopate already detached from the integral Catholic militancy defined by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X and Pius XI, and quietly aligned with that very laicist-humanist drift these true popes condemned.
From the perspective of unchanging Catholic doctrine, such a letter is not neutral: it is the self-revelation of a nascent paramasonic regime that rewards docile managers of institutional Catholicism while remaining silent about the only realities that matter before God: the integrity of the faith, the Most Holy Sacrifice, the horror of sin, and the kingship of Christ over nations.
Linguistic Flattery as a Cloak for Doctrinal Emptiness
The rhetoric of this letter is telling. It is ostensibly “traditional” in form (Latin, deferential style), yet internally emptied of the traditional content that pre-1958 pontiffs invariably wove into even the briefest communications.
Characteristic features:
– Sentimental paternalism:
– Expressions such as “Dilecte Fili Noster” are repeated and drenched in affective tone, while the grave vocabulary of *fides*, *dogma*, *haeresis*, *error*, *salus animarum* (salvation of souls) is absent.
– Bureaucratic praise of efficiency:
– The emphasis lies on having “governed actively,” on “structures,” on “increasing the number of parishes,” on “beautiful seminary buildings,” and on well-organized “Catholic Action.”
– Nowhere does John XXIII inquire whether these seminaries are guarding Thomistic doctrine, whether Modernism is being eradicated, or whether the clergy form souls to live and die in the state of grace.
– Vacuous spiritual generalities:
– He invokes grace in an anodyne, decorative way, but omits all reference to the Cross, reparation, penance, or the combat against the enemies of the Church so central in Pius X’s struggle against Modernism.
– Indulgence as ornament:
– The grant of plenary indulgence is treated as a pleasant ceremonial appendage to institutional self-congratulation, not as a trumpet-call to contrition, confession, and conversion.
This language betrays a mentality already infected with the disease condemned by Pius X in Pascendi: the reduction of supernatural realities into pastoral decor surrounding a fundamentally naturalistic enterprise. The letter reads as if the episcopate’s greatness consisted primarily in administrative dynamism and harmonious collaboration with new models of lay participation, not in guarding the deposit of faith *sine labe* (without stain).
Where earlier popes instinctively spoke as guardians of truth at war with error, John XXIII speaks as a polished chairman of a benevolent corporation.
Silence on Supernatural Ends: The Gravest Indictment
The most damning aspect of this document is not what it says, but what it ostentatiously refuses to say. In the light of pre-1958 doctrine, this silence is itself accusatory.
Notable omissions:
– No mention of:
– the obligation to preserve intact the Catholic faith against Modernism and liberalism,
– the dangers of heretical errors corrupting seminaries, universities, press, and clergy,
– the royal rights of Christ over Argentina’s public life,
– the Last Judgment, hell, or the necessity of the state of grace.
– No reminder that:
– the bishop’s primary duty is to teach, sanctify, and govern in absolute fidelity to previous solemn condemnations of liberalism and false religious liberty (Pius IX’s Syllabus Errorum),
– lay apostolate must be strictly subordinated to hierarchy in order to defend the social reign of Christ, not to acclimate Catholics to secular, pluralist democracies.
When a supposed “Roman Pontiff” celebrates a quarter-century of episcopal governance in a key Catholic nation without a single explicit call to defend the Church against the enemies so massively unmasked by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X and Pius XI, this is not a minor stylistic defect; it is a sign of a new religion.
Compare:
– Pius IX in the Syllabus anathematizes the separation of Church and state and the notion that the Roman Pontiff must reconcile with liberalism and modern civilization. He exposes Freemasonry as the nucleus of the war against the Church.
– Pius XI in Quas Primas insists that real peace is possible only in the public Kingdom of Christ; states must publicly honor and obey Christ the King, and secularism is a plague tearing society apart.
– St. Pius X in Lamentabili and Pascendi identifies Modernism as the synthesis of all heresies, condemning the evolution of dogma, democratic inversion of magisterial authority, and the subjection of doctrine to historical criticism.
John XXIII, addressing a major episcopal figure in Argentina in 1960—a time of aggressive secularization, Freemasonic influence, and doctrinal dissolution—says nothing. This studied silence in the face of condemned errors is not accidental; it is functional. It is the tacit program: normalize coexistence with liberal and Masonic structures, reduce the Church to a well-organized religious NGO, and anesthetize consciences.
Silere de fide cum loqui de episcopatu (to be silent on the faith while speaking of the episcopate) is already a betrayal. This letter is one more brick in that betrayal.
