Dated 11 May 1959, this Latin letter of antipope John XXIII to Antonio Caggiano and the other Argentine hierarchy commemorates two anniversaries: the centenary of formal diplomatic relations between the Holy See and Argentina, and the 25th anniversary of Pius XI’s reorganization of the ecclesiastical structure in that country. It praises Argentina as a Christian nation, exalts the post-1929 ecclesiastical expansion (parishes, churches, clergy, religious, Catholic Action, schools, hospitals), encourages civil and ecclesiastical authorities to deepen collaboration with the Roman See, and bestows an “apostolic blessing” as a pledge of divine favor.
Si ingratae mentis: Diplomatic Flattery as Preludium to Apostasy
Praise without Conversion: The Naturalistic Premise of John XXIII
Already in the opening lines John XXIII reveals the essential orientation of this text: horizontal, diplomatic, conciliatory. He clothes it in pious phrases, yet the structure is political, not supernatural.
He recalls that it would be “ungrateful” not to remember divine benefits and immediately applies this to:
“maioris momenti et singulis gentibus impertita caelestia dona… saecularis… memoria, inter hanc Petri Sedem et Argentinam gentem publicae amicitiae initarum rationum.”
English: “the greater heavenly gifts granted to particular nations… the centenary… of the establishment of public relations of friendship between this See of Peter and the Argentine nation.”
The decisive maneuver appears here: diplomatic relations with a temporal state are rhetorically elevated almost to “heavenly gifts.” The letter’s entire logic unfolds from this confusion:
– The public friendship of a nation with the Roman See is treated as though it were itself a supernatural grace.
– The categories of statecraft, concordats, and “public friendship” are slid into the register of graces and charisms.
Integral Catholic doctrine before 1958 teaches clearly:
– The Church is a *perfect society* (Pius IX, Syllabus, prop. 19 condemned; Leo XIII, Immortale Dei).
– Concordats and diplomatic ties are contingent instruments ordered to the one end: that states recognize the social kingship of Christ and publicly profess the Catholic religion (cf. Pius XI, Quas Primas).
– No merely diplomatic “amicitia” is per se a “celestial gift” unless subordinated explicitly to the confession of the one true Faith and the subjection of civil law to Christ the King.
This letter never recalls Argentina’s duty to profess the Catholic religion as the only true one; never insists that Christ must reign in its constitution, its laws, its schools, its press, its political life; never denounces liberalism, laicism, socialism, Freemasonry, or indifferentism ravaging Latin America.
Instead, it dissolves supernatural categories into sentimental state-church cordiality. That is the seed of the conciliar revolution: replacing the clear, juridical, dogmatic language of the true Magisterium with irenic, gaseous rhetoric that flatters nations while leaving their rebellion against Christ the King intact.
Linguistic Cosmetics: Pious Varnish over a Humanitarian Program
The vocabulary betrays the spirit.
1. Inflated compliments:
John XXIII congratulates the Argentine hierarchy “with great praise” for centenary celebrations, speaking of:
“magna cum laude gratulamur… haec est communium causa gaudiorum…”
He asserts:
“nemo est, qui… ignorare vel non agnoscere possit, quot et quantae inde utilitates exortae sint.”
English: “there is no one who, reviewing your country’s past and recent history, could ignore or fail to recognize how many and how great benefits have arisen from it.”
This absolute tone (“no one can fail to see”) is not applied to defined dogma, but to his own irenic reading of Argentine developments. He canonizes his optimism.
2. Quantitative triumphalism:
He lists as signs of grace:
– more parishes,
– more churches,
– more “sacred ministers,”
– more religious and nuns,
– growth of “Catholic Action,”
– more schools and colleges,
– hospitals,
– works of social charity.
All these can be, in themselves, instruments of grace; but the letter never once mentions their ordered end:
– the preaching of the integral Catholic faith,
– the frequent worthy reception of the sacraments,
– the defense of the flock against heresy,
– the condemnation of liberalism, socialism, and secret societies,
– the salvation of souls from eternal damnation.
