The Latin letter under the title Meritis laudibus, issued on 15 January 1960 by the usurper John XXIII, concerns a single administrative act: raising the 17th‑century cathedral of Ayacucho in Peru, dedicated to Our Lady of the Snows, to the rank of a minor basilica. The text praises the baroque architecture, rich ornaments, and artistic furnishings, then, “from the fullness of Apostolic power,” grants the new title with its associated privileges.
Architectural Flattery as a Veil for a Pseudo-Pontifical Usurpation
The entire document is, at first glance, a short and seemingly harmless juridical formula. Yet precisely here the poison lies: a man who had already placed himself at the head of the conciliar revolution arrogates to himself the authority of the Roman Pontiff in order to distribute ecclesiastical titles, as if the visible beauty of stone and gold could conceal the doctrinal betrayal that was already in motion.
The Church of Christ is not ornamented into existence; she is constituted by *fides integra* (integral faith) and *unitas fidei* (unity of faith). When one who prepares the demolition of doctrine signs as universal legislator, every ceremonial gesture becomes part of the liturgy of the coming apostasy.
Elevation without Faith: The Factual Self-Exposure of a Neo-Church Mentality
At the factual level, the letter says:
“The principal temple of Ayacucho, founded in the 17th century and dedicated to Our Lady of the Snows, is rightly praised with deserved commendations… Therefore… We raise the cathedral church of Ayacucho… to the honor and dignity of a Minor Basilica, with all rights and privileges…”
In itself, such an act, if performed by a true Pope professing the perennial faith, would be a legitimate expression of the Church’s esteem for a sanctuary where the *Most Holy Sacrifice* is offered and the faithful are led to salvation.
But here:
– It is issued by John XXIII, the first in the line of conciliar usurpers, who summoned the Second Vatican Council and inaugurated precisely that “opening to the world” condemned by Pius IX and St. Pius X.
– It operates as if the continuity of true authority were self-evident, while in fact it functions as the juridical clothing of a revolution: outwardly Catholic forms placed over an emerging *paramasonic structure*.
– It is strikingly silent about:
– the integrity of doctrine to be preached in this “basilica,”
– the necessity of the *Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary* according to the Roman Rite received from Tradition,
– the rejection of liberalism, laicism, and modern errors,
– the obligation of the public kingship of Christ over nations and laws, as taught by Pius XI in Quas primas.
This silence is not accidental. It is the methodological signature of conciliarism in embryonic form: preserve the façade, hollow out the content.
The Sugar-Coated Naturalism of Aesthetic Enthusiasm
The text indulges in an almost touristic admiration:
“The baroque style is approved, the very amplitude of the structure moves admiration. Moreover, this house of God is adorned by skillfully made signs, paintings distinguished by the beauty of colors, precious metals, and artistic sacred furnishings.”
This rhetoric betrays several symptoms:
– The focus is entirely on natural, sensible beauty.
– There is no mention of:
– the Real Presence of Christ in the tabernacle,
– the propitiatory character of the Holy Mass,
– the need for confession, penance, conversion,
– the horror of sin and the reality of eternal damnation.
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, such an imbalance is already a judgment. The true Magisterium never separated cult from dogma. Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi condemned precisely the modernist reduction of religion to historical, aesthetic, or communal phenomena. Here we see the inverse reflection: decorative triumph, doctrinal mutism.
*Silentium de necessariis* (silence about what is necessary) in an official act of “supreme authority” is itself a sign of doctrinal decomposition. Where a supposed supreme pastor exalts walls and gold but omits the demands of Christ the King and His one true Church, he reveals a naturalistic mentality: Christianity as cultural heritage, not supernatural society.
Usurped “Apostolic Power” versus the Immutable Teaching of the Papacy
John XXIII speaks:
“From the certain knowledge and mature deliberation of Ours and from the fullness of Apostolic power, by the force of these Letters… we raise… to the honor and dignity of Minor Basilica…”
This formula presupposes what must first be proven: that the signer is truly Roman Pontiff.
According to the constant pre-1958 doctrine (as synthesized in the supplied theological sources):
– A manifest heretic cannot be Pope because he is not a member of the Church. *“Non potest esse caput qui non est membrum”* (he who is not a member cannot be the head).
– Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code states: public defection from the faith vacates an ecclesiastical office by the fact itself.
– St. Robert Bellarmine (paraphrased in harmony with the provided text) affirms that a manifest heretic loses all jurisdiction without need of further sentence, having condemned himself.
John XXIII’s program and its fruits:
– convocation of a council explicitly not meant to condemn errors but to “update” the Church,
– subsequent explosion (under his successors in the same usurping line) of religious liberty, false ecumenism, collegiality, and the cult of man,
stand in radical contradiction to:
– Pius IX’s Syllabus, which condemns religious indifferentism (props. 15–18), the separation of Church and State (55), liberalism (77–80),
– Pius X’s condemnation of modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies,”
– Pius XI’s Quas primas, which demands the social reign of Christ the King and denounces laicism as a “plague.”
Thus when such a man invokes “plenitudo potestatis apostolicae” (*fullness of apostolic power*) to assign honorary titles, he is in fact:
– using the sacred juridical language of the Papacy to normalize an illegitimate authority,
– masking with baroque solemnity the installation of the conciliar regime.
The problem is not that a building in Ayacucho is honored; the problem is that this honoring is wielded as if issued by the same See that condemned modernism, while in reality it belongs to the emerging *neo-church* which soon will enthrone the very errors once anathematized.
Legal Formalism as Ritual of the Conciliar Revolution
The document concludes with heavy juridical language:
“We decree and declare that these Letters are to be firm, valid, and effective… and that anything attempted contrary hereto, knowingly or unknowingly, by any authority, is null and void.”
From an integral Catholic standpoint, this pathos of formal authority is revealing.
Compare:
– Pre-1958 Popes employ such formulas to defend dogma, sacraments, and the rights of the Church against states, sects, and heresies (e.g., Pius IX defending ecclesiastical liberty against Masonic governments).
– Here, the grandiose apparatus serves only to protect a ceremonial concession regarding a title—while the same usurping authority will soon:
– tolerate and then promote religious liberty condemned by prior Magisterium,
– open the doors to “dialogue” with false religions,
– relativize the exclusive claims of the Catholic Church.
*Lex suprema* in the true Church is the salvation of souls (*salus animarum suprema lex*). Here, the solemn formula is severed from that end, functioning instead as:
– an intra-systemic absolutism: the conciliar structure declares its administrative decrees untouchable while it simultaneously dismantles infallibly taught doctrine by “pastoral” novelties.
– a juridical theater, where the words of traditional papal style are recited by an actor in a new ideology.
When sacramental theology, ecclesiology, and Christ’s kingship are betrayed at the level of principle, then decrees about basilicas—even if externally correct—are juridically hollow before God. The usurped “plenitude” cannot transubstantiate a revolutionary regime into the Mystical Body of Christ.
A Basilica for What Faith? The Theological Vacuum Behind the Title
A minor basilica is not merely a prestigious monument; in authentic Catholic understanding, it:
– is closely linked with the Roman Church and the See of Peter,
– is to be exemplary in liturgy, doctrine, and discipline,
– should be a pole of solid catechesis and Eucharistic devotion.
This letter, however:
– Says nothing of safeguarding the Tridentine Roman Rite in that church.
– Imposes no obligation to preach against indifferentism, communism, freemasonry, and modernism, despite Pius IX and Leo XIII clearly identifying such forces as the “synagogue of Satan” warring against the Church.
– Ignores the warnings of St. Pius X against modernist exegesis and dogmatic relativism.
– Is totally mute about the necessity of the faithful being in the state of grace, about frequent confession, about modesty, about the last things.
This muteness is not pious reserve; it is programmatic. It prepares the territorial and symbolic ground for a “basilica” that will later be integrated seamlessly into the conciliar sect’s system:
– “liturgies” infected with anthropocentrism,
– preachings softened by humanistic rhetoric,
– eventual normalization of the mutilated rites and false doctrines of the Church of the New Advent.
In other words, the title is conferred, but the dogmatic soul is tacitly surrendered. It is a “basilica” for a new religion disguised as renewed Catholicism.
