In this brief Latin letter, John XXIII appoints Richard James Cushing as his legate to the National Eucharistic Congress in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia. He praises the local hierarchy, extols Eucharistic devotion in Bolivia, proposes the Congress theme “Omnes unum sumus in Christo” (“We are all one in Christ”), links Eucharistic worship with unity, social justice, and benevolence toward the poor and indigenous, and concludes with an Apostolic Blessing. In doing so, he once more dresses the conciliar program of horizontalist humanism in Eucharistic language, subordinating the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary to the political-social narrative that will soon erupt at Vatican II.
Eucharistic Rhetoric in the Service of Conciliar Humanism
The Usurper’s Commission: Eucharistic Congress as Laboratory of a New Religion
Already the very source and author expose the problem. We are dealing with a document of John XXIII, the initiator of the conciliar upheaval, whose words must be read as programmatic for the later dissolution of Catholic order. The letter itself appears pious, “traditional,” perfumed with Augustine and Johannine theology, yet in substance it functions as a carefully modulated instrument of transition from integral Catholic Eucharistic faith to the anthropocentric, socio-political religion of the “Church of the New Advent.”
Key elements of the text:
– John XXIII expresses joy that Bishop Luis Rodríguez Pardo diligently prepares the Eucharistic Congress.
– He affirms the Bolivians’ reverence for the Blessed Sacrament and expects abundant fruits.
– He appoints Cushing as legate to represent his “person” and “authority.”
– He highlights Cushing’s financial and organizational support for Bolivia as a credential.
– He welcomes the Congress theme: “Omnes unum sumus in Christo” (“We are all one in Christ”).
– He extols Eucharistic worship as bond of unity and enumerates virtues to shine in those who receive.
– He strongly emphasizes charity, concord, fraternal bonds, and especially social concern for the poor and for indigenous peoples.
– He expresses the desire that the Congress foster mutual benevolence and social justice among Bolivians.
– He closes with his “Apostolic Blessing.”
At first glance, virtually nothing here sounds overtly heretical. That is precisely the strategy. Modernist poisoning, condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi, operates not by crude denial of dogma, but by re-interpretation, dislocation, and silent inversion. The wording about the Eucharist is largely lifted from Catholic tradition; the deformation lies in what is emphasized, what is omitted, and what orientation these phrases are made to serve.
Factual Level: From Eucharistic Sacrifice to Social Program
1. Instrumentalization of the Congress:
John XXIII does not convoke, in the strong sense of the pre-1958 papacy, a great act of reparation to Christ the King, nor a solemn reaffirmation of the doctrine of Transubstantiation and propitiatory Sacrifice against modern unbelief. He takes as given the “devotion” of Bolivia and immediately uses it as a springboard to:
– showcase Cushing’s philanthropic and organizational role,
– prepare the ideological soil where Eucharistic language is harnessed to “mutual benevolence” and “social justice,”
– anticipate a unifying theme “Omnes unum sumus in Christo” in a sense that is dangerously unguarded against indifferentist or purely sociological readings.
Where Pius XI in Quas primas explicitly grounded all peace, justice, and social order in the public and juridical reign of Christ over nations, denouncing laicism as a plague, John XXIII speaks here of “mutual benevolence among Bolivians” with no reference to the obligation of the state to submit to Christ the King and His true Church. This silence is not an accident; it is the index of doctrinal displacement.
2. Humanitarian focus veiled in Eucharistic vocabulary:
The text moves quickly from Eucharistic theology to:
“Sunt illic haud parvo numero, qui exiguo victu, misero tecto, egestate laborant; sunt etiam Indi…”
He laments material poverty and the condition of indigenous peoples (a legitimate concern in itself), but strategically the Congress is presented as an impulse primarily to “social justice.” There is no word about:
– the necessity of the state of grace to receive Our Lord,
– the horror of sacrilege,
– the centrality of the Most Holy Sacrifice as propitiation for sins,
– the Last Judgment, Hell, or the supernatural end to which all social structures must be subordinated.