That silence is damning. Pius XI in Quas Primas teaches that the calamities of the age proceed from having “thrust Jesus Christ and His holy law out of the lives of individuals, families, and states,” and that true peace will come only when Christ reigns socially and politically. Here, by contrast, John XXIII praises Argentine developments without demanding that the state confess Christ the King or repudiate liberal errors condemned by Pius IX’s Syllabus (e.g. propositions 55, 77–80).
3. Sentimental biblical ornament:
He decorates with Psalm 64:
“Visitasti terram et irrigasti eam… benedixisti germini eius.”
English: “You have visited the earth and watered it… You have blessed its growth.”
Applied vaguely to institutional growth and national friendship, this biblical imagery becomes a poetic fog masking the absence of doctrinal precision. It suggests: more structures = more grace. But the Church has always judged growth by fidelity to the deposit of faith, not by sociological statistics.
4. Diplomatic flattery to rulers:
He praises the decision of Argentine political leaders to take part in the celebrations:
“religionem sanctissimam… et Petri Sedem honore prosequi civilis quoque sapientiae nobile insigne est clarumque pignus.”
English: “to honor the most holy religion and the See of Peter is also a noble mark of civic wisdom and a clear pledge.”
Here “civic wisdom” is praised merely for attending ecclesiastical ceremonies, not for legislating according to the law of Christ, nor for rejecting Masonic and liberal principles. It is the language of a chaplain flattering statesmen, not of a successor of St. Pius X warning governments that laws contrary to divine and natural law are null before God.
The tone is that of diplomatic courtesy notes—exactly the bureaucratic irenicism which Pius X condemned in Pascendi as the method of Modernism: adjusting language to please the world, weakening doctrinal clarity, suppressing conflict between Christ and revolution.
Theological Evacuation: Christ the King Reduced to Ornament
Measured against pre-1958 doctrine, the theological content is almost devoid of substance. What is present is subordinated to the naturalistic narrative; what is absent exposes the rupture.
Key points of omission and distortion:
1. No affirmation of the exclusive truth of the Catholic religion.
Pius IX explicitly condemns the proposition that the Church “has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion” (Syllabus, prop. 21). The integral Magisterium constantly reaffirms this exclusive claim.
John XXIII’s letter:
– Never states that Argentina, to be truly blessed, must publicly acknowledge Catholicism as the only true faith and reject all false religions.
– Never warns against religious indifferentism (Syllabus, props. 15–18).
– Speaks only of “christian humanity’s culture” and “Evangelical wisdom” in a vague, exemplary sense.
This calculated silence anticipates the later conciliar cult of “religious liberty” and “dialogue,” already condemned by the pre-conciliar Church.
2. No assertion of the duty of the State to recognize Christ’s social kingship.
Pius XI in Quas Primas insists that rulers are bound to acknowledge and obey Christ and shape legislation according to His law. The Syllabus (props. 55, 77–79) condemns the separation of Church and State and the liberal dogma of equal rights for all cults.
John XXIII:
– Praises the participation of state authorities in festivities as “noble civic wisdom.”
– Desires better “relations” between Apostolic See and state “in catholicae rei incrementum et decus” and for the nation’s advantage.
– Never articulates that their laws, schools, marriage legislation, public morals, and penal codes must conform to the law of Christ.
– Never denounces Freemasonry, socialism, laicism, or anti-clerical forces which Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Pius XI explicitly marked as the sworn enemies of God.
This is not an oversight. It is a programmatic shift: the supernatural subjection of the temporal power to Christ the King is replaced by a mutual congratulatory partnership. The abdicating logic of the later “Dignitatis Humanae” and ecumenical diplomacy is already here in seminal form.
3. No mention of sin, judgment, or the necessity of grace.
In a letter allegedly commemorating “heavenly gifts,” there is:
– no call to repentance,
– no warning about mortal sin,
– no mention of hell or judgment,
– no insistence on the necessity of sanctifying grace through valid sacraments,
– no exhortation to preach the full Gospel “opportune, importune,”
– no defense of doctrine against heresy.
