The document is a brief Latin letter in which John XXIII appoints Richard James Cushing as his legate to preside at a national Eucharistic Congress in Piura, Peru, exhorting greater Eucharistic devotion, more frequent Communion, and an increase in priestly vocations, while invoking blessings for clergy and faithful gathered there. Its apparently pious language, however, conceals and normalizes the usurpation of authority by John XXIII and the conciliar revolution he was preparing, instrumentalizing Eucharistic devotion to reinforce a counterfeit hierarchy and a nascent neo-church detached from the unchanging doctrine of the Kingship of Christ and the true nature of the Church.
John XXIII’s Piura Letter: Eucharistic Language in Service of the Conciliar Usurpation
The Counterfeit Legate of a Counterfeit Pontiff
Already the opening lines manifest the problem: John XXIII, who inaugurated the conciliar revolution, arrogates to himself the right to designate a papal legate and to dispense an “Apostolic Benediction,” thus presupposing what is theologically in question: his possession of the Petrine office and the continuity of his “Pontificatus” with the papal magisterium prior to 1958.
He writes that he chooses Cushing as his legate:
We therefore appoint and choose you, Our Beloved Son, as Legate, so that, representing Our person, you may preside over that Eucharistic Congress in Our name…
The entire letter stands or falls on this claim of representation. If the one sending the legate is not a true Pontiff, then the legation is juridically and theologically void, and the “Congress” becomes a solemn theatre by which the conciliar sect clothes itself with the symbols of Catholicity while dissolving its substance.
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, the decisive issue is not whether one speaks beautifully of the Eucharist, but whether one safeguards the visible and dogmatic continuity of the Church. *Lex credendi* (the rule of belief) and *lex orandi* (the rule of prayer) presuppose *lex auctoritatis* rightly possessed. When a manifest architect of aggiornamento—who soon convokes a council to relativize condemnations of liberalism and to open to the world condemned by Pius IX in the *Syllabus Errorum*—poses as Vicar of Christ, every “Eucharistic” act he structures becomes an instrument of a new religion.
This is the hidden axis of the letter: a counterfeit authority fortifying itself by means of genuine terms emptied of their pre-1958 content.
Instrumentalizing Eucharistic Piety Without Confessing the Full Kingship of Christ
The letter lauds the memory of the 1954 Eucharistic Congress in Lima and rejoices that another congress in Piura is prepared with “great zeal.” It calls the faithful to honor the “august Sacrament of the altar,” approach it frequently, and live “soberly, justly, piously.”
On the surface, these are phrases that any Catholic of the ages could affirm. Yet precisely here emerges the most insidious aspect: orthodox vocabulary harnessed to normalize a new orientation.
From Pius XI in *Quas primas* we know that the Eucharist, as the renewal of the *Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary*, grounds not an indeterminate “religiosity” but the visible social reign of Christ the King over nations, laws, and institutions. He teaches that peace and order are impossible where Christ’s kingship is not publicly recognized in the juridical order. Pius IX in the *Syllabus* condemns the separation of Church and State (prop. 55), the subjection of the Church to civil powers, and the fiction that all religions may be equally tolerated as if truth had no claim to public life.
John XXIII’s letter, however:
– Speaks warmly of the Eucharist and of the “family of God” but omits any reference to the obligation of states to submit to Christ’s law.
– Offers no word against laicism, liberalism, socialism, or the Masonic networks denounced repeatedly by pre-conciliar popes as instruments of the “synagogue of Satan.”
– Reduces the fruit of Eucharistic worship to generic moral edification, social respectability, and mutual concord.
He writes that the faithful, nourished by the Eucharist, will:
…adorn the profession of the Christian name more and more by holiness of morals, by the concord of unity, by desire for eternal things, and their proven virtue will bring just joy to their own and reverence from adversaries.
But where is:
– The condemnation of error as demanded by *Pascendi* and *Lamentabili sane exitu*?
– The assertion that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church understood as a visible, exclusive society?
– The insistence that society must recognize the one true religion and that all false religions are offensive to God?
Silence at this level is not accidental; it is programmatic. It is the silence of a project that will soon enthrone “religious liberty” and “ecumenical dialogue,” in direct opposition to the integral teaching of the 19th and early 20th century magisterium.
Thus, the Eucharist is invoked as a unifying, sentimental symbol, while the Eucharistic Kingship of Christ over nations—central in genuine doctrine—is tacitly buried. This is not harmless omission; it is the re-framing of supernatural realities into a naturalistic, humanistic narrative congenial to liberal democracies and Masonic ideology.
Linguistic Cosmetics: Piety as a Cloak for Revolution
The rhetoric of the letter is smooth, decorous, and “safe.” Its linguistic features betray the mentality of post-1958 neo-church propaganda:
1. Vague praise of “piety” and “unity”:
– Frequent references to “laeto agmine,” “magna fidelium frequentia,” “uberi pietatis fructu” paint an image of harmonious mass devotion.
