Dated 20 August 1959, this brief Latin letter of John XXIII appoints Ferdinand Antonino Cento as papal legate to preside over the National Eucharistic Congress of Argentina in Córdoba (Tucumán). It recalls with nostalgia the 1934 International Eucharistic Congress in Buenos Aires (led by Eugenio Pacelli), praises the Argentine hierarchy’s organizational zeal, notes the cooperation promised by civil authorities, and expresses the expectation that intensified Eucharistic devotion will nurture peace, piety, and public friendship between the Argentine state and the Apostolic See.
A Eucharistic Spectacle Without the Kingship of Christ
This seemingly pious document is a paradigmatic text of the nascent conciliar revolution: beneath devout phrases about the Blessed Sacrament it empties Eucharistic worship of its doctrinal content, subordinates the supernatural to diplomatic choreography, flatters liberal civil power, and prepares the ground for that paramasonic conciliar sect which, from 1958 onward, usurped the name and structures of the Catholic Church.
Historical and Doctrinal Context: From Catholic Confession to Conciliar Humanism
To expose the bankruptcy of this letter, it is necessary to recall the normative Catholic doctrine prior to 1958, which this text subtly sidelines:
– Pius XI in Quas primas teaches that true peace and social order are possible only where states, laws, and institutions publicly recognize and submit to the social Kingship of Christ. He condemns laicism and the relegation of religion to private sentiment as the root of modern disasters.
– Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors rejects:
– the separation of Church and State (prop. 55),
– state supremacy over ecclesiastical matters (prop. 19–21, 41–44),
– the cult of “progress, liberalism and modern civilization” (prop. 80).
– St. Pius X, in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi, denounces the reduction of religion to sentiment, the “adaptation” of doctrine to modern mentality, and any attempt to dissolve the supernatural in historical pragmatism.
Measured against this unchanging magisterium, the letter of John XXIII reveals itself as a calculated stage of transition: verbal attachment to the Eucharist is used as a decorous veil for a new orientation—horizontal, diplomatic, naturalistic—that will culminate in the open apostasy of the Church of the New Advent.
Factual Level: Selective Memory and the Political Instrumentalization of the Eucharist
The letter opens:
“It has not faded from memory with how much zeal and frequency of sacred clergy and faithful people, with what festive preparation, the Eucharistic Congress of all nations was celebrated in 1934 in Buenos Aires…”
This remembrance is not innocent.
1. It frames a Eucharistic Congress primarily as a mass event—“frequency,” “festive preparation,” “from all nations”—with no mention of:
– the Eucharist as propitiatory Sacrifice of Calvary,
– the need for the state of grace,
– reparation for sin,
– the condemnation of error and public blasphemy.
2. It highlights that Eugenio Pacelli (later Pius XII) presided, linking 1934 to 1959 as one continuous “tradition.” This rhetorical continuity disguises the actual break being engineered:
– In 1934, official teaching still upheld confessional states and the social Kingship of Christ.
– By 1959, under John XXIII, the apparatus is already being reoriented toward “dialogue” with liberal powers, soon to be dogmatized by the Second Vatican pseudo-council.
3. The new Congress’ stated goals are presented in bland terms:
– Increased “cult and use” of the Eucharist,
– Growth in “piety,”
– Commemoration of diplomatic ties.
Nowhere does the letter:
– call for national penance,
– recall that public law must submit to divine law,
– demand the eradication of public immorality and anti-Christian legislation as a condition for blessings from the Eucharistic Lord.
Instead, the Eucharistic Congress is factually framed as a religious-national festival integrating Church structures into the liberal order—a textbook example of the very tendencies condemned by Pius IX and Pius XI.
Linguistic Level: Devout Euphemism as the Language of Apostasy
The rhetoric of the letter is smooth, courteous, meticulously inoffensive. That is precisely the symptom.
Key traits:
– Sentimental vocabulary: “magno animi gaudio,” “Nobis carissima,” “inflamed hearts,” “festive apparatus.” The Eucharist, center of the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary, is wrapped in soft affective language, deprived of its juridical and doctrinal gravity.
– Diplomatic tone towards the state:
“We have also taken great joy from the fact that the civil leaders of the Argentine Republic… have promised their helpful assistance, and have decided during these festive days to commemorate that Argentina… was bound in bonds of public friendship with the Apostolic See.”
The text rejoices that liberal civil power “helps” ecclesiastical celebrations and commemorates diplomatic ties. There is no reminder that civil rulers are bound, under pain of divine judgment, to publicly recognize and submit to Christ the King; no warning that friendly concordats do not excuse unjust laws or laic constitutions.
– Absence of fighting language:
– No “error,” “heresy,” “condemnation,” “penance,” “reparation,” “judgment.”
– Instead: “peace,” “friendship,” “assistance,” “joy.”
This is exactly the linguistic mutation that St. Pius X warned against: a Christianity diluted into a humanitarian ethic, where dogma is muted so that religion becomes a respectable ornament of democratic civilization. The letter’s careful avoidance of hard doctrines is itself an accusation.
