The text proclaims that John XXIII, invoking his alleged apostolic authority, elevates the 17th‑century cathedral church of Ayacucho in Peru, dedicated to Our Lady of the Snows, to the title and privileges of a Minor Basilica. He praises its baroque architecture, artistic ornaments, and liturgical dignity, presenting the concession as a stimulus to piety and a channel of divine graces, and ends with the usual solemn formula that his act is firm, valid, perpetual, and immune from contradiction.

---

Usurped Authority and Hollow Honor: A Basilica Title in the Service of the Conciliar Revolution

Manifestation of the Antipontiff’s Program: Ornamented Form, Doctrinal Void

From the outset this document is a paradigm of the new religion’s method: maximal juridical solemnity and aesthetic enthusiasm, joined to total silence about the truths that constitute the very essence of Catholic worship.

John XXIII, the inaugural usurper of the conciliar line, speaks here as if exercising genuine papal jurisdiction, conferring the dignity of Basilica Minor on the Ayacucho cathedral:

“Meritis laudibus fertur princeps templum Ayacuquense… Quapropter… ecclesiam cathedralem Ayacuquensem… ad honorem ac dignitatem Basilicae Minoris evehimus…”

Translation: “Rightly with merited praises is extolled the chief church of Ayacucho… Wherefore… we elevate the cathedral church of Ayacucho… to the honor and dignity of a Minor Basilica…”

What is carefully presented as an act of pastoral solicitude is in fact a juridical and symbolic operation of a man who had already set in motion the demolition of the integral Catholic order condemned by Pius IX’s *Syllabus*, exposed by St. Pius X in *Pascendi* and *Lamentabili sane exitu*, and doctrinally contradicted by the subsequent conciliar apostasy. The whole text glitters with architectural and ceremonial admiration, but it is the glitter of a throne already being prepared for the enthronement of the *cultus hominis* and religious indifferentism.

Factual Level: A Legal Act Built on Sand

Let us first strip the document to its factual skeleton:

– The local ordinary requests that his cathedral be raised to the rank of Minor Basilica.
– John XXIII, “out of benevolence,” grants the title and attached privileges.
– He wraps the grant in the standard formulae of *certa scientia*, *matura deliberatio*, and plenitude of apostolic power, with clauses annulling any opposition.

On the surface, this appears as a routine pre‑1958 type of concession. But context is decisive:

– January 1960 stands already inside the programmatic arc of the conciliar upheaval: announcement of the council (1959), the ecumenical and modernist reorientation already in progress.
– The usurper presents himself as exercising the same authority as Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII, while preparing to subvert their magisterium in practice and, by his successors, in doctrine.

The act is therefore not neutral. It is:

– A juridical exercise of a counterfeit authority in continuity with a counterfeit ecclesiology.
– A deliberate use of traditional forms to anesthetize the faithful while the foundations are being overturned: *simulatio iuris* (simulation of right).

A title granted by one who openly inaugurates conciliatory coexistence with what Pius IX denounced—liberalism, religious liberty, and masonic infiltration—has no binding force in the order of the true Church. The solemn insistence on validity (*“firmas, validas atque efficaces”*) only underscores the spiritual fraud: lex signata without *auctoritas Christi*.

Linguistic Level: Aestheticism as Mask for Doctrinal Betrayal

The rhetoric is revealing. Note the exclusive focus:

– Praise of “baroque” style.
– Admiration for size: “ipsa molis amplitudo movet admirationem” (the amplitude of the structure moves to admiration).
– Emphasis on artistic ornaments, paintings, precious metals, crafted furnishings.

All of this can be legitimate when subordinated to *fides* and *sacrificium*. But here the lexical center of gravity is purely aesthetic and sentimental; the supernatural order is reduced to vague “heavenly goods” that “flow” from the building as from a head into the Christian people, without one word about:

– The *Most Holy Sacrifice* of the Mass as propitiatory.
– The Real Presence and the need to receive in the state of grace.
– The necessity of the integral Catholic faith for salvation.
– The duty of public recognition of Christ the King, as Pius XI taught: *“Peace is only possible in the kingdom of Christ”* (Quas Primas).
– The constant war of the Church against naturalism, rationalism, indifferentism (Syllabus, *Lamentabili*, *Pascendi*).

Instead, the text is marked by:

– Harmless piety-phrases: “ad pietatis studium efficax invitamentum” (an effective invitation to piety).
– Bureaucratic self-assertion: *“plena potestas,” “certa scientia,” “matura deliberatio.”*

The tone is antiseptically administrative and aesthetic, carefully avoiding any declaration that would clash with the soon-to-be-unleashed conciliar program: no assertion of the exclusive truth of the Catholic faith, no condemnation of the errors ravaging the 20th century, no militant clarity of the pre‑1958 Magisterium.

This silence is not accidental; it is programmatic.