This naturalistic re-centering—precisely the tendency condemned in Pius IX’s Syllabus (esp. the liberal exaltation of earthly progress and the separation of Church and State)—is the real message.
3. The Cushing factor:
Richard James Cushing is presented in laudatory tones for his “largitas et providentia” toward Bolivian needs. We have here the proto-typical figure of the conciliar “prelate”: organizer, fundraiser, adept of media and diplomacy—ideal executor of the coming aggiornamento. The appointment of such a man as personal legate is not incidental; it is emblematic of a shift from the defender of dogma to the manager of projects and congresses.
Linguistic Level: Soft Modernism under a Eucharistic Veil
The rhetoric of the letter is an instructive mask.
1. Sentimental suavitas instead of militant clarity:
John XXIII writes in a smooth, benevolent, almost sugary style, studiously avoiding the hard edges that characterized the integral Magisterium when confronting error. Compare:
– St. Pius X in Lamentabili and Pascendi uses precise condemnatory formulas and unmasks the “most pernicious” errors of Modernism.
– Pius XI in Quas primas denounces laicism as a “plague” and demands that rulers publicly honor Christ the King; he ties social collapse directly to the rejection of Christ’s Kingship.
John XXIII, in contrast, speaks in a tone of diplomatic optimism, devoid of condemnations. Even when addressing serious injustices, he does so not as a voice of supernatural authority imposing divine law sub gravi, but as a moderator expressing desires that “social justice” increase. It is precisely this bureaucratic-humanitarian idiom that signals the conciliar mutation: from mandatum (command) to “encouragement,” from dogmatic imperative to pastoral suggestion.
2. Ambiguous universalism:
The chosen theme, “Omnes unum sumus in Christo”, is lifted from Catholic truth about the Mystical Body. But in the context of the conciliar project it is the seed of the later ecumenical sloganry:
– lacking any explicit assertion that only those in the one true Church, united in the same Catholic faith and sacraments, are truly one in Christ;
– omitting any reference to formal heresy, schism, or infidelity as rupture from that unity.
Such omissions prepare the way for the indifferentist and latitudinarian distortions condemned by Pius IX (Syllabus, propositions 15–18). Language of “all of us are one” becomes the Trojan horse through which the conciliar sect will proclaim a unity detached from conversion and dogma.
3. Social justice vocabulary without doctrinal anchors:
John XXIII’s call that the Congress foster “studium socialis iustitiae” is not, in itself, wrong; the Church has always insisted on justice. The problem is the systematic refusal to state the theological foundation:
– He does not root justice in the direct sovereignty of Christ the King over civil society, explicitly affirmed by predecessors.
– He does not say that unjust laws and regimes must conform themselves to the divine law and to the rights of the Church (as Pius IX insists against liberal states).
– He shifts focus from conversion and submission to God’s law to a horizontal “improvement of conditions.”
This is the classic Modernist rhetorical device: cloaking a secular agenda in religious language while draining it of precise supernatural content.
Theological Level: True Eucharistic Doctrine vs. Conciliar Deformation
We must now place the pious-sounding phrases in contrast with integral Eucharistic doctrine.
1. Partial, truncated Eucharistic theology:
To his credit, John XXIII repeats solid elements:
– He recalls that in the Eucharist the Son, true God, nourishes men under the species of bread and wine, contrasting this with ordinary food.
– He cites Augustine: “Cibus sum grandium; cresce et manducabis me… sed tu mutaberis in me.”
– He notes that in the Eucharistic Sacrifice the Church offers herself with Christ to the Father, and that in Communion the faithful receive the virtues of the Savior.
But an integral pre-1958 papal text on such an occasion would:
– Explicitly reaffirm Transubstantiatio, as defined by Trent.
– Emphasize the propitiatory character of the Sacrifice for the living and the dead.
– Warn against unworthy Communion (cf. 1 Cor 11:27–29) and insist on confession and the state of grace.
– Proclaim the unique, exclusive reality of the Catholic altar and priesthood, distinguishing them sharply from heretical or schismatic assemblies.