– Yet no doctrinal precision accompanies this picture; there is no warning against unworthy Communion, against heresy, against sacrilegious liturgy.
2. Familial imagery detached from dogmatic militancy:
– The Christian people are lauded as *familia Dei*.
– But this “family” is not defined as the visible society that excludes heretics, apostates, and schismatics, as consistently taught by the Fathers and classical theologians.
– The letter does not recall that a manifest heretic cannot belong to this family nor govern it (*non potest caput esse qui non est membrum* – “he cannot be the head who is not a member”).
3. Euphemistic treatment of crisis:
– John XXIII admits there are “many snares” laid by enemies of the faith in South America, but the language is anodyne, without naming liberalism, communism, Freemasonry, modernism, or false sects with the explicit vigour of Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X.
– This vagueness mirrors the future rhetoric of the conciliar sect: perpetual talk of “challenges” and “difficulties” without doctrinal denunciation and without identifying the enemy as the Church traditionally did.
4. The central deceit of representation:
– Repeated emphasis that Cushing will “represent Our Person” in Peru.
– Thus a modernist “cardinal,” himself deeply compromised with American liberalism, is presented as bearer of Petrine authority to seal Eucharistic festivities.
– The style is courtly; the substance is void.
Dolus latet in generalibus (deceit hides in generalities). The letter avoids any sharp doctrinal edge, wrapping itself in a devotional vocabulary that disarms simple souls while reinforcing loyalty to a pseudo-papal center.
Theological Dislocation: Eucharist Without Ecclesial Integrity
At the theological core, this letter divorces Eucharistic devotion from the conditions that make it fruitful and non-sacrilegious.
Authentic pre-1958 teaching insists:
– The Most Holy Eucharist is the real Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, received worthily only in the state of grace, preceded by right faith.
– Communion presupposes communion in doctrine and discipline with the Catholic Church; heretics cannot validly claim Eucharistic unity while rejecting magisterial teaching.
– Public Eucharistic cult is the triumphant affirmation of the exclusive truth of the Catholic Church against all errors.
The letter:
– Encourages more frequent Communion but does not once mention the necessity of the state of grace or the grave sin of sacrilegious Communion.
– Praises the Eucharist as “sign of unity, bond of charity” (*tantae unitatis signum, suavis fraternae caritatis vinculum*), but is silent about unity in faith, without which sacramental unity is an illusion.
– Speaks of the Eucharist as “firm foundation of this communion by which earth is joined to heaven,” but does not bind this communion to submission to the perennial Roman magisterium that the very author is destroying.
This is not a simple omission in a short letter; it is the structural defect of the conciliar mindset: sacraments are sentimentalized and horizontalized, reduced to instruments of social cohesion, detached from militant, exclusive Catholic truth.
Moreover, the entire call to support vocations is framed in purely functional terms:
– The scarcity of “priests” harms the “family of God” because fewer ministers are available for the sacraments.
– Nowhere does John XXIII recall that a priest must be formed in *integral* doctrine, protected from modernism, bound to scholastic theology, obedient to the anti-liberal magisterium.
– No mention of St. Pius X’s ruthless demands in *Pascendi* and the Oath against Modernism.
Thus, the letter fosters the multiplication of functionaries for a system that is already in doctrinal decomposition. To encourage vocations into a structure being transformed into a conciliar sect is to recruit for the dismantling of the Church, not for its defense.
Symptom of the Conciliar Sect: From Condemnation to Conciliation
Seen in context, Alta stirpe (1960.06.27) is a minor but revealing symptom of the larger program of John XXIII and the structures occupying the Vatican.
Contrasted with the constant pre-1958 line:
– Pius IX:
– Condemns religious indifferentism, liberalism, and all theories subjecting the Church to the State.
– Exposes Masonic sects as the armed wing of Satan against the Church.
– Leo XIII:
– Insists on the social Kingship of Christ and the incompatibility of the Church with radical liberal doctrines.
– Calls rulers and nations to public profession of the Catholic faith.
– St. Pius X:
– Denounces Modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies.”
– Imposes doctrinal oaths and disciplines to extirpate innovators.
Alta stirpe:
– Replaces militant condemnation with irenic, bureaucratic piety.
– Emphasizes the beauty of gatherings, processions, multitude, and emotion, not the uncompromising combat against heresy.
– Avoids any reference to secret societies and liberal elites undermining Peru and all Latin America, despite the well-documented campaign of Masonic and communist forces in that period.
– Assumes, without argument, the legitimacy of John XXIII and his “College of Cardinals,” setting the stage for a council under precisely those men targeted by anti-modernist legislation.
This is how the conciliar sect operates:
1. Retain traditional words (Eucharist, unity, family of God, priesthood).
2. Remove their anti-liberal, anti-modernist, exclusive Catholic content.
3. Use solemn ceremonies and congresses to impress and pacify the faithful while authority is internally reprogrammed.
4. Gradually reinterpret dogma according to “pastoral” needs and “dialogue” with the world.
Alta stirpe is not a bombastic manifesto; it is something more dangerous: a soft, perfumed veneer covering the transfer of allegiance from the Catholic papacy to a paramasonic structure that will soon promulgate a new ecclesiology, a new liturgy, and a new doctrine on religious liberty.