The form of piety proposed is liturgically ornate but doctrinally anemic—perfectly suited to a neo-church that will enthrone man while pretending to honor the Eucharist.
Theological Level: The Missing Sacrifice, the Missing Kingship, the Missing Cross
Under integral Catholic doctrine, any authentic teaching on the Eucharist must present at least three inseparable notes:
– Sacrifice (the renewal of Calvary),
– Real Presence,
– Sacrament of unity under the one true Faith and the one true Church.
This letter empties each of these by omission.
1. Silence on the Sacrifice
The Eucharist is presented almost exclusively as “heavenly banquet”:
“…that the faithful of the Argentine nation… feeding themselves ever more eagerly on the heavenly food, may strengthen their souls, conform their lives to the precepts of religion, and joyfully enjoy the good things of peace, which are drawn from this Sacrament as a most exquisite fruit.”
What is absent?
– No explicit mention that the Eucharist is the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary offered for the propitiation of sins.
– No mention of the dogma that grace from the Sacrament presupposes the state of grace; no call to Confession.
– No warning against unworthy Communion, despite the clear teaching of Trent and Scripture (1 Cor 11:27–29).
By reducing emphasis to “peace,” “strengthening of souls,” and generic “precepts of religion,” the text dislocates Eucharistic theology from its sacrificial and judicial dimension. This is precisely how the conciliar sect later justified its mutilated “New Mass”: once the sacrificial language is softened or suppressed, the altar collapses into a table and the Sacrifice into a communal meal.
2. Silence on the Social Kingship of Christ
In stark contrast to Quas primas, this letter never:
– affirms that civil rulers must officially recognize the reign of Christ,
– demands Catholic legislation,
– denounces the liberal principle of religious indifferentism,
– warns that mere “friendly cooperation” is insufficient.
Instead, it praises the state for “assistant cooperation” in ecclesial festivities and for celebrating a century of diplomatic ties. This is a practical capitulation to the very liberal thesis condemned as an error:
– that civil authority is neutral, autonomous, and benevolently allows Catholics to exist, in exchange for religious docility and ceremonial support.
Lex orandi, lex credendi (“the law of prayer is the law of belief”): when Eucharistic Congresses are liturgical ornaments upon an unchanged liberal order, the prayer itself teaches the heresy that Christ’s Kingship is spiritual only, not juridical and social—a heresy explicitly condemned by Pius XI.
3. Silence on the Church as Exclusive Ark of Salvation
The Congress is portrayed as a great gathering of Argentine faithful, clergy, and civil authorities in harmonious collaboration. Nowhere is the absolute claim of the pre-1958 Magisterium reiterated:
– that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation rightly understood,
– that the State has duties toward the one true Church, not toward a “religious pluralism.”
The Eucharistic event becomes a symbol of national unity, not of supernatural separation from error. This inversion prepares the later ecumenical and interreligious profanations of the conciliar sect, where pseudo-Eucharistic worship is exhibited as a sacrament of human fraternity.
Symptomatic Level: A Manifest of the Emerging Neo-Church
Seen from the perspective of the integral Catholic faith, this letter is not an isolated curiosity; it is a symptom and instrument of systemic apostasy.
1. Gratuitous Continuity with Pacelli as a Mask for Rupture
By invoking Pacelli’s presence in 1934 and then seamlessly presenting 1959 as its jubilee continuation, John XXIII constructs a false narrative of homogeneous development. In reality:
– Pius XII still upheld (at least doctrinally) the anti-modernist framework of his predecessors.
– John XXIII, from the first year, initiated a different trajectory:
– announcing the future council,
– promoting “aggiornamento,”
– introducing a style of optimistic accommodation condemned by Pius IX and St. Pius X.
The letter’s sugary continuity claim hides the true operation: transferring Eucharistic symbols into the service of a new ideology.
2. The Congress as Laboratory of Democratic Catholicism
The letter notes with approval:
– the creation of separate committees for clergy and laity,
– the mobilization of broad participation,
– the integration of civil government in preparation and celebration.
This is the early shape of the democratized “people of God” ecclesiology:
– sacramental life as a national-communitarian spectacle;
– clergy and laity as co-organizers of religious events that serve “peace” and “friendship” narratives, instead of the militant defense of truth.
Pius X condemned the notion that the “Church teaching” merely ratifies the opinions of the “Church listening.” Here, the seeds of such inversion appear in practice: Eucharistic worship carefully adjusted to civic harmony and public approval.
3. Praise of Civil Authorities: Practical Denial of the Syllabus
The rejoicing over the Argentine government’s cooperation is devoid of doctrinal conditions. There is:
– no scrutiny of laws,
– no reminder that states sin gravely by permitting public offenses against God,
– no insistence that public authority recognize Christ and His Church exclusively.
Thus, the letter behaves as if propositions 55, 77–80 of the Syllabus had never been condemned.
This practical disregard of prior magisterium is a hallmark of Modernism: where an explicit doctrinal contradiction would expose the heresy, the conciliar sect prefers to ignore the unwelcome doctrine, letting it die by non-use while singing of “peace” and “cooperation.”