Here, these crucial points are conspicuously absent. There is no defense against the very errors denounced in Lamentabili, such as:
– proposition 39–42 (naturalizing sacraments),
– proposition 54 (dogmas and sacraments as evolutions of consciousness),
– proposition 65 (transforming Catholicism into broad liberal Protestantism).
By omission, the letter habituates clergy and laity to a reduced Eucharistic discourse: devotional, affective, ethical—but not dogmatically militant. This softening is not neutral; it is the precondition for the later liturgical revolution, wherein the Most Holy Sacrifice is recast as a communal meal and ecumenical symbol.
2. Horizontalization of caritas:
John XXIII writes that from Eucharistic participation should shine:
“fides, spes, misericordia, iustitia, pax, innocentia, verecundia, probitas, lenitas morum, caelestium rerum appetitio et… caritas.”
All of these are indeed supernatural virtues or their fruits. But then he strategically translates caritas into:
– “mutua benevolentia,”
– social harmony among Bolivians,
– concern for material poverty.
Missing is:
– insistence on love of God above all things,
– hatred of sin,
– zeal for the salvation of souls,
– readiness to suffer persecution rather than betray the faith,
– the duty to combat error and heresy.
Thus caritas, instead of standing as forma omnium virtutum (the form of all virtues) ordered to God, is flattened into benevolence and social activism. This aligns precisely with the liberal-masonic redefinition of “charity” as philanthropy and tolerance, condemned repeatedly by the pre-conciliar Magisterium.
3. Silence on the Kingship of Christ and the rights of the Church:
Given that this Congress is national, touching public life, one would expect a vigorous reaffirmation of what Pius XI defined just a few decades earlier: that rulers and nations are strictly bound to recognize the reign of Christ and to submit their laws and education to His doctrine (Quas primas). Instead:
– John XXIII praises local authorities generically.
– He never mentions the obligation of public worship of Christ the King by the state.
– He does not denounce laicism, socialism, or masonic forces subverting Catholic order in Latin America, though Pius IX already exposed these sects as instruments of the “synagogue of Satan.”
Such silence is theological betrayal. Qui tacet consentire videtur (he who is silent is seen to consent). The “letter” thereby becomes complicit in normalizing regimes, ideologies, and social structures that explicitly deny the doctrine of Christ’s social kingship.
Symptomatic Level: A Prototype of the Conciliar Sect’s Eucharistic Ideology
This letter, though short, condenses the essential marks of the later conciliar sect—the “paramasonic structure” that would occupy the Vatican:
1. Pious vocabulary as camouflage:
The language is orthodox enough to placate the still-Catholic sensibilities of 1961; yet it subtly shifts perspective:
– From exclusive, militant Catholicism to inclusive, vaguely universal “unity.”
– From doctrinal precision to pastoral rhetoric.
– From supernatural combat to humanitarian harmony.
This corresponds exactly to the methods of Modernism exposed by St. Pius X: “in the very veins and heart of the Church” the enemy disguises himself as a friend, using Catholic words in non-Catholic senses.
2. Preparing the path for liturgical and doctrinal revolution:
The letter glorifies Eucharistic Congresses as festivals of unity and social conscience, not as fortresses of dogma and reparation. This ethos seamlessly transitions into:
– the desacralized “celebrations” of the neo-rite,
– the transformation of the altar into a “table of assembly,”
– the abandonment of clear sacrificial language in favor of “banquet” and “fraternity,”
– the ecumenical trivialization of the Real Presence.
By omitting strong doctrinal bulwarks, John XXIII habituates clergy and faithful to accept later, more radical changes as organic developments of the same “pastoral” orientation.
3. Elevation of the conciliar manager class:
The exaltation of Cushing as papal legate exemplifies the new model: not a confessor of the faith ready to oppose the world, but an operator praised for generosity, diplomacy, and social initiatives. This anticipates the post-1958 “hierarchy” of the conciliar sect—men who will promote religious liberty, false ecumenism, and the cult of man under the cover of “Eucharistic devotion.”
