The document is a Latin letter in which antipope John XXIII appoints Manuel Gonçalves Cerejeira as his legate for the dedication ceremonies of the new capital city of Brazil, Brasília. It wraps the political project of a modern capital in pious language, invoking “Christian civilization” and imploring divine blessing on the city, its rulers, and its future, presenting this civil undertaking as worthy of quasi-sacral consecration by the “Holy See.” In reality, this short text is a paradigmatic specimen of the conciliar revolution’s naturalistic gospel: it blesses a Masonic-style technocratic project, silences the social Kingship of Christ in its integral, confessional sense, and instrumentalizes a pseudo-Catholic “legation” to baptize secular modernity.

---

Profaning Consecration: John XXIII’s Blessing of Technocratic Brasília

Naturalistic Enthronement of a Capital Without the Kingship of Christ

John XXIII’s letter opens by praising the practice of consecrating public works:

“Publicae utilitatis molimina religione consecrare…” – to consecrate works of public utility with religion and invoke God’s name over them is described as salutary and honorable for any people.

On the surface, this seems consonant with Catholic tradition: civil society should acknowledge God and seek His blessing. But examined against the integral doctrine set forth by pre-1958 popes, the text is a hollow shell.

Key points:

– The letter speaks in generalities about invoking God over “great works” of human industry, yet:
– There is no demand that the new capital legally recognize the Catholic religion as the one true religion.
– There is no call for civil legislation to be subordinated to the divine and natural law explicitly taught by the Church.
– There is no mention of the duty of rulers to profess the Catholic faith and reject religious indifferentism.
– There is no reminder of final judgment, the necessity of the *state of grace*, or the *Most Holy Sacrifice* as the true heart of Christian society.

This silence is not accidental; it is programmatic. Pius IX solemnly condemned the proposition that “the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church” (Syllabus of Errors, prop. 55) and rejected religious indifferentism and liberal “freedom” of cults (props. 15–18, 77–80). Pius XI in *Quas primas* teaches that peace and social order can exist only where Christ is acknowledged as King in law, institutions, and public life, insisting that rulers and nations are bound to publicly honor and serve Him, not merely to drape their projects with vague religiosity.

Here John XXIII does the opposite:

– He gives the prestige of what he claims is the Apostolic See to a political project of a “new capital,” without once stating:
– that Brasília must be Catholic,
– that its constitutional order must confess Christ and submit to His Church,
– that liberal and Masonic principles are incompatible with the Kingship of Christ.
– He reduces “consecration” to a devotional ornament for a secular-national enterprise.

This is the essence of the conciliar sect’s naturalism: the supernatural order is evoked sentimentally, but the concrete, juridical, doctrinal demands of the true Church are erased. It is a betrayal of *Quas primas*: peace is only possible in the Kingdom of Christ as publicly recognized King; John XXIII instead blesses a neutral forum for pluralist ideology.

Sanctifying Liberal Modernity: The Subtle Betrayal in Language

The rhetoric of the letter is revealing. The text overflows with smooth, courtly formulas carefully emptied of confessional precision:

– Praise of “public utility works” consecrated by religion.
– Aspirations that Brasília be a beacon of “Christian culture”:
“Christianae humanitatis cultus fax sit, quae in urbe Brasilia in exemplum fulgeat…”
– A list of civic virtues: concord, justice, kindness to foreigners, joy, brotherhood, peace:
“stabilis sit concordia civium; fortitudo et lenitas, integritatis custos iustitia, in advenas comitas, serena festivitas, melioris aevi fiducia, fraterna officia, pax…”

On first reading, these seem noble; but their function is deceptive:

1. “Christian civilization” is invoked as a cultural coloration, not as the theological reality grounded in the one true Faith, the one true Church, and the submission of law and state to Christ the King.
2. The choice of words is strictly “safe” for a liberal, religiously pluralistic order:
– No mention of the duty of rulers to repress public blasphemy and false worship.
– No insistence that legislation conform to Catholic moral teaching (marriage, education, public morals).
– No condemnation of Freemasonry or secularism, despite the well-known anti-Catholic, Masonic, technocratic ideology entangled with such nation-building projects — condemned in detail by Pius IX and his predecessors.
3. The document’s tone resembles a diplomatic, humanist greeting card, not the grave voice of a Vicar of Christ.
– It idealizes a capital that “cultivates whatever is royal, lofty, upright” without anchoring this in the Kingship of Christ and the divine constitution of the Church.

