The Latin text attributed to John XXIII announces that the cathedral church of Valencia in Venezuela, dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary of Succour, is elevated to the title and rank of a minor basilica. It praises the temple’s antiquity (built circa 1580), architectural dignity, Marian devotion—especially the crowned image of Our Lady of Succour crowned in 1910 with the authorization of Pope Pius X—and, at the request of Bishop Gregorio Adam, grants the juridical status and privileges customarily attached to minor basilicas, with the usual juridical formulae ensuring validity and perpetuity of the act.
A Conciliar Ornament for a Captured Sanctuary
The apparently harmless, even pious, text conceals a precise function within the conciliar revolution: the usurper John XXIII, already initiating the subversion that culminated in the neo-church of the New Advent, places his signature and seal upon an historic Catholic sanctuary in order to integrate it juridically, liturgically, and psychologically into the emerging post-Catholic order. Under a veil of Marian rhetoric and canonical solemnity, the document operates as an act of annexation: a traditional locus of devotion is placed under a new, illegitimate head and thereby instrumentalized for the coming apostasy.
Factual Reframing: From Catholic Sanctuary to Conciliar Showcase
On the factual level, the letter emphasizes:
– The antiquity and dignity of the church: founded around 1580, architecturally notable, adorned with art and solemn worship.
– Its status as a Marian center: especially the veneration of the image of the Blessed Virgin of Succour, crowned with a golden diadem in 1910 with the authority of St. Pius X.
– The diffusion of devotion throughout the diocese as “irradiating light.”
– The petition of Bishop Gregorio Adam, speaking in the name of clergy, religious sodalities, and people, to raise the cathedral to the dignity of minor basilica.
– The granting of the title with “all the rights and privileges” of minor basilicas, explicitly invoking *plenitudo potestatis* and issuing the standard canonical clauses nullifying contrary acts.
None of these points, taken materially, is in itself contrary to Catholic doctrine. Historically, genuine Roman Pontiffs often enriched venerable churches with titles and privileges, precisely to foster devotion to Our Lord and His Holy Mother and to bind local cults more closely to the See of Peter. The letter’s form imitates this venerable practice.
Yet this is precisely the crux: an act which, in the mouth of a true Pope, would be an instrument of the *regnum Christi* becomes, in the hand of a manifest architect of the conciliar revolution, a juridical Trojan horse. The act is not neutral once its author and historical context are rightly judged.
Language of Continuity Masking a Revolution
The rhetoric of this text is a studied exercise in counterfeit continuity.
– It invokes the authority of St. Pius X, recalling the 1910 coronation of the Marian image, to clothe John XXIII’s signature with borrowed credibility.
– It uses classical curial Latin: *“certa scientia ac matura deliberatione… deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine”*, evoking the solemn formulae of true papal acts.
– It exalts Marian devotion and external splendour, giving the impression of unbroken fidelity to the Marian piety so vigorously defended by pre-1958 Popes.
This linguistic strategy is symptomatic. The conciliar usurpers consistently rely on what Pius X in *Pascendi* exposed as the Modernists’ tactic: preserving Catholic vocabulary while inverting or draining its content. The letter’s tone is deferential to tradition, but totally silent about:
– The rights of Christ the King over public life and nations, proclaimed forcefully by Pius XI in *Quas Primas*.
– The duty of the Church to oppose laicism, indifferentism, and liberalism, condemned systematically by Pius IX in the *Syllabus of Errors*.
– The denunciation of secret societies and Masonic machinations against the Church, exposed by Pius IX and others, while the conciliar project itself advances precisely the programme long desired by such sects.
The selection of themes—art, architecture, local devotion, legal privileges—set deliberately in a vacuum devoid of doctrinal militancy, is characteristic of the new naturalistic and aestheticized religiosity: cultivate sentiment and ceremony, avoid dogmatic clarity, neutralize the militant Church.
Juridical Perversion: Illegitimate Authority Claiming “Plenitude of Power”
The heart of the text is the solemn claim of jurisdiction:
“certa scientia ac matura deliberatione Nostra deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine… cathedralem ecclesiam Valentinam… ad dignitatem Basilicae Minoris evehimus”
(“with our certain knowledge and mature deliberation and by the fullness of Apostolic power… we raise the cathedral church of Valencia… to the dignity of a Minor Basilica”).
Here the deception becomes evident. The formula is orthodox in itself, but its subject is an intruder. Catholic doctrine, articulated by authoritative theologians and canonists and presupposed in the 1917 Code, holds that a public, manifest heretic cannot hold the papal office nor exercise jurisdiction in the Church.
From the integral Catholic perspective based on pre-1958 doctrine:
– St. Robert Bellarmine teaches that a manifest heretic ceases by that very fact to be Pope and head of the Church, because he ceases to be a member of the Church. This theological principle is reiterated and systematized by pre-conciliar canonists.
– Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code declares every ecclesiastical office vacant by tacit resignation “if the cleric publicly deserts the Catholic faith.”
When a man inaugurates, convokes, and promotes a council that will enshrine religious liberty, false ecumenism, and reconciliation with “modern civilization” precisely in the sense condemned by Pius IX (Syllabus, propositions 77–80), and when he publicly praises and collaborates with precisely those currents and circles previously anathematized, he places himself in open contradiction with the ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium.
Thus a usurper, already preparing the demolition of the confessional State, the dilution of doctrine, and the cult of man, presumes to exercise *plenitudo potestatis* over a Marian sanctuary. The text’s most solemn clause is therefore the most gravely defective: it is the signature of a stranger affixed to the property of Another.
Quod ab initio vitiosum est, non potest tractu temporis convalescere (“What is vitiated from the beginning cannot be healed by the passage of time”). An act requiring papal jurisdiction, attempted by a non-pope, is canonically null, whatever facade of curial formality surrounds it.
Silence about the Supernatural Combat: A Mark of the New Religion
The letter’s omissions are as revealing as its words.
A Catholic act elevating a sanctuary, especially one so old and Marian, should at least implicitly recall:
– The Most Holy Sacrifice as the heart of the sanctuary’s dignity.
– The necessity of the state of grace, penance, and conversion.
– The reality of judgment, Heaven, Hell, and the need for Marian intercession against heresies and moral corruption.
– The public duty of civil society to honor Christ and His Church (Pius XI, *Quas Primas*; Pius IX, *Quanta Cura* and the *Syllabus*).
Instead, the text:
– Reduces the church’s excellence to architecture, art, and being “a principal seat of Marian piety,” presented in purely descriptive, almost touristic categories.
– Treats the spread of devotion like the diffusion of aesthetic light: a poetic but theologically toothless metaphor.
– Offers no call to combat the liberal-Masonic onslaught against Christian society, openly diagnosed by earlier Popes.
– Utters no word against indifferentism and “religious freedom,” already being practically advanced by the same circles preparing Vatican II.
This strategic silence corresponds exactly to the reproach articulated by St. Pius X in *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi* against those who subject the Church to the spirit of the age. It is not a mere local, harmless act; it is one more micro-step in accustoming clergy and faithful to a hierarchy which no longer speaks as did Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII, but which adorns and manages sacred things while evacuating their militant supernatural content.
Instrumentalizing Marian Devotion for Conciliar Ends
The invocation of Our Lady of Succour is central to the letter. Formally, venerating Mary as *Opifera Mater caelestis* (Heavenly Mother and Helper) is entirely Catholic. But Modernism, as condemned by Pius X, is subtle: it co-opts exterior Catholic symbols while inverting their function.
Here the mechanism is clear:
– The letter recalls that the image was crowned by mandate of St. Pius X, anchoring the cult in an unmistakably anti-Modernist pontificate.
– The same document, however, is signed by the initiator of the very conciliar process that would overthrow Pius X’s anti-Modernist bulwark, rehabilitate condemned errors, and praise the world, false religions, and “human dignity” in a sense condemned in the *Syllabus*.
The underlying message to the faithful becomes:
“Your beloved Marian sanctuary, your venerable image crowned by Pius X, your traditions—all of this is safe and confirmed under our new regime. Therefore, accept us as legitimate; accept our council; accept our reforms.”
This is psychological and spiritual manipulation. The Marian devotion which should arm the faithful against heresy and apostasy is anesthetized and pressed into serving the conciliar sect’s narrative of continuity. Marian symbols become camouflage for Modernist occupation.
True pre-1958 magisterial teaching presents Mary as Destroyer of all heresies, patroness of integral faith, Mother of the King whose reign must be social and public. The conciliar usage reduces her, in practice, to a decorative patroness of sentimental piety—compatible with religious liberty, ecumenism, and the cult of man.
The Minor Basilica as Node in the Paramasonic Network
The status of minor basilica is not a mere honorific; it establishes particular liturgical links and prerogatives vis-à-vis Rome. Under a true Pope, this link strengthens unity in the *una fides*. Under a usurping anti-church:
– It binds historic churches into the legal-ritual framework of the conciliar sect.
– It associates indulgences, celebrations, and liturgical signs with a hierarchy actively subverting the doctrines previously defended at the cost of blood and anathema.
– It conditions clergy and laity to regard acts of the conciliar structures as genuine acts of the Catholic Church, thereby blurring the line between obedience to Christ and submission to apostasy.
Thus this letter is not trivial; it is one cell of a wider system. As Pius IX unmasked the Masonic and liberal programme undermining the Church, so the conciliar sect implements that programme from within. By placing their seal on bastions of genuine devotion, the usurpers transform them into relay-stations of the new religion.
