In this Latin letter dated 27 June 1960, John XXIII designates Richard James Cushing as his legate to preside at a national Eucharistic Congress in Piura, Peru. He recalls an earlier congress in Lima (1954), praises Peruvian piety, exhorts to greater devotion to the Blessed Sacrament and frequent Communion, underlines the Eucharist as sign of unity and charity, laments the shortage of clergy in South America, commends Cushing’s efforts to assist, and concludes with an “Apostolic” Blessing upon bishops, authorities, clergy, and faithful who will attend. From the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine, this seemingly pious missive is a calculated exercise in liturgical-romantic rhetoric that masks, legitimizes, and advances the conciliar revolution already in motion under the authority of a usurper.
Eucharistic Congress as a Mask for the Conciliar Subversion of the Sacrifice
From True Eucharistic Cult to Spectacle: The Inversion of Catholic Priorities
At first glance, the letter appears orthodox: it speaks of the *Ss. Eucharistia*, unity, charity, priestly vocations, and invokes the Holy Ghost. However, when read in the light of pre-1958 Catholic teaching and the subsequent trajectory of the conciliar sect, it reveals a characteristic pattern of the neo-church: exalted language deployed to anesthetize vigilance while the foundations are being dismantled.
Key features:
– John XXIII celebrates national Eucharistic congresses as events of “magnificent” external solemnity.
– He commissions Cushing, already a prominent agent of Americanized liberal Catholicism, as personal representative.
– He frames the congress as an expression of the “family of God” and unity of rich and poor, children and old, gathered around the altar.
– He notes attacks against Catholic faith and morals in South America but offers only natural, bureaucratic encouragement regarding vocations, without doctrinal clarity regarding the modernist assault.
On the factual level, the timing is critical: June 1960 stands between the secret preparation of the Second Vatican Council and its public convocation; between the intact doctrinal expression of Pius XII and the emergent aggiornamento. Under cover of apparently Eucharistic piety, the usurper consolidates his network of compliant prelates—Cushing among them—who will implement the future subversion of the Most Holy Sacrifice.
On the theological level, authentic doctrine teaches that the Eucharist is first and essentially the *Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary*, propitiatory for the living and the dead, offered by a sacrificing priest acting in persona Christi (Council of Trent, Session XXII, can. 1-3). Pius XI in *Quas primas* insists that peace and order flow only from the public reign of Christ the King and the submission of nations to His law. Pius IX in the *Syllabus* condemns every attempt to subject the Church to liberal, naturalistic principles. Pius X in *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi* unmasks modernism as the synthesis of all heresies.
Against this fixed doctrinal background, the letter’s defects and subversions become manifest.
Naturalistic Sentimentality in Place of the Kingship of Christ
Consider the central passage where John XXIII describes the Christian people:
“If the Christian people excels in no small number of ways, this is the chief cause of its excellence and dignity, that it is the family of God: nothing is more lovable, more august, more desirable. This seems most clearly to appear when children and old men, poor and rich, the faithful of every age and condition, on feast days, like young olive plants round about the table of the Lord, throng the sacred buildings in joyful array: together they offer to God the sacrifice of praise, assist at the sacred mysteries, feed on the angelic Bread.”
The English sense is accurate; the rhetoric is graceful. Yet several grave problems appear:
1. The emphasis is anthropocentric and sociological:
– The “family of God” is presented primarily as a human community of equal categories (children, old, poor, rich) aesthetically gathered.
– The description resonates with democratic sentimentalism rather than the supernatural distinction between those in the state of grace and those in mortal sin, between believing faithful and obstinate enemies of the faith.
2. There is no mention of:
– The necessity of being in the state of grace for fruitful Communion, under pain of sacrilege (Council of Trent, Session XIII, can. 11).
– The propitiatory nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass as satisfaction for sins, which Pius XI explicitly defends against modern errors.
– The doctrinal foundation of the Eucharistic dogma against heresy and liberalism threatening Peru and all Latin America.
3. This silence is not innocent. It corresponds exactly to the modernist tactic condemned by Pius X: religion is recast as communal experience and symbol of unity (*Lamentabili* 52-55), with doctrinal precision systematically muted. The stress on “lovable” community, absent militant confession of Christ’s social Kingship, mirrors the laicized humanism Pius XI calls the “plague” of secularism in *Quas primas*.
