The document “Expedit sane” (25 July 1960), issued by John XXIII, nominally designates Saint Raphael the Archangel as principal heavenly patron and Saint John Mary Vianney as secondary patron of the Archdiocese of Dubuque. It recalls the historical dedication of an early mission church to Saint Raphael and the personal connection of Dubuque’s first bishop with the Curé of Ars, then concludes with the solemn juridical formula typical of Roman acts, granting liturgical honors and privileges associated with diocesan patrons.
A Pious Façade: Patronage as Pretext for the Conciliar Subversion
The text is brief, smooth, apparently unassailable in its devotional content. Yet precisely here the mask appears: beneath conventional Latinity and invocations of genuine Saints, we find the early, operative mentality of the conciliar revolution. The act proceeds from John XXIII, the first in the line of usurpers, and bears his signature as supposed legislator in the Church, thereby exposing the entire operation as a juridically void and spiritually counterfeit gesture: a pious ornament covering the installation of the novus ordo mentis (new mindset) that would soon devastate doctrine, liturgy, and hierarchy.
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, every element must be sifted: the facts, the language, the theological presuppositions, and the ecclesial context of 1960 — the year in which the machinations for Vatican II were advanced, the year associated with the unfulfilled expectations surrounding the so‑called “Fatima” narrative, and the approach to the Most Holy Sacrifice’s systematic deformation. What appears as harmless patronage is in fact a fragment of the same system: legitimizing a usurped authority, employing orthodox-sounding acts to shield and normalize the emerging conciliar sect.
Jurisdiction Without Faith: The Core Nullity of the Act
At the heart of the document stands a juridical claim: John XXIII purports to exercise supreme apostolic authority, “deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine” (“by the fullness of Apostolic power”), in order to appoint patrons for Dubuque. The structure is that of authentic pre-1958 acts. The problem is not the notion of heavenly patrons — which is Catholic and venerable — but the subject pretending to legislate and the ecclesial body he directs.
Before 1958, the Church’s constant doctrine, articulated by theologians and canonists and reflected in magisterial texts, affirms:
– A manifest, public heretic cannot hold the papal office or any jurisdiction in the Church, because he is no member of the Church at all. This is clear in the teaching expounded by St. Robert Bellarmine and others: a public heretic is severed from the body of the Church and therefore cannot be her head.
– The 1917 Code of Canon Law (can. 188, 4) states that public defection from the faith effects tacit resignation of ecclesiastical office ipso facto (by the very fact), without need of further declaration.
– The solemn condemnation of Modernism in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi (St. Pius X) judges the very principles later embraced, encouraged, or tolerated by John XXIII and his successors in the conciliar line.
Once an authority is established as adhering to principles condemned as the “synthesis of all heresies,” his acts do not enjoy the presumption of papal authority; they are — at best — private intrusions, at worst instruments of a counterfeit religion. Therefore:
– The elevation of patrons by John XXIII, standing as first architect of Vatican II and its entire program, is juridically and theologically null within the true Church.
– Whatever coincides materially with Catholic devotion (e.g., the honor given to Saint Raphael and Saint John Vianney) is good only in itself, not by virtue of the conciliar usurper’s act; his signature adds nothing but confusion by implicitly confirming his claim to papal authority.
The pious form is weaponized: orthodox language is used as camouflage to normalize obedience to a structure that, within a few years, would enact liturgical sacrilege, ecumenical indifferentism, and the dethronement of Christ the King in public life — precisely what Pius XI in Quas primas and Pius IX in the Syllabus had anathematized as liberal and Masonic.
Selective Piety: Deploying True Saints to Sanctify a Counterfeit Structure
The document invokes:
– Saint Raphael the Archangel: a true heavenly spirit, guardian and guide, intimately connected with divine protection and purity.
– Saint John Mary Vianney: model of sacerdotal holiness, uncompromising preacher on sin, hell, the Real Presence, and the absolute separation from the world’s maxims.
Under normal circumstances, entrusting a diocese to such patrons is profoundly Catholic. Yet here the choice is deeply ironic — and symptomatic.
1. The same emerging conciliar establishment that claims John Vianney as secondary patron proceeds, within a few years:
– To mutilate the rite of priestly ordination and the episcopate (1968), raising grave doubts about the validity of subsequent “priests” and “bishops.”
– To replace the God-centered, propitiatory Most Holy Sacrifice with a man-centered assembly rite.
– To silence or relativize preaching on mortal sin, hell, confession, the narrow way — precisely the core of the Curé of Ars’ entire mission.
2. Saint Raphael is named patron in a system that:
– Tears down safeguards of purity.
– Systematically tolerates, transfers, and hides moral abominations by its own “clergy.”
– Promotes spiritual confusion, syncretism, and the cult of man instead of the fear of God and angelic reverence.
Thus we see a typical conciliar tactic: canonically styled acts, filled with traditional names, are used to wrap a new religion in the vestments of the old. The saints are paraded as official emblems to give credibility to structures that betray their very spirit.
Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief): by holding on to ornamental devotions while subverting doctrine and worship, the conciliar establishment attempts to shift the faithful’s sense of continuity away from dogma and towards institutional sentimentality — as if the mere mention of Raphael and the Curé of Ars sufficed to prove orthodoxy.
Language of Continuity, Program of Revolution
The document is written in apparently impeccable curial Latin, culminating in strong juridical formulas:
We declare and establish Saint Raphael the Archangel as the principal Patron, and Saint John Mary Vianney, Confessor, as the secondary Patron… decreeing these letters to be firm, valid and effective, to obtain their full and integral effects… and declaring null and void anything attempted to the contrary…
This formula, used for centuries, here serves a different end: asserting the authority of a man preparing an unprecedented rupture. The linguistic features reveal the strategy:
1. Rhetoric of pastoral zeal:
– “Nos vero, quibus nihil antiquius est quam ut Regno Dei nova usque afferamus incrementa” — “We, to whom nothing is more important than that we ever bring new increases to the Kingdom of God.”
– The phrase is outwardly Catholic, but in context (1960, pre-Vatican II), the notion of “new increases” foreshadows a conception of growth later translated into theological evolution, liturgical experimentation, and an “aggiornamento” opposed to the fixed deposit of faith. It anticipates the modernist thesis condemned in Lamentabili and Pascendi: that dogma and ecclesial structures must adapt to modern man.
2. Absence of militant supernatural clarity:
– No mention of sin, error, heresy, hell, or the necessity of remaining in the state of grace to benefit from the patrons’ intercession.
– No explicit affirmation that salvation is found only in the Catholic Church, as Pius IX and the entire pre-conciliar magisterium insist.
– No insistence on public recognition of Christ’s social kingship, as Pius XI solemnly demands.
– Instead, the text speaks in a sleek, administrative piety, content with a general aim that “Catholic life be promoted” by intercession and example, stripped of hard doctrinal edges.
What is said is correct as far as it goes. What is not said is damning. The silence about the battle against liberalism, naturalism, and the masonic assault described by Pius IX — precisely in an American context saturated with these errors — reveals a mentality already detached from the integral faith.
Silentium dogmaticum (dogmatic silence) here functions as complicity. By 1960, the architects of Vatican II were fully aware of the modernist program; omitting clear doctrinal markers, while preserving a rhetoric of traditional devotion, is part of the method.
Theological Incoherence: True Patrons for a Neo-Church
Let us confront the act with unchanging doctrine.
1. On heavenly patrons:
– It is Catholic and praiseworthy for dioceses to take Saints and Angels as patrons.
– These acts presuppose:
– A Catholic hierarchy.
– A Catholic liturgy.
– Catholic doctrine integrally taught.
2. On authority:
– Patronal assignments require jurisdiction.
– Jurisdiction is inseparable from membership in the Church and profession of the true faith.
– A system that, within a short span, promulgates religious liberty, false ecumenism, and a protestantized rite, contradicts the Syllabus, Quas primas, and the anti-modernist documents, thereby placing itself objectively in opposition to the magisterium it pretends to continue.
Therefore a grave contradiction emerges:
– The act calls upon Saint John Vianney, exemplar of the sacrificial priesthood, to be patron of a local church that would soon be subjected to a rite and priestly formation that undermine:
– The sacrificial character of the Mass.
– The horror of sin.
– The necessity and integrity of auricular confession.
– Eucharistic reverence and belief in transubstantiation.
– It calls upon Saint Raphael — patron of chastity, healing, and guidance — for a structure that, as part of the conciliar establishment, would share in the global moral disintegration, doctrinal relativism, and liturgical profanations of the post-1960s.
The invocation is objectively incoherent: patrons are being asked to protect and bless what, in short order, becomes an instrument of apostasy. Either:
– The Saints intercede for the faithful in spite of the counterfeit hierarchy, directing souls back towards integral Catholic faith and valid sacraments; or
– The invocation becomes a blasphemous use of their names to decorate a usurped system.
In both cases, the juridical claim of John XXIII remains void. The conciliar structure can drape itself with angelic and saintly titles; it cannot transubstantiate rebellion into obedience.
From Pretext to Program: How Such Acts Condition the Faithful
Seemingly small patronage acts are not irrelevant; they are methodologically significant.
They function to:
1. Catechize submission to the usurped center:
– By presenting a normal-looking Roman act, the faithful are habituated to accept John XXIII as true pope, to see his signature as a continuation of Pius XII, and thus to follow him into the council and its aftermath.
– The invocation of respected Saints disarms suspicion: “How could revolution come from the same authority that honors Raphael and the Curé of Ars?”
2. Dissolve resistance:
– Once the faithful and clergy accept such acts unquestioningly, the same signature will be used to convoke a council, to alter disciplines, to prepare the liturgical coup, always under the guise of pastoral care.
– The legal style (“contrariis quibusvis non obstantibus”) is the same; the content will progressively diverge from prior magisterium.
