In this brief Latin letter, John XXIII appoints Ferdinando Cento as his legate to the National Eucharistic Congress of Argentina in Córdoba (Tucumán) in October 1959. He recalls with enthusiasm the 1934 International Eucharistic Congress in Buenos Aires (with Eugenio Pacelli as papal legate), praises the Argentine hierarchy’s preparations, extols civil authorities for their cooperation and acknowledgment of ties with the Holy See, and expresses paternal joy and hope that increased Eucharistic devotion will strengthen religious life and social peace. Beneath its devout language, this text already manifests the programmatic horizontalism, political flattery, and falsified notion of ecclesial communion characteristic of the conciliar revolution inaugurated by this usurping antipope.
Eucharistic Language as a Veil for the Emergent Neo-Church
Historical Falsification and the Pacelli Precedent as Self-Legitimation
Factual level first. The letter opens by recalling the 1934 Buenos Aires Eucharistic Congress and the role of Eugenio Pacelli as papal legate, emphasizing that he was later elevated to the papacy:
“…Conventus Eucharisticus ex omnibus nationibus anno 1934 Bonaéropoli sit celebratus, cui Eugenius Pacelli … qui paucos post annos ad Apostolicae potestatis fastigium elatus est, ut Legatus Summi Pontificis praefuit.”
John XXIII uses this recollection as a rhetorical device: by linking the 1959 Congress to an event presided over by Pacelli, he tacitly suggests a seamless continuity between his own “pontificate” and that of Pius XII. This is the first ideological maneuver: the construction of a fictitious linearity meant to conceal the radical post-1958 rupture.
From the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine (defined and secured prior to 1958):
– The authority and mission of the Roman Pontiff are not based on sentimental historical continuity, but on objective adherence to the unchanging deposit of faith: *eadem sententia, eodem sensu, eademque sententia* (the same doctrine, in the same sense, and the same meaning), as Vatican I and St. Pius X reiterate.
– Any claim to the papacy by one who propagates Modernist principles or prepares their triumph stands condemned a priori by the Magisterium already in force, especially:
– St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis and Lamentabili sane exitu, which anathematize the very evolutionary, historicist, and liberal tendencies that John XXIII will officially enthrone at his so-called “Second Vatican Council”.
– Pius IX’s Syllabus Errorum, which condemns the liberalism, religious indifferentism, and state-Church separation ideology that the conciliar sect will later adopt as its program.
Thus, the appeal to Pacelli serves as an attempt to drape a nascent revolution with pre-revolutionary vestments. The sacred vocabulary is instrumentalized to authenticate an authority that, in content, will betray the very doctrine solemnly upheld by those predecessors.
In reality, once a claimant publicly promotes condemned errors, the principle articulated by St. Robert Bellarmine and the classical theologians applies: a manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church he does not belong to. John XXIII’s known direction toward aggiornamento, religious liberty, ecumenism, and the subsequent conciliar novelties makes this continuity claim not a pious reminiscence, but a strategic falsification.
Linguistic Cosmetics: Piety Without the Supernatural Edge
The letter is dominated by gentle, fluid, bureaucratically devout language: “great joy,” “paternal love,” “august Sacrament,” “peace,” “civil authorities’ cooperation.” At first glance, it appears thoroughly Eucharistic and orthodox. Yet its rhetoric is telling for what it refuses to name and how it recasts the Eucharistic reality.
Key features:
– Repeated emphasis on:
– “cultus” and “usus” of the Blessed Sacrament;
– “pietas” and “sollemnia”;
– “pacis bona” (goods of peace) which are said to flow from this Sacrament.
– Total silence on:
– the propitiatory, expiatory character of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass;
– the need for the state of grace, confession, and amendment of life;
– sin, error, heresy, or the danger of sacrilegious Communions;
– the rights of Christ the King over temporal society as a binding norm.
This silence is not accidental. It exemplifies the Modernist method condemned by St. Pius X: retain the terminology, drain it of its metaphysical and dogmatic density, and redirect it to immanentist, sentimental, and social meanings.
Pius XI in Quas Primas teaches that true peace and order arise only when individuals and states publicly submit to the social Kingship of Christ, ordering laws and institutions to His law. John XXIII here reduces the fruits of Eucharistic worship primarily to interior strengthening and a vague enjoyment of “peace”:
“…studiosius in dies caelesti se dape pascentes, animos roborent suos, religionis praeceptis vitam conforment pacisque bonis… laeti perfruantur.”
He speaks of “religionis praecepta” in generic terms, with no sharpened edge against the liberal state, Freemasonry, socialism, or indifferentism, all already condemned explicitly by Pius IX and Leo XIII. This is characteristic of the emergent neo-church: supernatural realities are evoked, but not as militant truths demanding conversion and subjugation of public life, only as sacramental fuel for a gentle, coexistential humanism.
The tone is caressing, diplomatic, non-combative; precisely the opposite of the Apostolic vigor of Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Pius XI, who name and condemn specific errors, sects, and laws. Language here functions as anesthesia. The Eucharist is praised, but never as the Unbloody Sacrifice that denounces sin and error; instead, as a spiritual ornament harmonizing nicely with civil order and national festivities.