By detaching Eucharistic devotion from the explicit demand that states, societies, and laws submit to Christ, the letter implicitly aligns with the condemned proposition 80 of the *Syllabus* (that the Roman Pontiff “ought to come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization”). A true Pope, one year after the Marian Year and in the face of communist and masonic infiltration, would have thundered the rights of Christ the King; the usurper limits himself to sweet images and diplomatic pleasantries.
The Linguistic Cloak: Pious Vocabulary as a Vehicle of Revolution
On the linguistic level, the letter showcases the typical conciliar style: flowing, irenic, and deliberately vague. Several aspects expose the underlying decay:
– The Latin is elegant but emptied of combativeness; it avoids terms like *haeresis*, *error*, *modernismus*, *liberalismus*, *sectae*—precisely the vocabulary constantly present in Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, and Pius XI when treating the dangers menacing the faithful.
– The only adversaries hinted at are:
“ubi quam plurimae nunc a catholicae fidei et vitae hostibus insidiae struuntur”
“where now very many plots are being laid by enemies of Catholic faith and life.”
Yet:
– No identification: communists, Freemasons, protestant sects, and internal modernists—unmasked unambiguously by previous Popes—are politely anonymized.
– No doctrinal weapons are unsheathed. This contradicts the consistent magisterial pattern before 1958: Pius IX explicitly names “pests” such as socialism, secret societies, liberalism; Pius X exposes modernists by name and thesis; Pius XI and Pius XII are precise about communism and laicism.
– The tone is bureaucratically comforting: assurances of “confident hope,” praise of organizers, encouragement in administration of vocations.
This rhetorical strategy is symptomatic: it prepares the faithful to accept a new kind of authority that speaks constantly of “love,” “family,” “unity,” and “joyful gatherings,” while methodically avoiding dogmatic conflict with the world. It is a linguistic implementation of the condemned modernist principle that dogma must be adapted to the “needs of the age” (*Lamentabili* 58-60).
Instrumentalizing the Eucharist for the Conciliar Agenda
The letter’s heart ostensibly concerns the Eucharist. We must therefore confront its content with the dogmatic teaching of the Council of Trent.
The text affirms:
– Eucharist as “sign of unity”.
– “Bond of sweet fraternal charity”.
– Foundation of communion that unites earth and heaven.
– Reverence for priests as ministers of the Eucharist.
– Need for more priests in Latin America.
All these phrases, in themselves, can be understood in an orthodox sense. But the gravest error lies precisely in what is omitted:
1. No explicit assertion that the Eucharist is the *propitiatory sacrifice for sins*, objectively offered to appease divine justice. Trent solemnly defines against protestant heresy that:
– The Mass is a true and proper sacrifice;
– It is propitiatory for living and dead;
– It is not merely a sacrifice of praise and commemoration.
The letter speaks of “hostiam laudis”—a “sacrifice of praise”—but avoids the Tridentine expression of propitiation, in a decade when protestantizing liturgical currents were actively at work. This is not accidental; it is an anticipatory alignment with the later reduction of the Mass in the conciliar sect to “memorial” and “Paschal banquet”.
2. The Eucharist is reduced functionally to:
– Social sign of the “family of God”;
– Encouragement to moral decency: “sobrie, iuste, pie viventes”.
There is no mention of:
– The Real Presence as objective dogma opposed to heresy;
– Transubstantiation, solemnly defined at Trent (Session XIII);
– The necessity of safeguarding the sacred from profanation, communion in the hand, ecumenical intercommunion, etc. The usurpers’ future program is silently prepared by sentimental exaltation and doctrinal vagueness.
3. The promotion of frequent Communion is detached from the rigorous conditions articulated by St. Pius X and Trent: proper disposition, confession of mortal sins, belief in the Real Presence, modesty, fear of sacrilege. The letter urges that the faithful “frequentius sumant” (receive more frequently), but without a single word about sacrilegious Communion; such silence, in a context of doctrinal erosion, is itself culpable.
Thus the Eucharist is employed as a stage for the conciliar agenda: an emotive, crowd-gathering center around which the new, humanitarian religion can crystallize, while the sacrificial, expiatory, and militant character of the Mass is gradually eclipsed.
Co-opting the Hierarchy: Cushing and the Machinery of Apostasy
The letter selects Richard James Cushing as legate. Here the symptomatic level becomes evident.