3. Mask the emergence of a paramasonic structure:
– Pius IX, in the texts associated with the Syllabus, clearly denounces the alliance of liberal states and secret sects against the Church, highlighting their method: infiltration, manipulation of laws, and war on the Church’s rights.
– By 1960, the future conciliar regime already covers itself with precisely such façade-documents: orthodox sounding, but serving to consolidate the moral authority of those preparing to repudiate the social kingship of Christ and embrace the idols of religious freedom and ecumenism.
This is why such texts must be unmasked: they are not condemned because they formally deny dogma (they do not); they are condemned because they function as the sugar coating of a doctrinal and liturgical poison.
Silence on Christ the King and the Social Order: A Condemnation by Omission
The text speaks of “promoting Catholic life” and the “Kingdom of God,” but it omits any reference to the public, social rights of Christ the King so solemnly proclaimed by Pius XI in Quas primas.
Given the setting:
– United States territory, dominated by religious indifferentism, laicism, and constitutional refusal to acknowledge the true Church.
– A period when the Church was called — by prior magisterium — to resist liberal naturalism and insist that states recognize the one true religion.
A truly Catholic apostolic letter designating patrons for such an archdiocese would be expected to:
– Exhort clergy and faithful to labor for the public recognition of Christ’s kingship.
– Warn against the errors condemned in the Syllabus: religious indifferentism, the separation of Church and State, freedom of false worship.
– Call upon Saint Raphael and the Curé of Ars precisely in their roles as protectors against impurity, error, and sacrilege.
Instead, we find only soft devotionalism. Silence where doctrine must thunder is a sign of complicity with liberal ideology. The omission aligns with the conciliar program that would soon produce documents exalting “religious liberty” and inter-religious “dialogue” in open defiance of prior teaching.
Usurped Keys, Emptied Formulas: The Void Behind the Seal
The closing formula asserts:
We decree and define that these present Letters are to stand firm, valid and effective, and that anything attempted contrary to them is null and void.
The irony is stark: a null authority proclaims nullity upon any contradiction of his null act.
According to the perennial principles summarized by pre-1958 doctrine:
– Quod non est in Ecclesia, non potest agere pro Ecclesia (he who is not in the Church cannot act for the Church).
– The authority of the Roman Pontiff is not a magical label that survives formal deviation from the faith; it is intrinsically tied to the confession and defense of the integral faith.
– When one embraces or imposes what prior magisterium condemned — Modernist principles, religious indifferentism, democratic ecclesiology — one does not “develop” doctrine; one departs from it.
Therefore, from the standpoint of the true Church:
– The act designating Raphael and John Vianney as patrons of Dubuque, insofar as it depends on the supposed supreme authority of John XXIII, is deprived of binding force.
– The faithful may, of course, venerate these Saints as patrons and intercessors; but they must refuse the underlying claim that John XXIII is a legitimate pontiff or that the conciliar structure he inaugurates is the Catholic Church.
Call to the Faithful: Cling to the Saints, Reject the Conciliar Usurpation
What, then, is to be done?
1. Recognize:
– The greatness of Saint Raphael and Saint John Mary Vianney as authentic lights of the true Church.
– The absolute necessity to imitate the Curé of Ars’ intransigent preaching on sin, confession, the Real Presence, and the narrow way — in diametrical opposition to the soft modern moralism of the conciliar establishment.
2. Discern:
– That the invocation of these Saints by John XXIII does not validate his claim to the papacy nor the legitimacy of the post-1958 regime.
– That even acts which appear doctrinally safe can serve as psychological conditioning for obedience to a false authority.
3. Reject:
– The cult of institutional continuity masking doctrinal rupture.
– The habit of equating “what Rome presently signs” with the Catholic faith, when “Rome” is occupied by a neo-church whose principles betray the solemn condemnations of Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII.
4. Return:
– To the integral magisterium prior to 1958 as the secure rule of faith.
– To valid sacraments offered and guarded by those who maintain this faith and are not compromised by the conciliar revolution.
– To the genuine spiritual protection of Saint Raphael and Saint John Vianney, imploring their aid precisely against the errors and sacrileges of the “Church of the New Advent.”
In conclusion, this apostolic letter, “Expedit sane,” is not refuted for honoring true heavenly patrons; it is exposed for what it truly signifies: a calculated use of traditional forms to buttress a usurped authority, to pacify the faithful, and to furnish a devout façade for the impending destruction of Catholic worship and doctrine. The faithful must separate the gold of authentic devotion from the dross of conciliar legitimation. To stay with the Saints is to break with the neo-church; to cling to the Curé of Ars is to denounce the system that profanes the priesthood he embodies; to invoke Saint Raphael is to beg deliverance from the blindness imposed by those who sign such acts while preparing the ruin of the sanctuary.
Source:
Expedit sane, Litterae Apostolicae Sanctus Raphaël Archangelus in praecipuum Patronum, et Sanctus Ioannes Maria Vianney, Conf., in secundarium Patronum universae archidioecesis Dubuquensis eliguntur, … (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025