Subordination to the Liberal State Under Eucharistic Pretexts
One of the most revealing passages is the enthusiastic praise for the civil authorities:
“Plurimum etiam laetitiae ex eo cepimus, quod civiles Argentinae Reipublicae Moderatores, Ecclesiae Catholicae praecelsum munus agnoscentes, spoponderunt hisce inceptis auxiliatricem operam se esse praebituros…”
Translation: he rejoices that civil rulers, recognizing the “exalted mission” of the Catholic Church, promised helpful cooperation, and that they will commemorate the centenary of diplomatic links with the Holy See.
On the surface, this might appear as classical Catholic joy at concord between throne and altar. But note carefully:
– There is no call that the Argentine state recognize the Catholic religion as the only true religion.
– No assertion of the necessary subordination of civil law to divine and natural law, as taught by Pius IX and Leo XIII.
– No condemnation of liberal principles, masonic infiltration, or secular legislation contrary to Christ’s law.
– Instead, there is complaisant gratitude that the state gives “auxiliatricem operam” to Church events, as if the Church’s public rights are a favor granted from below, not an inalienable right from Christ the King.
Pius IX’s Syllabus explicitly condemns:
– the subordination of the Church to civil power (propositions 19–21, 24, 44–48, 55),
– the idea that the state defines the rights of the Church or treats Catholicism as one confession among many,
– the liberal thesis that Church and State must be separated.
By contrast, this letter implicitly accepts the post-liberal framework: the Church is grateful recipient of state benevolence and diplomatic “friendship”; not the sovereign, divinely mandated society asserting its rights regardless of civil approval. The center of gravity is reversed: what Pius IX calls an error, John XXIII normalizes by his rhetoric of mutual celebration and absence of any doctrinal claim.
This is more than a nuance. It is the seed of the later conciliar teaching on religious liberty and “dialogue” with states and sects, which will directly contradict the constant pre-1958 Magisterium. The Eucharistic Congress becomes a decorated instrument of political harmony rather than a militant proclamation of Christ’s exclusive dominion.
Instrumentalization of the Eucharist for Conciliar Humanism
The theological deviation appears precisely in the way Eucharistic devotion is framed:
– The Congress aims at “augmenting devotion” and “use” of the august Sacrament.
– Expected fruits: strengthened spirits, conformity of life to religious precepts, enjoyment of peace.
– Everything is couched in language compatible with a naturalistic reading: religion as factor of social cohesion, Eucharist as symbol and source of human fraternity.
What is missing, and gravely so:
– No assertion that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Christ, victim and priest, renewing the Sacrifice of Calvary in an unbloody manner.
– No insistence that the Most Holy Sacrifice is propitiatory for the living and the dead, as the Council of Trent dogmatically defined.
– No warning that unworthy Communion is a grave sacrilege bringing condemnation (1 Cor 11), especially in a context of liberal morals and indifferentism.
– No proclamation that Eucharistic worship implies repudiation of heresy, schism, and false religions.
Instead, the Eucharist is tacitly functionalized as a “sacrament of unity” in the sentimental, horizontal sense that the conciliar sect will make its central dogma. This anticipates the later perversion whereby pseudo-Eucharistic celebrations become ecumenical shows, where public sinners and heretics are welcomed without call to conversion.
Integral Catholic doctrine holds:
– *Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus* (outside the Church no salvation) in its defined sense;
– the Eucharist as sacrament of the unity of the Church in the truth of one faith and one sacrificial worship;
– public sin and heresy as obstacles to Communion, not as pastoral challenges to be silently embraced.
By refusing to name these truths, John XXIII reduces Eucharistic doctrine to a soft core compatible with Modernist ecclesiology. This is not a negligible omission; *silentium doctrinale* in this context is itself a doctrinal statement: the shift from supernatural exclusivity to inclusivist humanism.
Elevation of a Legate as Theological Smoke Screen
John XXIII appoints Ferdinando Cento as legate a latere, stressing that he will “bear Our person” and preside over the rites:
“Te igitur, Dilecte Fili Noster, Legatum Nostrum a latere eligimus ac renuntiamus, ut, Nostram gerens personam, sacris praesideas ritibus…”
Under pre-1958 ecclesiology, a papal legate to a Eucharistic Congress embodied the Roman Pontiff’s authority, reinforcing unity in the true faith and liturgy. Here, the gesture is externally identical, but internally subverted:
– An individual objectively promoting a Modernist agenda (John XXIII) uses traditional ritual forms to confer apparent legitimacy on a structure already deviating from Catholic ecclesiology.
– The legate’s presence suggests that full communion with the Roman See is intact; meanwhile, the same usurping authority is preparing the council that will enshrine religious liberty, collegiality, and ecumenism in contradiction to previous dogmatic teaching.
Thus, the solemn representation of “papal” authority at a Eucharistic Congress becomes a political and psychological operation: to reassure clergy and laity that nothing essential has changed, while in reality the foundations are being dismantled.
