The Neo-Church’s Eucharistic Spectacle in Bolivia: Pious Language in Service of Revolution
The Latin letter “Laetum allatum,” dated July 4, 1961 and attributed to John XXIII, appoints Richard James Cushing as papal legate to a National Eucharistic Congress in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia. It praises Bishop Rodríguez Pardo, extols Bolivian Eucharistic devotion, sets “Omnes unum sumus in Christo” (“We are all one in Christ”) as the Congress’ keynote, and exhorts to Eucharistic piety, charity, social justice, and national concord.
Beneath its seemingly orthodox vocabulary, the text functions as a preparatory manifesto of the conciliar sect: it instrumentalizes the Most Holy Eucharist to introduce a horizontal, naturalistic, sociological “unity” in place of the supernatural Kingship of Christ and the exclusive claims of the one true Church.
Foundations: Why This Letter Cannot Be Received as a Catholic Act
Because the document proceeds from John XXIII, the inaugurator of the conciliar revolution, it must be read not as an isolated devotional exhortation but as part of a coherent program that culminated in the systematic overthrow of integral Catholic doctrine and worship after 1958.
Several points are historically verifiable and doctrinally decisive:
– John XXIII convoked Vatican II with the programmatic rejection of the perennial condemnatory stance of the Magisterium (“medicine of mercy” against the Syllabus and anti-modernist rigor), directly contradicting the constant teaching reaffirmed by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII.
– His line of successors up to “Pope” Leo XIV presides over and deepens this rupture. This uninterrupted promotion of condemned errors (false religious liberty; ecumenism; collegial “democratization” of authority; liturgical devastation) reveals a new religion – a *conciliar sect* – occupying Catholic structures.
– From the perspective of unchanging Catholic theology, a public promoter of modernist errors cannot be a true Roman Pontiff. The doctrine, synthesized authoritatively by St. Robert Bellarmine and reflected juridically in canon 188.4 CIC 1917 and in Paul IV’s *Cum ex Apostolatus Officio*, teaches that a manifest heretic cannot possess or retain the Papal office. This is not a novel opinion but the common doctrine of the Fathers and theologians, explicitly subordinating all “pontifical acts” of such a man to scrutiny and rejection once the contradiction with the Faith is manifest.
Therefore this letter, bearing the signature of John XXIII within the apparatus of the structures occupying the Vatican, must be treated not as an act of the Catholic Magisterium, but as a pseudo-pontifical instrument of the *Church of the New Advent*, to be dissected and rejected wherever it serves the conciliar agenda.
The Factual Facade: Eucharistic Congress as Controlled Piety
On the surface the text appears orthodox: it invokes the Blessed Sacrament, cites Augustine, mentions the Sacrifice, encourages virtue and concern for the poor, and urges that the Eucharistic Congress in Bolivia bear abundant spiritual fruit.
Key elements:
– Approval and praise of Bishop Rodríguez Pardo’s efforts in organizing a nationwide Eucharistic Congress.
– Selection of Cardinal Cushing as legate to represent the “pope” at the event.
– Emphasis on Eucharistic piety in Bolivia and hope for increased unity under the motto “Omnes unum sumus in Christo.”
– Ethical exhortations: growth in charity, justice, peace, social concern for the poor and indigenous population.
Isolated from context, these phrases could be read benignly. But Catholic judgment must never be naive or sentimental. *Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu* (the good requires integrity; any substantial defect corrupts). When such language is embedded in a broader, demonstrably subversive program, it becomes camouflage.
The decisive facts that unmask the letter’s role:
– It occurs at the threshold of Vatican II (1962–1965), whose documents and implementation introduced precisely the “humanistic,” “social,” and “ecumenical” reinterpretations anticipated in this rhetoric.
– It uses a Eucharistic Congress – historically a bastion of explicit affirmation of the Kingship of Christ, reparation for sin, and public condemnation of error – as a stage for an irenic, nation-building, “all are one” messaging that avoids any robust assertion of the unique salvific necessity of the Catholic Church.
– It appoints Cushing, a key American facilitator of religious indifferentism and a principal promoter of the liberal “religious liberty” agenda at the Council, as representative. Personnel is doctrine: such a selection is not accidental.
Thus the letter is an instrument to redirect Eucharistic devotion away from militant Catholic orthodoxy toward the conciliar synthesis of horizontal social concern, nation-wide unanimism, and ecumenical ambiguity.