Theological Incoherence: Invoking St. Pius X While Betraying His Mandate
The letter proudly notes that the Marian image was crowned with the authority of St. Pius X. Yet the entire conciliar trajectory of John XXIII and his successors is a direct repudiation of Pius X’s teaching in *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*, which:
– Condemn the evolution of dogma, the relativizing of Scripture, the historicist dissolution of doctrine.
– Require unconditional submission to anti-Modernist decisions of Rome.
– Brand as gravely erroneous any attempt to reconcile the Church with liberalism and the principles condemned by the *Syllabus*.
To invoke St. Pius X as a decorative credential, while constructing a system that enshrines the very errors he anathematized, is theologically and morally perverse. It exemplifies the Modernist tactic of appealing to tradition in words while overthrowing it in deeds.
Non est Deus irridendum (“God is not to be mocked”). Attaching the name of St. Pius X to a pseudo-pontifical text that serves a revolution against his anti-Modernist bulwarks aggravates the guilt of the actors involved.
Conciliar Humanism by Omission: No Christ the King, No Condemnation of Error
Pius XI in *Quas Primas* taught clearly:
– That the calamities of nations flow from the rejection of the reign of Christ in public and private life.
– That lasting peace is impossible until individuals and states submit to Christ’s royal rights.
– That the Church must publicly recall rulers and peoples to this duty.
The letter under review is wholly in another spirit:
– It praises a shrine without recalling the obligation of Venezuela or its public authorities to submit to Christ the King.
– It speaks of beauty and devotion, not of the duty to combat liberalism, socialism, indifferentism, and sectarian conspiracies that Pius IX and Leo XIII had denounced.
– It reduces the ecclesial act to a closed, intra-ecclesiastical ceremony, devoid of prophetic address to the world.
This silence is not accidental; it reflects the new naturalistic orientation in which religious acts become culture, heritage, and sentiment, while the claims of Christ on laws, institutions, and consciences are hushed, eventually denied in practice by the ideology of religious liberty institutionalized a few years later.
Hence, even in this small text, we see a departure from the integral teaching: the Church no longer speaks as the authoritative teacher and judge of nations, but as a curator of sacred art and pious customs, comfortably coexisting with apostate states and anti-Christian constitutions.
Subjugation of Clergy and Faithful to the Neo-Church
The petition of Bishop Gregorio Adam and the unanimous presentation of the “clergy, pious sodalities and all the people” is cited as the moral basis for the concession. This detail reveals another conciliar pattern:
– Local clergy and faithful, formed under pre-1958 teaching, instinctively see Roman approval as a guarantee of orthodoxy.
– Their legitimate desire to honor Our Lady and their cathedral is exploited to deepen their juridical integration with the conciliar sect.
– Their supernatural sense of obedience is redirected toward an authority that no longer defends their faith but will soon attempt to poison it with novelties.
It is necessary to emphasize: authority in the Church is not democratized; it is divine in origin and hierarchical. But it is also intrinsically tied to the profession of the same faith. There is no right to obedience to those who publicly subvert the depositum fidei. The clergy’s petition, sincere in intention, becomes—through no fault of their own at that time—a lever used by the usurper to claim the loyalty of a diocese for his anti-church.
Exposure of the Spiritual Bankruptcy
Seen under the light of pre-1958 Catholic doctrine, this Apostolic Letter is emblematic of the spiritual and theological bankruptcy of the conciliar sect:
– It uses impeccable external forms while lacking legitimate authority: a juridical corpse animated by Modernist intentions.
– It venerates Marian piety while preparing to enthrone religious liberty, ecumenism, and anthropocentric worship condemned by the authentic Magisterium.
– It is full of aesthetic, sentimental, and juridical language, and radically empty of militant supernatural content: no call to penance, no warning against heresy, no affirmation of Christ’s social kingship, no condemnation of Masonic and liberal persecution.
– It integrates a historic Catholic sanctuary into the network of the neo-church, turning what should be a bastion against apostasy into an ornament on the façade of the apostasy itself.
The theological principle is simple and devastating: a structure that preserves rites, titles, and devotions while overturning doctrine and morals is not the Catholic Church, but its counterfeit. This text is a minor yet pure specimen of that counterfeit: all style, no substance; all tradition in vocabulary, revolution in context.
The faithful, instructed by the perennial Magisterium summarized in the *Syllabus*, *Lamentabili*, *Pascendi*, and *Quas Primas*, must learn to unmask such documents. They must distinguish between genuine Marian honor and its exploitation by the conciliar sect. And they must hold fast to the integral Catholic faith, refusing to recognize as binding the acts of those who, having deviated from the faith, cannot wield the keys they have forfeited.
Source:
Urbi Valentiae (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025