Theological Level: Silent Renunciation of the Kingship of Christ and the Rights of the Church

Measured against the pre‑1958 doctrine, the text’s omissions become a theological indictment.

1. Silence on the Public Reign of Christ the King

Pius XI in *Quas Primas* (1925) solemnly teaches:

– That Christ’s kingship is universal and must be publicly acknowledged by individuals, families, and states;
– That nations cannot hope for true peace while rejecting His law;
– That the Church must assert full freedom and independence from secular power and demand that civil law conform to divine law.

This apostolic letter is utterly mute on these points. While celebrating a cathedral in a nation marked by secular forces and revolutionary errors, John XXIII does not recall:

– The obligation of the state and people of Peru to submit publicly to Christ the King.
– The condemnations of liberalism and masonic sects that Pius IX and Leo XIII repeatedly proclaimed; the Syllabus explicitly rejects the separation of Church and State and the supposed neutrality of civil authority.
– The gravity of modern apostasy and the infiltration of anti-Christian societies denounced by the true popes.

Instead, the basilica title is presented as a kind of benign spiritual ornament, detached from the militant kingship of Christ. This is a betrayal by omission, preparing the way for the conciliar capitulation to religious liberty and ecumenism.

2. Reduction of the Church’s Mission to Cultic Aesthetics

A true Roman Pontiff, when elevating a temple, habitually highlights:

– The centrality of the *Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary* offered on its altar;
– The necessity of sound doctrine guarded by that church;
– The call to penance, to sanctity, to defense against heresy;
– The role of the temple as bastion of the one true Faith against surrounding errors.

Here, we find only enthusiasm for “splendore ritus,” architectural impressiveness, and art. This is theological naturalism in liturgical vestments.

The rhetoric implies that:

– The overflow of grace is tied to the external dignity of the temple and the antipontiff’s favor,
– Without any mention that grace presupposes the true faith, valid sacraments, and submission to the perennial Magisterium.

This aestheticism foreshadows the conciliar sect’s later abuse of beauty talk: using sacred art, heritage churches, and “cultural patrimony” to conceal doctrinal decomposition and sacramental invalidity.

3. Usurpation of Jurisdiction and Abuse of Papal Formulas

The text uses classical juridical phrases:

– *“ex certa scientia ac matura deliberatione… deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine”*
– *“praesentes Litteras firmas, validas atque efficaces iugiter exstare ac permanere”*
– The invalidation clause against any contrary attempt.

But such formulas presuppose:

– A true Roman Pontiff, head of the Church of Christ.
– Continuity with prior doctrine and discipline.

Once the person occupying the See inaugurates or formally intends a program contrary to that doctrine—preparing a council that will teach:

– Religious liberty in direct opposition to proposition 15–18, 55, 77–80 of the Syllabus;
– Collegiality and democratization against the monarchical constitution of the Church;
– Ecumenism and esteem for false religions in defiance of the dogma of the one true Church—

then invocation of papal plenitude is a blasphemous parody. As the pre‑Vatican II theological tradition (Bellarmine and others, correctly understood) states in substance: *a manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church, for he is not even a member; jurisdiction cannot be held by one who is publicly separated from the faith.* The 1917 Code (can. 188.4) acknowledges that public defection from the faith vacates office *ipso facto*.

The Ayacucho decree is thus, in reality, a human administrative gesture of a man already aligned with principles condemned by the authentic Magisterium—an edict without supernatural backing, no matter how solemn the phrasing.

Symptomatic Level: How This “Innocent” Decree Serves the Conciliar Project

Seen in isolation, this document may appear negligible. But integral Catholic analysis must discern its symptomatic value:

1. Using Traditional Forms to Disarm Resistance

– John XXIII continues to employ Latin, curial style, and familiar canonical structures.
– He bestows honors on historic churches, visibly acting like previous popes.

This continuity of externals:

– Reassures clergy and laity that “nothing essential is changing”;
– Makes it easier, a few years later, to impose a revolution in doctrine, liturgy, and ecclesiology under the guise of “renewal” and “aggiornamento.”

In other words, decorative beneficence functions as opium: “The antipontiff honors our cathedral; how could his council be dangerous?”

2. Transforming Sacred Space into a Stage for the Neo-Church

By annexing historical temples into the network marked by the conciliar line’s decrees, the usurper lays groundwork for:

– Later implementation of the New Rite that attacks the theology of sacrifice and the priesthood;
– Introduction of religious syncretism, ecumenical spectacles, and cult of man ceremonies in buildings still externally venerated as Catholic.

The Ayacucho cathedral, lifted to Minor Basilica status under John XXIII’s name, becomes not a bastion against the conciliar sect, but a prestigious platform available to it. The act brands it symbolically with the mark of the emerging “Church of the New Advent.”