The Linguistic Mask: Harmless Piety as Cover for Subversion
The tone of the document is:
– smooth,
– courtly,
– devout in appearance,
– obsessively formal.
Precisely by its apparent harmlessness it exemplifies the new tactic:
– No open doctrinal statement that could be directly attacked.
– No clear profession of modernist theses.
– Yet also no reaffirmation of contested dogmas against the rising tide of liberal theology.
This is the linguistic counterpart of what Pius X condemned: *“silentio praetermittere”* (passing over in silence) what must be confessed openly, while using traditional language emptied of its binding content.
The rhetorical sequence:
– “merits of praise”
– “splendour”
– “adornment”
– “Our benevolence”
– “fullness of power”
functions as liturgical incense in which the faithful are to inhale:
– the assumption that John XXIII is a legitimate Pope,
– the acceptance of his authority to redesign the Church’s future.
Where the text should echo:
– the intransigent condemnation of freemasonry (regularly reaffirmed by pre-1958 Popes),
– the obligation of states like Peru to recognize the social kingship of Christ,
– the call to resist secularization and liberalism,
we find decorative verbiage. It is the style of one preparing the “aggiornamento”: religion without combat, beauty without dogma, authority without truth.
Symptom of the Systemic Apostasy: From Baroque Stones to the Cult of Man
Seen in isolation, Meritis laudibus is a minor text. Seen in its historical and theological context, it is a revealing symptom of the process that culminates in the conciliar sect:
1. Continuity of external forms
– Latin chancery style.
– Roman curial signatures.
– Traditional devotions and titles apparently respected.
2. Gradual hollowing-out
– Suppression of doctrinal militancy.
– Replacement of supernatural focus with cultural and artistic appreciation.
– Transformation of the Papacy from guardian of dogma into distributor of honors and promoter of “openness.”
3. Eventual rupture
– Vatican II’s decrees on religious liberty and ecumenism contradict the pre-existing Magisterium condemned precisely in the Syllabus and other acts.
– The new liturgical rites disfigure the theology of the Sacrifice.
– The “Church of the New Advent” celebrates “dialogue,” “human dignity,” and “rights,” while silencing the absolute obligation to submit to Christ the King.
This letter participates in step 1 and 2: it lulls, it normalizes, it teaches Catholics to view papal signatures as benign cultural ornaments instead of bulwarks against error. It habituates them to receive from an emerging anti-church even their devotional coordinates.
From the standpoint of integral Catholic faith, this is intolerable. *Non possumus* (“we cannot [accept]”).
True Ecclesial Honor: Only in Fidelity to the Pre-1958 Magisterium
What, then, must be affirmed?
– A church building merits honor only insofar as:
– the true Catholic faith is preached there without compromise;
– the *Unbloody Sacrifice* is offered according to a rite expressing the dogma defined once for all;
– the faithful are led to reject modernism, liberalism, and religious indifferentism;
– the kingship of Christ over society is upheld.
– Any “basilica” integrated into the system of the conciliar sect:
– used for pseudo-liturgies that deny in practice the propitiatory Sacrifice,
– governed by “bishops” ordained in mutilated rites or in communion with manifest apostasy,
– inhabited by preaching that dilutes or contradicts the solemn condemnations of Pius IX and St. Pius X,
is not in reality a privileged sanctuary of the Catholic Church, but a stage where sacred architecture is exploited to legitimize a counterfeit religion.
The letter Meritis laudibus, by exalting architecture under the usurped seal of John XXIII while obstinately silent on the doctrinal war of its age, is a compact emblem of this abuse: a beautiful frame around the portrait of an illegitimate magisterium.
Against this, one must recall with pre-1958 clarity:
– Peace, order, and true honor are possible only in the Kingdom of Christ the King, socially and publicly acknowledged (Pius XI, Quas primas).
– The Church cannot reconcile herself with liberalism and modern civilization understood as emancipation from God (Pius IX, prop. 80 condemned).
– Modernism remains, in the words of St. Pius X, the synthesis of all heresies—and the conciliar accommodation to it is incompatible with membership in the true Church.
Where such principles are not only unmentioned but practically inverted, the pious façade must be unmasked as part of the machinery of the great falling away.
Source:
Meritis laudibus (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025