Linguistic Engineering: Soft Piety as Vehicle of Subversion
The rhetoric of the letter is revealing. Several points stand out.
1. Focus on “Omnes unum sumus in Christo”
The motto is repeatedly underscored as central to the Congress. In itself, St. Paul’s teaching on unity in Christ is Catholic. But here, this phrase is unmoored from its intrinsic doctrinal conditions: unity in Christ is unity in the one true Faith, in the one true Church, in the same Sacraments, under the same true hierarchy. The document does not state this.
Instead, the chosen language is elastic, lending itself to a proto-ecumenical reading: “we” (implicitly, all Bolivians; the “nation”) are one. The omission of explicit doctrinal boundaries converts a supernatural dogma into a national and sociological slogan.
2. Absence of Condemnatory Vocabulary
Traditional Papal documents regarding the Eucharist are replete with warnings: unworthy communions, sacrilege, profanation, liberalism, indifferentism, naturalism, the plots of Masonic and anti-Christian forces. Pius XI in *Quas Primas* and Pius X in *Pascendi* and *Lamentabili* speak with crystalline severity.
Here, the tone is sentimental, congratulatory, bureaucratically serene. Not a word about error, heresy, Freemasonry, communism’s anti-Christian ideology in Latin America, or liberal secularism. The language shift is itself doctrinal: the suppression of the Church’s militant office in favour of a “benevolent,” *laicized* spirituality.
3. Technocratic and Political Overtones
Notice the convergence of themes: national event, public unity, social justice, improved material conditions, “mutua benevolentia” among Bolivians. All good in themselves, but when detached from the explicit demand that the state publicly recognize the Social Kingship of Christ and submit its laws to divine and ecclesiastical authority, they become the vocabulary of horizontal humanism condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus (notably propositions 39–40, 55, 77–80).
The letter exemplifies the emerging conciliar code: use sacramental words to promote a de facto naturalistic program, never clearly subordinating temporal order under Christ the King. This is not accidental style; it is strategy.
Theological Dissection: Truths Employed Against Themselves
To unveil the bankruptcy of the underlying attitude, every significant line must be measured against pre-1958 Catholic doctrine.
1. Eucharistic Doctrine: Orthodoxy Emptied by Omission
The letter states that in the Eucharistic Sacrifice the Church offers herself with Christ to the Father and that in Holy Communion the faithful receive the virtues of the Savior. It even cites Augustine’s magnificent line:
“Cibus sum grandium; cresce et manducabis me; nec tu me in te mutabis, sicut cibum carnis tuae; sed tu mutaberis in me.”
This is Catholic. And yet, within this text:
– There is no mention that only those in the state of grace may approach the altar, under pain of mortal sin and sacrilege.
– There is no mention of the Eucharist as propitiatory Sacrifice for sin in the strict Tridentine sense, counter to Protestant negations.
– There is no warning against intercommunion, against heresy, against the infiltration of liberalism and secret societies – though by 1961 these were no theoretical dangers but concrete realities.
Compare this silence with the Council of Trent’s solemn definitions (Session XXII, on the Holy Sacrifice; Session XIII, on the Eucharist; Session XIV, on penance). The conciliar sect’s method becomes evident: retain a shell of pious phrases but withdraw the hard edges of dogma and discipline that give them objective content. *Subtiliter mutatur sensus* – the sense is subtly changed.
Such strategic omissions align exactly with the condemned propositions of *Lamentabili sane* and *Pascendi*, where St. Pius X exposes Modernism’s tactic of using orthodox language while introducing novel meaning by silence about metaphysical and dogmatic absolutes.
2. “Omnes unum sumus in Christo”: Unity Without Conversion
The most serious distortion emerges around the Congress theme:
The letter celebrates that all are one in Christ and that the Eucharist deepens this unity. But it never clarifies:
– that those publicly rejecting Catholic dogma are outside this unity;
– that unity requires explicit adherence to the one true Church, as repeatedly defined by the Magisterium (e.g., Pius IX, *Singulari quidem*; Leo XIII, *Satis cognitum*; Pius XI, *Mortalium Animos*);
– that political, ethnic, or merely national cohesion is not unity in Christ.