Instrumentalization of Catholic Action: From Militant Apostolate to Controlled Laicist Machinery
A central boast of the letter is Caggiano’s role in structuring Catholic Action across Argentina according to papal prescriptions. John XXIII treats this as a crowning achievement. Yet, viewed through pre-1958 doctrine, this praise reveals a deep perversion.
Before the conciliar revolution, Catholic Action—when rightly understood—was conceived as:
– an extension of hierarchical apostolate,
– ordered to the restoration of the social kingship of Christ,
– militant against liberalism, socialism, and religious indifferentism,
– entirely subordinate to the integral magisterium.
But by the mid-20th century, and especially under those preparing the conciliar overturning, “Catholic Action” in many places was being transformed into:
– a mechanism for democratization inside ecclesial life,
– an instrument of laicist “participation,”
– a bridge to political collaboration with forces imbued with condemned errors,
– a preparatory school for the laity to accept the cult of human rights, pluralism, and interconfessionalism.
By praising Caggiano in these terms, John XXIII honors not a defender of the *Regnum Christi*, but an architect of lay mobilization perfectly suited to the conciliar sect’s future agenda: displacing the supernatural mission of the Church with social activism and “engagement” within secular frameworks.
Pius XI, whose own social encyclicals firmly presupposed Christ’s public kingship, would doom as monstrous any “Catholic Action” that became antechamber to religious pluralism and capitulation to laicist states. John XXIII, by contrast, refrains from reaffirming the binding social teachings and instead congratulates the machinery itself. The omission is programmatic.
An Indulgence Without Conversion: Sacramental Language Emptied and Weaponized
The letter grants Caggiano faculty:
“that, having celebrated the sacred rites in pontifical form, you may bless the faithful present in Our name and with Our authority, with the usual conditions for gaining a plenary indulgence” (paraphrase).
On the surface, this seems perfectly traditional. Yet, situated in its real context—on the lips of one who inaugurates the line of usurping antipopes—this gesture takes on a different character.
Consider:
– A plenary indulgence is not an honorary decoration for institutional efficiency; it is a treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints, applied under specific conditions of confession, Communion, detachment from all sin, and prayer for the intentions of the true Roman Pontiff.
– When conferred by an antipope as a hallmark of loyalty to a conciliar-preparatory system, such language becomes double-edged: retaining forms to sedate consciences while redirecting trust away from the authentic magisterium to the new regime.
– The lack of any serious exhortation to repentance, confession, or detachment from sin in this context is not accidental. It displays the horizontalism that would soon permeate the Church of the New Advent: *indulgences* as sentimental accessories to ecclesial festivities, not as luminous calls to conversion under the authority of the true Vicar of Christ.
Forma sine veritate, sacramentale verbum sine pugna pro fide (form without truth, sacramental language without combat for the faith): this is precisely how the conciliar sect secures adhesion—keep the vocabulary, erase the content.
Episcopal Ideals Redefined: From Guardians of Dogma to Courtiers of the Neo-Church
Pre-1958 doctrine knows precisely what a bishop is:
– successor of the Apostles,
– guard of the deposit of faith (*depositum custodi*),
– defender against heresy,
– sanctifier by the Most Holy Sacrifice and sacraments,
– ruler who must resist secular powers that usurp the rights of the Church (Pius IX forcefully affirms the nullity of state usurpations over ecclesiastical jurisdiction).
Measured by this standard, the virtues ascribed by John XXIII are chillingly insufficient and revealing:
He praises:
– expansion of parishes (quantitative),
– construction of buildings (aesthetically “beautiful”),
– promotion of generic “religious formation,”
– harmonization of Catholic Action with Roman directions,
– exercise of “prudent” and “energetic” governance,
– “peaceful wisdom” and “operative charity.”
He does not praise—or even mention:
– defense of doctrine against invasive Modernism,
– vigorous preaching against liberalism and socialism,
– combat against Masonic influence condemned repeatedly by the true Magisterium,
– promotion of the social reign of Christ the King over Argentine laws, schools, and institutions,
– formation of clergy deeply rooted in Thomism and the anti-modernist oath,
– protection of the faithful from the coming doctrinal revolution.
Thus, episcopal excellence is tacitly redefined:
– from dogmatic intransigence to institutional efficiency,
– from militant orthodoxy to diplomatic moderation,
– from confessors of Christ the King to comfortable dignitaries serving the structures occupying the Vatican.