This is a textbook instance of what St. Pius X diagnosed: Modernists hiding subversion under the inherited formulas and institutions until they can redefine them from within. Simulant, dissimulant (they feign, they conceal).
Systemic Omissions: Silence on Heresy, Secret Societies, and Modernist Threats
The symptomatic level demands attention to what is not said.
In 1959:
– Freemasonry and anti-Christian forces were deeply active in Latin America, as repeatedly denounced by pre-1958 pontiffs.
– Socialism, communism, and liberal secularism threatened the Catholic order.
– Modernist theology, already condemned by St. Pius X, was infiltrating seminaries and episcopates.
Yet the letter:
– Offers not a single warning against Freemasonry, despite Pius IX, Leo XIII (Humanum Genus), and others explicitly identifying masonic sects as the planned destroyers of the Church.
– Mentions no danger of indifferentism, condemned thoroughly in the Syllabus and in encyclicals such as Mirari Vos and Quanta Cura.
– Utterly fails to recall the binding condemnations of Modernism in Lamentabili and Pascendi.
Instead, it joyfully praises the cooperation of civil rulers—precisely the milieu in which anti-Catholic, paramasonic elites habitually exploit Catholic symbols for legitimacy while advancing secularization. The blindness or deliberate silence is theologically inexcusable in light of the pre-existing Magisterium.
If one compares this letter with the robust, truth-centered style of Pius XI in Quas Primas—who directly attributes modern calamities to the refusal of Christ’s Kingship and explicitly condemns laicism—one sees the tectonic shift: John XXIII speaks as a courteous chaplain of a pluralistic order, not as the Vicar of Christ imposing supernatural claims over nations.
This silence is itself a mark of complicity with the Modernist program: to demilitarize the Church, neutralize her condemnations, and reinterpret her mission as service to a global human fraternity.
From Pre-Conciliar Form to Conciliar Content: A Proto-Manifesto of the Neo-Church
Bringing the strands together:
1. The letter borrows the venerable form of papal correspondence, in Latin, with emphasis on the Eucharist and hierarchical representation.
2. It flatters civil authorities and celebrates diplomatic ties without asserting the exclusive rights of the true religion or condemning liberal errors.
3. It presents the Eucharist primarily as a source of personal piety and social peace, not as the sacrificial center of the militant Church, guardian of truth against error.
4. It invokes historical continuity with Pius XII while preparing, in spirit and method, the conciliar inversion of that very continuity.
This is the method by which the conciliar sect entrenched itself:
– Use traditional language as a chrysalis.
– Remove the hard doctrinal core: no anathemas, no denunciation of concrete errors.
– Elevate concepts like “peace,” “cooperation,” and “friendship” above the non-negotiable rights of Christ the King and the objective obligations of states and individuals toward the true Church.
– Present all this under the emotional aura of Eucharistic devotion, ensuring that the faithful lower their guard, confusing sentimental reverence with doctrinal fidelity.
In light of pre-1958 Magisterium:
– Such a program is incompatible with the constant condemnations of liberalism, indifferentism, Modernism, and masonic influence.
– The use of Eucharistic Congresses as stages for a pseudo-pontifical presence in service of political harmony—not supernatural subjugation of nations to Christ’s law—reveals the deformation of purpose.
Therefore, this 1959 letter is not a harmless ceremonial epistle. It is a small but crystalline manifestation of the new religion of post-conciliarism: humanistic, diplomatic, doctrinally evasive; parasitic upon Catholic forms it is preparing to empty and invert.
Reaffirmation of the Only Catholic Standard
Against the blandishments and omissions of such texts, the only Catholic response is a return to the clear pre-1958 standard:
– *Lex orandi, lex credendi* in its authentic sense: the Most Holy Sacrifice as propitiatory, God-centered, demanding faith, penance, and doctrinal integrity.
– The social Kingship of Christ as taught unequivocally by Pius XI in Quas Primas: peace and justice are fruits only of public submission to Christ and His Church; any attempt to ground them on generic religious feeling and state goodwill is vanity.
– The doctrinal condemnations of Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X as permanently binding: liberalism, indifferentism, Modernism, and secret societies are not dialogue partners but enemies to be exposed and rejected.
– The principle, taught by the classical theologians and grounded in divine law, that a manifest heretic cannot hold papal office: those who inaugurate and codify the dogmatic dissolution condemned by their predecessors cannot be successors of Peter in any Catholic sense.
This letter, read with open eyes, is an early ceremonial mask of the conciliar apostasy which will soon enthrone religious liberty, ecumenism, and anthropocentric worship at the heart of the paramasonic structures occupying the Vatican. The Eucharistic vocabulary it employs must not deceive: where the Cross is muted, where the Kingship of Christ is lowered to a sentimental banner of peace, where civil rulers are praised without being summoned to conversion, the poison of Modernism is already at work.
Source:
Non Excidit – Ad Ferdinandum S. R. E. presbyterum Cardinalem Cento, qui legatus mittitur ad Conventum Eucharisticum Nationis Argentinae, Cordubae in Tucumania habendum, die 20 m. Augusti a. 1959, Ioan… (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025