By fusing “all Bolivians” and “all participants” into an undifferentiated “we,” the text prefigures the post-conciliar rhetoric in which “People of God” is stretched to include, in different senses, virtually everyone, draining from dogma the exclusivity of the *Una Sancta*. This is precisely the sort of equivocation condemned when Pius XI declares that the Catholic Church is the only Ark of salvation and that ecumenical experiments based on treating separated communities as equals are unacceptable (cf. *Mortalium Animos*).
The resulting doctrinal effect is lethal: **the supernatural dogma of unity becomes a democratic, nationalist, emotional consensus.** That is not Catholic doctrine. It is the sacralization of human community – the cult of man under Eucharistic decoration.
3. Social Concern Without Christ’s Social Kingship
The letter devotes a central passage to the poor and especially the indigenous population, lamenting their misery and expressing the desire for improved conditions. Catholic doctrine, of course, binds us to works of mercy and to social justice grounded in divine law.
However, the framing is revealing:
– It speaks of “social justice” and the betterment of conditions, but never calls civil rulers to submit the Bolivian state to Christ the King, nor to legislate in conformity with the natural and divine law, as taught, for example, by Pius XI in *Quas Primas* and *Quadragesimo Anno*.
– It does not remind that any authentic social order presupposes the public acknowledgement of the true religion and the rejection of indifferentism (condemned systematically in the Syllabus).
– It does not instruct that injustices and exploitation are to be corrected in the name of God’s commandments and of the Church’s authority, not in the name of vague humanitarianism.
Thus, an apparently Catholic appeal to the poor is subtly detached from the only foundation that can sanctify and direct it. This anticipates the post-conciliar descent into liberation theology, NGOs-with-vestments activism, and the subjection of sacred doctrine to secular “human rights” discourse – all condemned implicitly by integral Catholic teaching that subordinates rights-talk to the order of duties toward God and His Church.
4. The Instrumentalization of the Eucharist for National Consensus
A particularly grave inversion emerges: the Eucharistic Congress is portrayed as a privileged means to foster national harmony, mutual benevolence, and social cohesion among Bolivians.
Again: peace and concord are good. But Catholic doctrine – reaffirmed powerfully by Pius XI in *Quas Primas* – teaches that “the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ” is the only authentic peace. Natural peace detached from public subordination to the law of Christ is illusion.
In *Quas Primas*, Pius XI insists that public rejection of Christ’s Kingship is the cause of wars, revolutions, and social ruin, and that rulers and nations must explicitly honour Christ and conform laws to His commandments. The letter “Laetum allatum” does not even hint at this. It speaks as if Eucharistic devotion can be harnessed to strengthen an implicitly neutral nation-state – exactly the modernist inversion condemned in the Syllabus’ rejection of the separation of Church and State (prop. 55) and of the thesis that Catholicism need not be the religion of the State (prop. 77).
By silencing the demand for theocracy in the proper sense (not clerical despotism, but the public juridical Kingship of Christ), the text effectively subordinates the supernatural to the temporal. This is theological bankruptcy disguised as pastoral sensitivity.
Symptomatic Analysis: A Microcosm of the Conciliar Revolution
This letter is not an anomaly; it is a symptom. Several structural features mark it as part of the broader apostasy of post-1958 “post-conciliarism”:
1. Controlled Eucharistic Devotion as Tranquilizer
Rather than calling for reparation for blasphemies, for the infiltration of the Church by modernism, for the sins of nations, the text is entirely affirmative, soothing, unthreatening. It invites consumption of Eucharistic piety without conversion to hard, integral doctrine.
This corresponds to the strategy of the conciliar sect:
– preserve selected devotions and Eucharistic vocabulary for a time to maintain emotional attachment of the faithful;
– gradually reinterpret these devotions horizontally (community, fraternity, dialogue);
– then, with the Novus Ordo rite and ecumenical practices, empty the doctrine entirely, eventually replacing Sacrifice with “assembly” and Adoration with “encounter.”
The letter stands chronologically and ideologically at this turning point: it accustoms Catholics to a Eucharistic discourse without dogmatic rigor or militant opposition to error.
2. Ecumenical and Masonic Subtext
Although explicit ecumenical formulas are absent, the semantic field – national unification, “all are one,” social friendship, silence on the exclusivity of Catholic truth – prepares the ground for the coming betrayal of *Mortalium Animos* and the Syllabus through Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty and ecumenism.