From the standpoint of integral Catholic criteria:
– A true Pope, faced with grave attacks in Latin America from communism, masonic liberalism, and protestant sects, would send as legate a man of doctrinal steel, charged to reaffirm:
– The exclusivity of the Catholic Church for salvation;
– The condemnation of socialism, indifferentism, and Freemasonry (*Syllabus*, Leo XIII, Pius X);
– The rights of Christ the King and the duty of Catholic confessional states (*Quas primas*).
– John XXIII instead chooses Cushing, emblematic of the Americanist tendency repeatedly warned against since Leo XIII:
– Favorable to religious pluralism;
– Architect of a soft, civic, interconfessional Catholicism that would seamlessly support the later dogma of “religious liberty” proclaimed by the conciliar sect.
The letter praises the involvement of “Antistites” of the United States in supplying clergy to Latin America. But these same ranks, shaped by incipient Americanist and liberal influences, soon become the transmission belt for catechetical collapse, liturgical sacrilege, and doctrinal dissolution. The letter thus crowns and legitimizes the very network that will implement the anti-liturgical revolution of the 1960s.
This is not an incidental administrative choice; it is a sign of systemic inversion:
Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief). By entrusting Eucharistic representation to such figures, the usurper signals that the new lex credendi will correspond to their diluted, Americanist, philanthropist pseudo-theology.
Silencing the True Enemies: Masonic Subversion and Modernist Penetration
Integral Catholic teaching before 1958 is explicit: Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius X denounce Freemasonry and its branches as instruments of the “synagogue of Satan” undermining the Church and Christian society. The Syllabus connects liberalism, indifferentism, and laicism with the masonic program. Pius X condemns the modernists precisely because they infiltrate the clergy and theologians.
By 1960:
– Latin America is a primary field of communist agitation and masonic influence.
– Protestant sects, backed by U.S. money and ideology, are attacking Catholic nations.
– Internal modernists are positioning for the council.
The letter mentions “enemies” but:
– Does not denounce their doctrinal errors;
– Does not warn the faithful against liberal, ecumenical, or syncretistic tactics;
– Does not reaffirm that civil law and constitutions must recognize the Catholic religion as the only true one, contrary to Syllabus proposition 77.
This deliberate omission is aligned with the modernist error condemned in *Lamentabili* 57-65: that Catholic doctrine must be reinterpreted in such a way that it can “reconcile” with modern civilization, leaving aside explicit conflicts. Instead of arming Peru with weapons of doctrine, the letter offers only encouragement to organize a pious festival and recruit more clergy—clergy who will soon, in large part, be trained in the conciliar spirit.
Manipulating the Concept of the “Family of God”
A central motif is the portrayal of the Christian community as the “family of God.” Correctly understood, this expression is legitimate: those regenerated by baptism and persevering in the faith and in grace are adopted children of God.
Yet within this text and its historical context, the formula functions as a Trojan horse:
– The emphasis lies on a broad, inclusive, horizontal community;
– No distinction is made between faithful and public sinners, between orthodoxy and heresy;
– The Eucharistic dimension is depicted mainly as expression and consolidation of this inclusive community.
This anticipates the post-1958 abuse whereby the notion of “people of God” is wrenched from its dogmatic foundation and used to:
– Democratize ecclesial structures;
– Justify laicist co-responsibility in teaching and governance;
– Dilute hierarchical, monarchical constitution of the Church, condemned by *Lamentabili* 53-55.
Integral Catholic doctrine, reaffirmed by Pius IX and Pius X, teaches that:
– The Church is a *societas perfecta* (perfect society), divinely constituted, hierarchical;
– Authority descends from Christ through the Pope and bishops, not from the “people”;
– Judgment on doctrine belongs exclusively to the Magisterium, not to communal sentiment.
By romanticizing the “family” aspect and omitting the hierarchical, juridical, dogmatic nature of the Church, the letter participates in the slow naturalization and democratization of ecclesiology that will be formalized in the conciliar sect.
The Pseudo-Blessing of a Usurper: No Apostolic Seal on Apostasy
The letter concludes by imparting an “Apostolic Benediction”:
“Apostolic Blessing, pledge of heavenly help and incitement to salutary undertakings…”
From the standpoint of the perennial teaching succinctly recalled in the provided Defense of Sedevacantism:
– A manifest heretic, or one who prepares and promulgates a program overturning the prior Magisterium, cannot be head of the Church:
– As St. Robert Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas, and others teach: a manifest heretic cannot be Pope because he ceases to be a member of the Church.