The Parody of Apostolic Benediction and the Usurpation of Jurisdiction
The letter culminates in a lavish “Apostolic Blessing” granted to:
…you, Our Beloved Son, the diligent Bishop of Piura, the Bishops, magistrates, priests, and Christ’s faithful who will attend those festive gatherings in praise and glory of the Eucharistic Sacrament…
Here lies a decisive theological issue: can a manifest modernist, convoking a council that will reverse the condemnations of his predecessors, grant an “Apostolic Blessing” in the name of Peter?
The perennial sacramental and canonical doctrine, as expressed by theologians such as St. Robert Bellarmine and by canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code, affirms in synthesis:
– A manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church, for he is no member.
– Public defection from the faith entails automatic loss or nullity of ecclesiastical office, *ipso facto*.
Once John XXIII embraced and advanced principles incompatible with the *Syllabus* and with the anti-modernist magisterium, his claim to juridical succession is theologically indefensible. Consequently:
– His creation of “cardinals” is null.
– His designation of “legates” is a simulation.
– His “Apostolic Benediction” is an empty formula, lacking the authority it presumes.
What, then, remains? A theatrical blessing from the head of the conciliar sect, intended to sacralize:
– A false obedience to usurpers.
– A political-religious system gradually aligned with condemned liberalism.
– A network of “bishops” and “priests” increasingly formed in doctrines explicitly anathematized by St. Pius X in *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*.
The more devoutly one receives such a “blessing” in ignorance, the more deeply one is bound, not to Peter, but to those occupying his seat without his faith.
Eucharistic Congress as Showcase of the Neo-Church
The choice of a national Eucharistic Congress as stage is itself revealing.
In authentic Catholic practice, large Eucharistic congresses:
– Manifest the triumph of the Catholic faith over error.
– Publicly proclaim the social kingship of Christ and the unique salvific mission of the Church.
– Strengthen attachment to the Roman Pontiff precisely as guardian of doctrinal intransigence.
Under John XXIII, the congress:
– Is orchestrated by a hierarchy already permeated by modernist tendencies.
– Is presided over by Cushing, who in practice aligned Catholic presence in the U.S. with pluralistic, religiously indifferent public ideology.
– Is framed in language that emphasizes unity, fraternity, and generic “peace,” prefiguring the coming abuse of Eucharistic symbolism in post-conciliar ecumenism.
Thus the Congress becomes:
– A liturgical-political spectacle ratifying the authority of a counterfeit magisterium.
– A pedestal to display the “benevolent,” “pastoral” face of a hierarchy that is about to undermine Tridentine theology, scholastic formation, and the anti-modernist magisterium.
In other words, the letter is a snapshot of the transition: the signs, rites, and vocabulary of the old Church are appropriated to crown the birth of the neo-church.
The Radical Lesson: True Eucharistic Devotion Requires Separation from the Conciliar Sect
From the perspective of unchanging Catholic theology:
– The Eucharist cannot be separated from the full integral faith; sacramental realism demands dogmatic realism.
– The visibility and unity of the Church are not sentimental impressions but juridical and doctrinal facts.
– *Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus* is not a rhetorical flourish but an absolute principle.
Alta stirpe offers:
– Beautiful sentences about Eucharistic worship.
– Empty assurances of “Apostolic” approval.
– Silence about the doctrinal battles raging in the 20th century.
– A counterfeit confirmation of modernist usurpers and their agents.
The conclusion is inescapable:
– Genuine Catholic fidelity in Peru or anywhere else cannot consist in enthusiastic participation in congresses organized under a conciliar usurper.
– The true defense of the Most Holy Sacrament demands rejection of the structures that instrumentalize it to sanctify error, liberalism, and apostasy.
– Authentic priests and bishops who retain pre-1958 doctrine and sacraments stand as the real guardians of the Eucharist, even if marginalized, calumniated, or deprived of basilicas and congresses.
Non possumus (“we cannot”) acknowledge as vicar of Christ the one who inaugurates a system contradicting Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Pius XI. Therefore:
– The legate is no legate.
– The “Apostolic Benediction” is no apostolic blessing.
– The congress is no triumph of the Catholic Church, but a solemn manifestation of the conciliar sect in Eucharistic disguise.
To unmask such texts is not “rigorism”; it is simple fidelity to the clear, consistent teaching of the pre-1958 magisterium that demands rejection of Modernism in all its veiled and perfumed forms.
Source:
Alta stirpe – Ad Richardum Iacobum tit. S. Susannae presb. Cardinalem Cushing, Archiepiscopum Bostoniensem, quem Legatum eligit ad Eucharisticum Conventum ex universa peruviensi natione in urbe Piura … (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025