Qui laudat habitum, tacet de fide, mutat episcopum in administratorem (he who praises style and is silent on faith transforms the bishop into a mere administrator). This letter is a micro-manifesto of that transformation.
Organic Continuity with Condemned Liberalism: The Symptomatic Dimension
The document’s deepest significance appears when we place it against the backdrop of firm pre-1958 condemnations:
– Pius IX rejects:
– the separation of Church and state,
– religious indifferentism,
– the exaltation of human liberty against divine authority,
– the alliance with secret societies undermining Catholic order.
– Leo XIII insists that civil authority must be subject to Christ and His Church; true freedom exists only in submission to divine law.
– St. Pius X unmasks Modernism as an attempt to subject dogma to historical evolution, to democratize the Church’s constitution, and to reinterpret faith as mere religious experience.
– Pius XI in Quas Primas teaches that peace and order for individuals and nations can exist only when the reign of Christ is publicly recognized and obeyed.
Nowhere in John XXIII’s letter is there even the faintest echo of this militant clarity. Instead:
– There is an implicit acceptance of a pastorate co-existing peacefully with secular liberal orders in Latin America.
– There is applause for forms of lay apostolate that, in practice, smoothed the transition to religious pluralism and the worship of “democracy” as highest value.
– There is total silence about Masonic operations and modernist infiltration—precisely where earlier popes spoke with burning urgency.
This is not accidental discontinuity; it is strategic silence. The conciliar sect does not refute the old condemnations; it buries them under a flood of innocuous smiles and administrative congratulations.
Lex orandi, lex credendi (“the law of prayer is the law of belief”): here, the “law of papal correspondence” has become a law of appeasement, signaling to bishops that what counts is institutional growth, not doctrinal combat. This mentality, spread across episcopates, made the later revolution appear as a “natural” development rather than the rupture it truly was.
Why This Minor Letter Matters: Micro-Text as Macro-Indictment
Some might object that this is “only” a short congratulatory letter. Precisely for that reason it is revealing. High-level doctrinal texts are expected to be precise; but smaller documents show the habitual soul of a regime. In such minor acts, what is spontaneous surfaces.
What we see in this letter:
– Spontaneous focus on:
– organization,
– appearances,
– institutional harmony,
– laicist-participatory structures.
– Spontaneous omission of:
– militant doctrinal clarity,
– warnings against modern errors,
– insistence on the social kingship of Christ.
Such “minor” texts, multiplied across years, formed an entire generation of bishops who learned that Rome cared above all for:
– external growth,
– collaboration with modern social forms,
– docility toward the new conciliar orientation.
They were rewarded, blessed, indulged, and placed in key positions. The result: a hierarchy fully prepared to accept and implement:
– religious liberty errors,
– false ecumenism,
– vernacularized and protestantized rites,
– anthropocentric “human rights” discourse,
– evolution of dogma and the cult of man.
This letter is one piece of that pre-conciliar conditioning, cloaked in Latin and traditional courtesies, yet already divorced from the integral spirit of the anti-liberal, anti-modernist Magisterium.
Conclusion: The Emptiness Behind the Smile
From the standpoint of the integral Catholic faith, the document titled “Quoniam ab episcopali” manifests:
– a shift from supernatural, dogmatic criteria of episcopal judgment to naturalistic, managerial, and structural criteria;
– a deliberate silence on the very modernist and liberal dangers solemnly exposed by pre-1958 authority;
– an endorsement of lay and episcopal patterns that would soon serve as channels for the conciliar revolution;
– a use of traditional language and indulgences as ceremonial varnish on an ecclesiastical apparatus drifting toward apostasy.
Where true popes recalled incessantly that peace is only possible under the reign of Christ the King, that Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies, and that secular liberalism is an enemy of the Church, John XXIII offers to a powerful prelate no such reminder—only compliments for construction projects and “Catholic Action” management.
This is not shepherding; it is anesthetizing. It is not the vigilance of Peter; it is the courtesy of a president of a religious association preparing his cadres for the enthronement of man in place of Christ.
The letter stands, therefore, as a quiet yet crystalline sign of that paramasonic structure which, beginning precisely with John XXIII, weaponized outward Catholic forms to establish the abomination of desolation where the holy once stood.
Source:
Quoniam ab episcopali – Ad cardinalem Caggiano vicesimum quintum a suscepto episcopatu annum implentem, die II m. Martii a. 1960, Ioannes PP. XXIII (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025