The language is symptomatic of *religious liberalism*: the Faith is reduced to a source of moral and cultural inspiration for a national project whose principles remain implicitly autonomous from the Church. This is precisely what the Syllabus condemns: the notion that civil authority is the source of rights (prop. 39), that the Church must adapt to “progress, liberalism, and modern civilization” (prop. 80).

John XXIII’s phrasing is crafted to be perfectly compatible with these condemned errors.

Absent Where It Matters: The Dogmatic Silences That Condemn the Text

What this letter does not say is more damning than what it says. From the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine, these omissions constitute a tacit repudiation of prior teaching.

Among the gravest silences:

– No assertion that the Catholic Church is the one true Church outside of which there is no salvation.
– No call to preserve or restore the Catholic confessional character of the state, following the solemn doctrine reiterated by Pius IX and Leo XIII.
– No warning against:
– Freemasonry and secret societies, which Pius IX explicitly exposed as instigators of war against the Church and subverters of Christian states – and which are deeply enmeshed in such architectonic “new capital” projects.
– Socialism, secularism, and naturalism as mortal threats to both souls and nations.
– No reference to the *Most Holy Sacrifice* as the foundation of any genuine Christian blessing.
– No mention of:
– sin,
– repentance,
– the state of grace,
– the Last Things (death, judgment, heaven, hell).
– No insistence that public life be ordered to the salvation of souls – the supreme law of the Church (*salus animarum suprema lex*).

Instead, the letter dwells on:

– temporal prosperity,
– noble reputation among distant nations,
– “serene festivity” and “confidence in a better age.”

This is theological bankruptcy: the supernatural end of man is eclipsed by temporal optimism. The letter’s Christianity is functionalized as moral decoration for a political-symbolic project; it is not the binding, exclusive revelation demanding conversion, submission, and sacrifice.

Such systematic silence corresponds precisely to the Modernist and liberal theses condemned in *Lamentabili sane* and *Pascendi*: doctrine is relativized into historical context; the supernatural is reduced to uplifting sentiment; the Church ceases to speak as a divine authority and becomes chaplain to the world.

Manipulating Ecclesiastical Authority to Legitimize a Political Cult

Another crucial aspect is the use of Cerejeira as “legatus” of John XXIII. The text states that Brazilian authorities desired a representative “out of the College of Cardinals” to preside over the dedication in the usurper’s name, “so that we Ourselves might be present in some way.”

Here several points emerge:

1. This presupposes the post-1958 structure as if it were the true hierarchy. But according to pre-conciliar doctrine and the principles recalled in the Defense of Sedevacantism file:
– A manifest heretic cannot be Pope or head of the Church; he ceases to hold office *ipso facto* (*De Romano Pontifice* of St. Robert Bellarmine; Wernz–Vidal; canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code).
– John XXIII, architect and inaugurator of the conciliar revolution, promoter of religious liberty and ecumenism later formalized, stands doctrinally outside the integral Catholic position of his predecessors.

2. The letter illustrates how the conciliar sect instrumentalizes external “pontifical” symbolism:
– By sending a legate, it performs a theatrical act of sacral approval upon a project marked by liberal and Masonic inspiration.
– This is a counterfeit of the traditional presence of the true Church:
– In the past, when pontifical legates blessed rulers or foundations, they did so on condition of maintaining or restoring Catholic order, condemning errors, enforcing orthodoxy.
– John XXIII demands nothing; he only offers flattery and non-binding “Christian” wishes.

3. The entire operation subordinates the appearance of the Church to the prestige of temporal power:
– The letter displays deference to political authorities asking for decorative religious approval.
– There is no trace of the apostolic boldness with which Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII confronted states when they violated the rights of the Church or embraced liberalism.