4. Toleration of systemic apostasy:
The letter never demands that the Congress condemn Freemasonry, socialism, liberalism, or the anti-Christian conspiracy documented by Pius IX. Though these forces ravage Latin America, the text opts for amiable exhortations. This deliberate pacification disarms the faithful and leaves the field open for the enemies of the Church. Such “charity” betrays souls to wolves.
God’s Law vs. Humanitarianism: The Subversion of Supernatural Order
The most damning element is what the document does not say:
– No warning that human “rights” and “social justice” without reference to the divine law and the rights of the Church devolve into revolutionary ideology.
– No assertion that the Eucharist, being the Sacrament of Faith, presupposes adherence to all Catholic dogmas and the rejection of all heresies.
– No reminder that outside the one true Church there is no salvation, and thus no genuine Eucharistic unity.
By presenting the Eucharist as the sacrament of generic unity and earthly solidarity, John XXIII in fact inverts its meaning. The Most Holy Sacrifice becomes, in this logic, a cultic seal on naturalistic projects. This is exactly what Pius X condemned: the assimilation of Revelation to human progress, the reinterpretation of dogma in terms of experience and praxis.
Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of praying is the law of believing). If Eucharistic Congresses cease to be fortresses of dogmatic clarity and become festivals of conciliar “unity” and social concern, the faith of the people follows: away from the adoration of God towards the worship of man.
The Bolivian Context and the Betrayal of Souls
In a nation where:
– Freemasonic and socialist currents work to detach public life from Catholic faith,
– indigenous populations are often targeted either by Marxist agitation or syncretistic religiosity,
– poverty and injustice are real temptations used by revolutionaries,
the duty of a true Roman Pontiff would be:
– to call rulers and people to the public reign of Christ the King;
– to condemn socialism, liberalism, and masonic sects by name (as Pius IX and Leo XIII did);
– to demand catechesis, confession, modesty, penance, and reparation;
– to warn that a Eucharistic Congress without conversion becomes a sacrilege.
Instead, John XXIII offers:
– praise of existing piety,
– humanistic appeals for benevolence and “social justice,”
– the elevation of his legate as symbol of institutional prestige,
– a blessing that presupposes his own authority and the legitimacy of the conciliar program.
Thus we see in miniature the entire drama: the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary and the language of Tradition are retained on the surface, but they are subtly placed at the service of a new ideology: humanitarian, dialogical, and implicitly relativist.
Conclusion: Benevolent Words as Architecture of Apostasy
This 1961 letter is not a spectacular manifesto; it is something more insidious: an example of how the conciliar sect’s founders learned to speak Catholic while thinking and acting as architects of a new religion.
– It speaks of the Eucharist, but does not defend its dogma against modern errors.
– It invokes unity, but without defining that unity as submission to the one true Church and her unchanging doctrine.
– It calls for social justice, but without proclaiming the non-negotiable rights of Christ the King and His Church over nations.
– It flatters a “hierarchy” that will soon embrace Vatican II and preside over liturgical and doctrinal demolition.
Under pre-1958 Catholic criteria, such a pastoral, diplomatic, doctrinally defanged text is not harmless; it is symptomatic of the spiritual disease St. Pius X called Modernismus, “the synthesis of all heresies.” What appears as gentle encouragement is in fact the progressive muting of the Church’s supernatural voice, so that the paramasonic structure can enthrone man where God alone must reign.
“Panis enim vitae aeternae contrarium in alendo tenet servatque modum”: the Bread of eternal life changes us into Himself. But the conciliar counterfeit reverses this: it slowly transforms the meaning of the Eucharist into the image of its own earthly, humanistic project. This letter is one brick in that edifice of apostasy.
Source:
Laetum allatum – Ad Richardum Iacobum tit. S. Susannae S. R. E. Presbyterum Cardinalem Cushing, Archiepiscopum Bostoniensem, quem Legatum mittit ad Eucharisticum Conventum in urbe Sanctae Crucis de Si… (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025