The entire spiritual horizon is reduced to:
– institutional expansion,
– harmonious cooperation,
– “fraternal” example to other nations,
– optimism about “new methods and paths.”
But as St. Pius X taught in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi, Modernists reduce dogma to historical expression and pastoral efficiency, replacing the drama of salvation with historical progress and psychological uplift. John XXIII’s letter exudes precisely that mentality: as long as there are more buildings, more associations, more joint celebrations, all is well.
4. Misuse of Psalms to canonize human strategies.
By invoking biblical images of God watering and blessing the earth directly in reference to organizational growth and diplomatic anniversaries, John XXIII implicitly sanctifies his own ecclesio-political agenda. The text subtly suggests:
– the new structures,
– the chosen style of collaboration,
are themselves evidence of divine approval.
This resembles the error condemned in Lamentabili that dogmatic and institutional developments are merely historical products of Christian consciousness and circumstances. Here, however, it is inverted: contingent political and institutional facts are wrapped in an aura of providential inevitability, beyond serious doctrinal critique.
Symptom of the Conciliar Sect: From Militancy to Accommodation
Seen within the continuum of pre-1958 teaching, this letter is not an isolated courtesy. It is symptomatic of a deeper inversion that would soon explode in the conciliar and post-conciliar program.
Several symptomatic elements stand out:
1. Replacement of the Church Militant with a “nice” Church of mutual compliments.
Past popes confronted nations:
– condemning liberal and Masonic legislation,
– invalidating anti-Catholic laws as null before God,
– warning rulers of divine judgment (e.g. Pius IX’s protests against Prussia’s Kulturkampf; Pius XI against secularism and totalitarianism).
In this letter, John XXIII:
– does not rebuke a single concrete error,
– does not call Argentina to retract anti-Christian statutes,
– does not speak of the Crown Rights of Christ the King in public life,
– simply “hopes” that Argentina will shine by Christian culture and inspire others.
The Church ceases to command; she merely suggests. This is the embryonic “Church of the New Advent,” the conciliatory *neo-ecclesia* that cohabits with the world instead of judging it according to divine law.
2. Sanctification of statist collaboration.
John XXIII’s joy that government leaders join in the celebrations is presented as “clear pledge” of wisdom, as if occasional ceremonial deference sufficed. There is no question whether these same leaders:
– uphold divorce,
– tolerate blasphemy and pornography,
– promote secular schooling,
– allow or favor anti-Catholic sects.
This mindset prepares the later conciliar cult of “dialogue” with regimes and ideologies long condemned by the true Magisterium, from Freemasonry to communism, while silencing the demand for their conversion.
3. Positivist reading of ecclesial statistics.
Listing more parishes, more clergy, more institutions as quasi-automatic proof of blessing ignores:
– the principle that heresy and compromise can spread through structures as easily as truth;
– the very warnings of Pius X that Modernists infiltrate seminaries, faculties, and dioceses, corrupting from within.
The letter’s logic is: more activity = more grace. But action divorced from doctrinal integrity and sacramental validity is not growth of the Church; it is spread of a paramasonic simulacrum.
4. Early manifestation of the cult of “new methods.”
John XXIII calls all Argentine Catholics to strive:
“ad meliora, ad elatiora, ad potiora assequenda prisco studio, novis etiam rationibus et viis.”
English: “towards better, loftier, nobler things, with ancient zeal, also by new methods and ways.”
In Catholic tradition, *novae rationes* (new ways) are legitimate only when strictly subordinated to the unchanging doctrine (*eodem sensu eademque sententia*). Here, the phrase is unmoored from any doctrinal qualification. It becomes a blank check for “pastoral innovations” that would soon devastate the liturgy, catechesis, and morals under the conciliar banner.
The Silence that Accuses: No Condemnation of Liberalism, Freemasonry, or Modernism
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, the most powerful indictment of this document is what it refuses to say.