The omission of any reference to the systematic condemnation of secret societies and their subversive role, so powerfully reaffirmed by 19th- and early 20th-century popes, is particularly telling. Bolivia and Latin America were and are arenas of Masonic and liberal activity; a true Pope would thunder warnings. Here, nothing. The silence cries louder than words.
Given the documented teaching of prior pontiffs that Masonic sects form the “synagogue of Satan” warring to destroy the Church, such a silence – in a high-profile national letter – is itself a grave symptom of complicity or capitulation.
3. The Choice of Legate: Cushing as Sign
The appointment of Richard Cushing, notable for his progressive tendencies and later support of religious liberty and ecumenical initiatives, is an enacted commentary on the theology of the letter. It confirms that the Congress is to be overseen, interpreted, and instrumentalized by men already compromised with liberalism.
In Catholic ecclesiology, *persona legati* signifies doctrine; to send such a man is to guarantee a certain line: sentimentalism, openness to pluralism, political compatibility with the emerging American religious model condemned by prior Magisterium.
4. Absence of Any Anti-Modernist Note
By 1961, St. Pius X’s anti-modernist oath, *Pascendi*, and *Lamentabili sane* were still formally in force. Any genuine pontifical document touching doctrine should presuppose, echo, or reinforce them. This text does not. The anti-modernist framework is wholly absent.
This is consistent with John XXIII’s later practical abolition of the Oath and his sidelining of anti-modernist vigilance. The letter thus participates in that same abandonment. What is not said is the decisive evidence.
The Role of the Faithful Remnant: No Self-Congratulation, Only Submission to True Authority
One further point must be insisted upon with equal clarity: the exposure of the conciliar sect and its antipopes does not license a lay or clerical pseudo-magisterium fashioned by those pretending to be traditional Catholics, who remain within or ambiguously attached to the neo-church structures.
Integral Catholic faith recognizes:
– Authority is from God, concretely mediated through the true hierarchy of the Church, with valid orders and unbroken adherence to the pre-conciliar Magisterium.
– The visibility and indefectibility of the Church are not saved by inventing “partial communion” theories, double hierarchies, or recognizing manifest heretics as heads while selectively “resisting” them.
– It is not given to private groups, including those pretending to be traditional Catholics (FSSPX, indult circles, etc.), to fabricate parallel jurisdictions while continuing to acknowledge the conciliar usurpers or deriving mission from them.
Therefore, while this letter must be rejected as a product of an antichurch, the remedy is not democratization or charismatic self-appointment, but humble, intelligent fidelity to the integral pre-1958 Magisterium, the traditional Roman rite, and validly ordained priests and bishops who do not compromise with post-conciliarism.
Conclusion: Why “Laetum allatum” Must Be Rejected
Summarizing the doctrinal verdict rooted in the constant Catholic teaching prior to 1958:
– The text deploys Eucharistic and patristic language while systematically omitting the dogmatic, disciplinary, and militant dimensions inseparable from true Eucharistic doctrine.
– It elevates a vague, sociological “unity” over the clear requirement of unity in the one true Church, thereby preparing the way for ecumenical indifferentism.
– It instrumentalizes Eucharistic piety for naturalistic goals: national cohesion, social harmony, and humanitarian concern, severed from the explicit demand for the public Reign of Christ the King over states and laws.
– Its silence regarding modernism, liberalism, Freemasonry, false religions, and sacrilegious communions is incompatible with the vigilant charity and doctrinal clarity of the true Papal Magisterium as seen in Pius IX’s Syllabus, St. Pius X’s *Pascendi* and *Lamentabili*, Pius XI’s *Quas Primas* and *Mortalium Animos*, and Pius XII’s firm teaching.
– Its authorship and context tie it intrinsically to the conciliar revolution; it is one piece in the dismantling of integral Catholic faith, not an expression of it.
Therefore, the only coherent Catholic response, based solely on the infallibly safe doctrine prior to 1958, is to expose “Laetum allatum” as a pious-phrased but theologically subversive document of the *conciliar sect*, reject its authority as non-pontifical, and reaffirm with Pius XI that peace, justice, unity, and charity are possible only under the undiluted, public, and exclusive Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the indefectible doctrine of His one true Church.
Source:
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 Sierra ex universa … (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025