4. Flattering Language Towards a Liberal State as Prototype of Conciliar Diplomacy
Pius IX, Pius XI, and St. Pius X, when addressing hostile or liberal powers, combined courtesy with clear doctrinal demands and vigorous protest against violations of divine and ecclesiastical rights.
Here, John XXIII:
– offers unqualified praise,
– cloaks the relationship in the language of “public friendship,”
– omits any challenge to liberal assumptions.
This anticipates the entire post-1958 pattern:
– concordats and “dialogues” where the usurping neo-church blesses secular regimes and international bodies,
– while abandoning the duty to call nations to the obedience of Christ the King.
The Eucharistic Congress as Prefiguration of Cultic Profanation
Even within this short letter, we can discern the essential move that leads to the later devastation of worship in the Church of the New Advent:
– Eucharistic piety is emphasized as an intensification of “cult and use” (“cultum usumque”), without doctrinal sharpening.
– The fruits sought are described as:
– personal strengthening,
– alignment with “precepts of religion,”
– enjoyment of “the benefits of peace.”
But:
– There is no theology of Eucharistic reparation for blasphemies, heresies, and sacrileges.
– There is no call to defend the Most Holy Sacrament against profanation.
– There is no doctrinal boundary marking who may approach the altar and under what conditions.
Once the Eucharist is detached from:
– its propitiatory character,
– its objective demands of faith and morals,
– its intrinsic connection with the one true Church and the Social Kingship of Christ,
it becomes available to be used:
– as an ecumenical symbol,
– as a rite of human fraternity,
– as a ceremonial ornament for any liberal or Masonic agenda.
The letter’s theology-by-omission is thus an early piece in the assembly of that abominable liturgical machine which, after 1969, systematically replaces the Most Holy Sacrifice with a man-centered memorial meal.
The Logical and Spiritual Bankruptcy of the Text
From the standpoint of the unchanging pre-1958 magisterium, this letter suffers from multiple fundamental failures:
1. Incoherence Between Words and Obligations
– It speaks of Eucharistic worship, yet ignores the doctrinal essentials defined by Trent (sacrifice, Real Presence, worthy reception).
– It speaks of “peace” as fruit of the Eucharist, yet hides the condition stated by prior popes: peace only in the Kingdom of Christ, under His laws, through conversion from error.
This is a practical relativism: Catholic words without Catholic content.
2. Substitution of Supernatural Ends by Natural Ends
– Eternal salvation, judgment, hell, and the necessity of sanctifying grace are absent.
– Central are social harmony, diplomatic friendship, civic cooperation.
Bonum commune spirituale (the spiritual common good) is replaced by temporal concord as the operative goal. This is precisely the naturalism condemned by Pius IX and St. Pius X: religion enlisted as a chaplaincy to secular civilization, not as a supernatural authority demanding its conversion.
3. Abuse of Authority to Confirm the Faithful in Illusion
By presenting such a hollowed-out program in the solemn mode of a papal letter, John XXIII abuses the external form of papal authority to make Catholics believe that:
– a state can be praised while remaining effectively liberal and laic,
– Eucharistic devotion is complete without public acknowledgment of Christ’s Kingship in law and institutions,
– cooperation with civil power is itself proof of Catholic vitality.
In reality, this is the catechesis of the conciliar sect: educating the faithful to love the very principles solemnly anathematized less than a century earlier.
4. Spiritual Harm
The most profound bankruptcy is spiritual:
– No warning against sacrilege.
– No call to conversion.
– No proclamation of the absolute rights of God and the exclusive truth of the Catholic faith.
– No defense of the Church’s liberty against state interference (directly contrary to the closing reminder of the Syllabus document you provided, which reaffirms that civil laws contrary to the divine constitution of the Church are null).
The faithful who absorb such teaching are gently led away from militancy, from doctrinal clarity, from horror of sin, and toward a sentimental religiosity perfectly compatible with apostasy.
Conclusion: A Harmless Letter as a Precise Instrument of Revolution
One might be tempted to dismiss this text as “only” a ceremonial letter. Such naivety would ignore the method of Modernism, which acts first in style, tone, and omissions before crystallizing its perfidy in explicit doctrines.
This letter:
– Presents a Eucharistic Congress emptied of the Cross, of the Social Kingship, of doctrinal militancy.
– Flattens the supernatural mission of the Church into a polite partnership with liberal civil power.
– Accustoms clergy and laity to judge ecclesial life by numbers, spectacle, and diplomatic prestige, not by fidelity to dogma.
– Functions as a bridge between the last glimmers of pre-1958 Catholic externality and the fully developed cult of man in the conciliar neo-church.
Under the light of the unchanging magisterium of Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII (when read according to their constant predecessors), the content and omissions of “Non excidit” are not benign. They are a quiet but precise betrayal: an early step in the enthronement of a Catholicism without the Cross, without Kingship, without judgment—exactly the counterfeit religion that now occupies the Roman structures.
Source:
– Ad Ferdinandum S. R. E. presbyterum Cardinalem Cento, qui legatus mittitur ad Conventum Eucharisticum Nationis Argentinae, Cordubae in Tucumania habendum (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025