At the very epoch when:
– Freemasonry and its satellites boasted of their influence in Latin American politics,
– secularization advanced in law, education, and media,
– socialist and communist movements spread their errors,
– internal Modernism, condemned by St. Pius X, entrenched itself in seminaries and universities,
John XXIII writes a solemn letter and:
– does not name Freemasonry even once,
– does not recall Pius IX’s and Leo XIII’s condemnation of secret societies,
– does not warn against Modernist theology,
– does not reaffirm the Syllabus or Pascendi,
– does not urge vigilant guardianship of seminaries and pulpits,
– does not even hint at the looming apostasy.
This is not benign omission. It is a deliberate rupture with the vigilant, militant stance of his predecessors. Pius IX explicitly linked the assaults on Church and society to Masonic sects, calling them the “synagogue of Satan.” St. Pius X branded Modernism “the synthesis of all heresies” and imposed an oath against it.
John XXIII, instead, offers soft phrases about “fraternal bonds” and “new methods.” The watchman on the walls has laid down his trumpet and joined the banquet.
Instrument of the Neo-Church: Preparing the Ground for the Abomination
Placed within the sequence of usurpers from John XXIII onward, this letter is a minor but telling piece of the same puzzle:
– It exemplifies the gradual evacuation of dogma from official discourse.
– It subordinates the supernatural mission of the Church to a conciliatory, diplomatic presence among nations.
– It presents the neo-church as a respectable partner in constructing human civilization, rather than as the unique Ark summoning nations to surrender to Christ the King.
By blessing anniversaries of “public friendship” without demanding the public reign of Christ, John XXIII:
– trains bishops to think like administrators of a religious NGO,
– encourages rulers to see ecclesial approval as a cultural ornament, not as a summons to conversion,
– habituates the faithful to a language in which “heavenly gifts” are indistinguishable from geopolitical arrangements.
The trajectory from such letters to:
– the betrayal of Catholic states,
– the acceptance of religious liberty as a civil dogma,
– the Assisi gatherings of syncretic prayer,
– the systematic replacement of the Most Holy Sacrifice with a protestantized rite,
is not accidental; it is organic. The same naturalistic, humanistic core is present here in embryo.
Conclusion: A Sterile Benediction from a Sterile Source
The letter ends by showering “Apostolic Blessing” on the Argentine hierarchy, the faithful, and the nation “dilectae Deo”:
“cunctae Argentinae nationi, dilectae Deo, Nobis singulari caritate devinctae, superni auxilii et solacii pignus, Apostolicam Benedictionem impertimus.”
But a blessing devoid of:
– clear proclamation of Christ’s rights over the nation,
– denunciation of condemned errors,
– call to conversion and penance,
is no blessing in the Catholic sense. It is a pious formula sealing complacency.
From the standpoint of the unchanging pre-1958 Magisterium:
– this document is theologically anemic,
– linguistically evasive,
– pastorally misleading,
– and symptomatically a fragment of the conciliar decomposition.
Where St. Pius X thundered against Modernism and commanded integral fidelity, John XXIII smiles, flatters, and invites “new methods” without safeguards. Where Pius XI in Quas Primas demanded the public, juridical reign of Christ, John XXIII contents himself with diplomatic courtesies. Where Pius IX unmasked the Masonic plot against Church and society, John XXIII remains silent.
Such silence and such rhetoric are not neutral. They prepare the way for the conciliar sect and its paramasonic structure occupying the Vatican—the *abominatio desolationis* that has usurped the visible organs of the Church while waging war against her faith, her sacraments, and her King.
To unmask this letter is to see, in miniature, the spiritual bankruptcy of that project: an ecclesiastical humanism without militancy, a fallacious peace without truth, a “benediction” without conversion. It is not the voice of the perennial Roman Pontiff, but the softened prelude of apostasy.
Source:
Si ingratae mentis – Ad Antonium Tit. S. Laurentii in Panisperna S. R. E. Card. Caggiano, Rosariensem Episcopum, et ad ceteros Argentinae Sacrorum Antistites, saeculo exeunte ab initis inter Petri Sed… (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025