– Canon 188.4 (1917) holds that public defection from the faith causes immediate loss of office.
– The conciliar usurpers, beginning with John XXIII, by convoking a council aimed at reconciling with condemned liberalism and by preparing changes incompatible with Trent and the anti-modernist Magisterium, exhibit precisely that public defection in doctrine and praxis.
Therefore, such a “blessing” lacks Apostolic authority; instead, it seals a deceptive enterprise:
– It uses the language of Eucharistic devotion to bind the faithful, emotionally and liturgically, to the emerging anti-church.
– It seeks to preempt resistance by cloaking innovators in the aura of continuity and reverence.
In light of Quas primas and the Syllabus, the true criterion is clear:
Non est pax nisi in regno Christi (there is no peace except in the kingdom of Christ). Any teaching, event, or leadership that:
– Refuses to assert publicly the kingship of Christ over nations;
– Softens or contradicts magisterial condemnations of liberalism and modernism;
– Reduces the Eucharist to a sentimental symbol of human unity;
is not an expression of the Catholic Church, but of the conciliar sect, a paramasonic structure occupying the visible edifices, perpetrating sacrilege and, where its invalid rites prevail, idolatry.
Eucharistic Congresses Without Confession of Truth: Seeds of Profanation
The letter’s praise for solemn Eucharistic congresses—divorced from dogmatic militancy—prefigures another consistent phenomenon of the neo-church:
– Large-scale religious festivals, emotionally intense, doctrinally shallow;
– Ecumenical or interreligious presence, directly contradicting the condemnation of indifferentism (Syllabus 15-18);
– Weak or no preaching on:
– Hell, judgment, mortal sin;
– Necessity of conversion to the Catholic Church;
– The enormity of sacrilege against the Eucharist.
The authentic Magisterium before 1958 made clear:
– External solemnity has value only as expression of integral faith and reverence, not as autonomous spectacle.
– When disconnected from doctrinal clarity, such solemnities become tools of deception, as Pius X warned against modernist misuse of liturgy as a “poetic” expression from which dogma may be silently altered (*Pascendi*).
This 1960 letter exemplifies that abuse:
– It elevates the congress’s external grandeur;
– It represses explicit doctrinal combat;
– It recommends human organizational zeal more than supernatural discernment.
The result is a Eucharistic language emptied of its confessional edge, ready to be integrated into the post-1965 cult of man and ecumenical ritual, where even the notion of a true, propitiatory Sacrifice is systematically eroded and replaced by a communal “meal” in invalid rites.
Conclusion: Anodyne Piety as Strategic Vehicle of the Neo-Church
Measured by the immutable Catholic doctrine articulated by Trent, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII, this letter is not a harmless devotional text. It is:
– Theologically deficient: omitting propitiation, transubstantiation’s dogmatic clarity, conditions for worthy Communion, the necessity of explicit resistance to modern errors.
– Linguistically evasive: rich in soft imagery, poor in doctrinal precision, studiously silent about concrete enemies already anathematized by prior Popes.
– Ecclesiologically corrosive: flattering the “family” and democratic imagery, muting hierarchical militancy and the juridical, exclusive claims of the Church.
– Strategically instrumental: using a national Eucharistic Congress and a compromised envoy as means to bind a Catholic people to the authority of an antipope and to acclimate them to the soon-to-be-unleashed conciliar revolution.
Under a thin veneer of traditional Latin and Eucharistic vocabulary, this document exemplifies how the conciliar sect advances: not first through open denials, but through systematic omissions, sentimental rhetoric, and carefully selected personnel—all in open contradiction to the integral Catholic faith as taught uninterruptedly until 1958.
The faithful who seek to remain within the *familia Dei* in the authentic sense must therefore:
– Reject the authority claims of such usurpers;
– Refuse to allow Eucharistic devotion to be co-opted into a naturalistic, ecumenical, liberal cult;
– Adhere firmly to the pre-1958 magisterium, in which the Eucharist is confessed as the true, propitiatory *Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary*, and Christ the King reigns not only in hearts but publicly over nations, laws, and institutions.
Source:
Alta stirpe – Epistula ad Richardum Iacobum tit. S. Susannae presb. Cardinalem Cushing, Archiepiscopum Bostoniensem, quem legatum eligit ad Eucharisticum Conventum ex universa peruviensi natione in ur… (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025