Thus the document is emblematic of post-1958 usurpers: the supposed “Vicar of Christ” becomes a chaplain of secular nationalism and modern planning, legitimizing it with emptied-out gestures. This is not the Church judging the world in the name of Christ; it is the world employing a pseudo-church for liturgical spectacle.

Moralistic Humanism in Place of Supernatural Catholicism

The virtues invoked for Brasília are entirely horizontalized:

– civic concord,
– justice as custodian of integrity,
– kindness to immigrants,
– optimism,
– fraternal services,
– peace.

Each is in itself good, but their isolation from the supernatural end reveals a Modernist, naturalistic inversion.

Traditional doctrine insists:

– Virtues without reference to the true God and the true Faith cannot secure the common good.
– Civil peace detached from Christ the King is fragile and in the end idolatrous — a *pax falsa* serving human pride.
– The state’s common good is subordinate to the final end of man: salvation in the Catholic Church.

Yet John XXIII’s text:

– Presents these human virtues as if they were autonomous goals, not as fruits of submission to Christ and His Church.
– Offers blessings for Brazil’s “royal, lofty, upright” project while refusing any explicit criterion of orthodoxy or condemnation of error.

This rhetorical strategy corresponds to liberal Catholicism repeatedly condemned by the Magisterium before 1958: the replacement of dogmatic clarity with vague moral consensus and cultural “Christianity.”

It is also structurally aligned with the propositions condemned in *Lamentabili sane*, according to which Christian doctrine is historicized and remodeled according to modern consciousness. Here “Christianity” is transmuted into a civil religion that dignifies the modern state, instead of standing above and judging it.

Fruit of the Conciliar Revolution: A Proto-Text of Systemic Apostasy

Seen in historical context, this 1960 letter is more than a diplomatic nicety; it is a symptom and herald of the conciliar system:

– It anticipates the language and mentality that would later be codified in:
– the ecumenical, religiously indifferentist approach of the “Church of the New Advent,”
– the cult of “human dignity,” “dialogue,” and “rights of man” without subordination to the objective Kingship of Christ.
– It enacts in miniature:
– the submission of “Church” presence to secular authorities and technocratic elites,
– the sacralization of secular modernity,
– the transformation of the hierarchy into a paramasonic ceremonial service corps for worldly projects.

This trajectory was formally anathematized in substance by Pius IX’s Syllabus, by Pius X in *Pascendi* and *Lamentabili*, and by Pius XI in *Quas primas*. A text like this could not have been written by a pope faithful to those teachings without severe doctrinal conditions and warnings; its bland surrender and euphoric praise testify against its author.

The letter’s ideology is therefore:

– objectively incompatible with pre-1958 magisterial doctrine on:
– the social Kingship of Christ,
– the unity and exclusivity of the Catholic Church,
– the duties of states towards the true religion,
– the condemnation of liberalism, indifferentism, secularism, and Freemasonry.
– a clear precursor of the post-conciliar program in which:
– Christ’s reign is reduced to “values,”
– “consecration” is aestheticized,
– the supernatural is smuggled in only to baptize human projects,
– and the usurping hierarchy abdicates the duty to command conversion and repentance.

Such a document is not a trivial note; it is a microcosm of the great apostasy: the deliberate reorientation of what presents itself as the Catholic hierarchy from guarding the deposit of faith to endorsing the cult of man and his cities, so long as some religious language is permitted.

In conclusion, John XXIII’s “Publicae utilitatis” letter is a polished mask covering a profound revolt against integral Catholic order. It praises, blesses, and liturgically adorns a secular-liberal capital, while burying under sentimental verbosity the rights of Christ the King and the exclusive claims of His Church. It thus stands as a concise yet eloquent witness for the prosecution of the conciliar sect’s theological and spiritual bankruptcy.

---

Source:
Publicae utilitatis – Ad Emmanuelem tit. Ss. Marcellini et Petri S. R. E. Presbyterum Cardinalem Conçalves Cerejeira, patriarcham lisbonensem, quem legatum mittit ut novae urbis capitis « Brasiliae » …   (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025