3. Substitution of Legalistic Formalism for Doctrinal Combat

Note the imbalance:

– Extremely vigorous in demanding that this purely honorific concession be considered “firm, valid, effective”;
– Completely silent in demanding that the faithful reject liberalism, socialism, masonic sects, errors condemned by Pius IX and St. Pius X;
– No anathemas, no warnings, no doctrinal content—only the threat of nullity against anyone questioning the basilica title.

This reveals a deep inversion of priorities:

– Forms are defended;
– The faith is left undefended.

The true Magisterium, by contrast, uses juridical force to protect dogma, sacraments, and the rights of Christ and His Church. Here, forceful language is squandered on mere ceremonial status, while the dogmatic ramparts are silently being dismantled elsewhere.

The Grave Sin of Omission: No Call to Penance, No Warning of Apostasy

The most damning aspect of the text is its silence where the pre‑1958 Church would have spoken with fire.

– Mid-20th century: unprecedented spread of atheistic communism, liberalism, moral corruption, masonic influence in politics and even in ecclesiastical environments.
– The true popes had incessantly warned about these forces; Pius IX pointed directly to masonic sects as the “synagogue of Satan” waging war on the Church.
– St. Pius X’s *Pascendi* and *Lamentabili* unmasked Modernism as the synthesis of all heresies and imposed excommunication on its propagators.

Yet in this decree:

– No warning against Modernism.
– No exhortation to defend the purity of doctrine.
– No call to preserve the traditional liturgy inviolate.
– No mention of the Last Things, the state of grace, the narrow path of salvation.

A cathedral is being crowned with minor basilica honors, but the faithful are left without a shepherd’s voice against the true wolves. This culpable silence is fully consistent with the program that would culminate in the conciliar documents: replacing the supernatural and polemical edge of the faith with horizontal, aesthetic, and diplomatic language.

Exposure of the Underlying Mentality: The Church as Cultural Ornament

The document reflects a conception of the Church reduced to:

– A curator of sacred art and “splendid rites,”
– A dispenser of honorific titles,
– A gentle promoter of undefined “piety.”

This stands in radical contradiction to the pre‑conciliar teaching:

– The Church is a perfect supernatural society, possessing divine rights, obliged to combat error, command obedience, and demand that states conform to the law of Christ (Syllabus, *Quas Primas*).
– The Church exists primarily to lead souls to heaven through true doctrine, the *Most Holy Sacrifice*, and the sacraments—not to crown monuments.

By functioning as a cultural notary public who decorates churches, the usurper disfigures the Petrine office. What should be a militant proclamation of Christ’s royal rights becomes a harmless cultural gesture that liberal regimes and masonic forces can easily applaud.

Consequences: A Basilica Title in the Service of the Abomination of Desolation

Once the conciliar sect imposes:

– A protestantized rite,
– A religion of “dialogue,” “human rights,” and “religious liberty,”
– Ecumenical rites of idolatrous collaboration with false religions,

the very churches honored by such decrees become stages for sacrilege or, at best, ambiguity. The Ayacucho “Minor Basilica” title, far from guaranteeing anything before God, is absorbed into a pseudo‑Catholic network in which:

– Validity of orders is systematically undermined;
– The Holy Mass is replaced by assemblies oriented to man;
– Syncretism and indifferentism are normalized.

Thus the sweetly phrased act of “Our benevolence” reveals its true place: a piece in the incremental transformation of visible structures into a *paramasonic* apparatus, where heritage and art are instrumentalized to lend prestige to a new religion.

Verdict: Decorative Nullity Issued by a Decorative Authority

In light of integral Catholic doctrine:

– A genuine Minor Basilica is an honor flowing from, and ordered toward, the true faith, the *Unbloody Sacrifice*, and strict fidelity to the perennial Magisterium.
– Such an honor presupposes a true Pope, who guards the depositum fidei and wages war on error.

But here:

– The sign is severed from its substance;
– The honor is issued by one aligned with principles solemnly condemned before 1958;
– The document showcases aestheticism and legalism without a trace of doctrinal militancy.

Therefore this apostolic letter is:

– Theologically vacuous as an act of the Church of Christ;
– Symptomatic of the conciliar sect’s method: conserve the shell, poison the core;
– An instrument not of edification, but of deception, accustoming souls to equate Catholicity with monuments and ceremonies while the faith is betrayed.

Where the true pre‑1958 Magisterium thunders against liberalism, Modernism, and masonic plots, John XXIII in this text offers silence, stucco, and a seal. It is an ornament on the façade of the looming *abominatio desolationis*.

---

Source:
Meritis laudibus, Litterae Apostolicae Titulo Ac Privilegiis Basilicae Minoris Ditatur Ecclesia Cathedralis Ayacuquensis, d. 15 m. Ianuarii a. 1960, Ioannes PP. XXIII   (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025