The text attributed to John XXIII declares that the Blessed Virgin Mary under the title “of Good Counsel” and Saint Benedict, Abbot, are constituted as the principal heavenly patrons “before God” of the abbey nullius of New Norcia in Australia, granting them the liturgical honours and privileges proper to primary patrons, and asserting the perpetual validity of this patronage decree.
Usurped Authority and the Instrumentalization of Legitimate Devotion
This brief act must be read in full light of its author and moment: it is signed by John XXIII in 1959, that is, by the first occupant of the conciliar line of antipopes inaugurating the destruction of the visible Catholic order. From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, this text is not a pious ornament but a juridically styled veil thrown over a deeper usurpation: the claim to exercise plenitudo potestatis (fullness of Apostolic power) while preparing the subversion condemned by the very pre‑1958 Magisterium it mimics.
The document’s structure is revealing:
– It invokes traditional devotions (Our Lady of Good Counsel, Saint Benedict).
– It appeals to local piety at New Norcia.
– It employs solemn canonical formulae (“certa scientia ac matura deliberatione… deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine…”).
– It decrees perpetual patronage and annuls any contrary act (“irritumque ex nunc et inane…”).
Superficially, nothing appears heterodox. Yet the core problem is not in the choice of patrons, but in the counterfeit hand that signs, and in the system this gesture serves. A usurper may quote Catholic formulas; theft of language does not confer legitimacy. Here, an act that would be good and holy in the mouth of a true Pope becomes the juridical cosmetics of a revolution.
Factual Level: A “Normal” Act in the Midst of Doctrinal Sabotage
The letter:
– Affirms that the faithful of New Norcia “venerate and honour” Mary under the title “a Bono Consilio” and Saint Benedict.
– Notes their recourse to them in public and private needs.
– States that Gregory Gómez OSB, ordinary of the abbey nullius, requested them as principal patrons.
– On consultation with the Sacred Congregation of Rites, it decrees Mary “a Bono Consilio” and Saint Benedict as heavenly patrons before God for the abbey nullius, with the liturgical rights of primary patrons.
– Asserts perpetual validity, universal obligation within its scope, and nullity of any contrary attempt.
Taken in isolation, each datum is factually unobjectionable:
– The Marian title “of Good Counsel” is rooted in legitimate pre‑conciliar devotion (e.g., Genazzano).
– Saint Benedict is a pillar of Western monasticism, honoured by numerous Popes, including those explicitly condemning Modernism and liberalism.
– Local patronage decrees of this type are standard in traditional discipline.
However:
– This decree is dated 1959, one year after the conclave that elevated John XXIII, the very figure who convoked the Second Vatican Council and openly pursued “aggiornamento” condemned in principle by Pius IX (Syllabus, prop. 80) and Pius X (Pascendi, Lamentabili).
– It stands at the threshold of the conciliar upheaval, surrounded by acts and intentions gravely at odds with the prior Magisterium.
Therefore, this apparently benign act functions as part of a deliberate strategy: maintain external continuity in minor traditional gestures while silently preparing the doctrinal demolition whose fruits are the neo‑church, false ecumenism, religious indifferentism, liturgical devastation, and the cult of man.
To present such a document today as unquestioned “pontifical” teaching without confronting the contradiction with pre‑1958 doctrine is intellectually and theologically untenable.
Linguistic Level: Traditional Formulae as Camouflage
The rhetoric of the letter is conventionally Roman:
– Appeals to longstanding devotion: “peculiares tutores validumque rerum suarum praesidium”.
– Emphasis on heavenly assistance in “public and private necessities.”
– Use of solemn legal style: “certa scientia,” “matura deliberatione,” “deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine,” “praesentes Litteras firmas, validas atque efficaces…”.
– Strong nullifying clause: “irritumque ex nunc et inane…”.
This vocabulary is formally orthodox. But its deployment by an antipope produces a grave dissonance:
1. Imitation without obedience:
– The text mimics the tone of Pius XI in Quas primas, or Pius IX in disciplinary constitutions; yet John XXIII simultaneously oriented the institution toward precisely those errors they condemned: naturalistic “human fraternity,” reconciliation with modern liberalism, effective relativization of Christ’s social Kingship.
– Pius XI insisted that “peace of Christ” is only possible in the “Kingdom of Christ,” which is the Catholic Church publicly acknowledged by states, not through secularist compromise. The conciliar line inaugurated by John XXIII repudiated this in practice by endorsing religious liberty and ecumenism.
2. Sacral legalism masking revolution:
– The meticulous assertion that this minor act “iugiter exstare ac permanere” and that any contrary attempt is “null and void” contrasts with the same regime’s total contempt for the immutability of far graver matters: the received lex orandi, the episcopal structure, the condemnation of Modernism, of Masonic sects, of the separation of Church and State.
3. Absence of supernatural sharpness:
– The language is pious but bland: no mention of sin, necessity of grace, state of grace, conversion from error, combat against heresy, or the reign of Christ the King over nations, which Pius XI thundered against secularism and laicism.
– This aesthetic “moderation” is the signature of modernist infiltration: retain holy names, delete holy combat.
In short, the letter’s rhetoric exhibits what may be called simulatio traditionis (simulation of tradition): externally Catholic diction employed to normalize an illegitimate authority and pacify consciences before radical changes.
Theological Level: Patronage without Conversion, Piety without Doctrine
From the vantage of unchanging pre‑1958 doctrine, several theological problems emerge—not in the choice of patrons, but in the context and omissions that betray a new ecclesiology.
1. Illicit exercise of claimed “Apostolic power”
The letter grounds its decree in:
“certa scientia ac matura deliberatione Nostra deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine…”
Yet:
– A manifest modernist or promoter of condemned principles cannot validly wield the plenitudo potestatis of the Roman Pontiff. Pre‑conciliar theologians and canonists (summarized, for example, by Bellarmine and those cited in the defense of sedevacantism) taught clearly: a public, manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church, because he is not a member. This is a theological axiom, not a marginal opinion: “non potest caput esse eius quod non est membrum” (he cannot be head of that of which he is not a member).
– John XXIII’s programmatic orientation—opening to the world, refusal to condemn modern errors in the manner of his predecessors, initiation of a council whose documents enshrine religious liberty and false ecumenism—stands in objective contradiction with Pius IX’s Syllabus, Pius X’s Pascendi and Lamentabili, and Pius XI’s Quas primas.
– When authority is used to erode the very foundations previously defined, it reveals itself not as continuity but as usurpation. A usurper invoking Apostolic fullness is not exercising, but mocking, true Papal authority.
Therefore, the very theological premise of the decree—its author as true Sovereign Pontiff—is untenable.
2. Silence on the militant and exclusive nature of true patronage
Authentically Catholic patronage is never a vague spiritual sponsorship. It is intrinsically ordered:
– To the defence of the true faith.
– To the protection of the Most Holy Sacrifice and the sacraments.
– To the rejection of heresy and error.
– To the extension of Christ’s reign over individuals and societies.
Yet this letter is:
– Entirely devoid of any call to deeper fidelity to Catholic dogma.
– Silent about the necessity to oppose the errors already ravaging the 20th century: Modernism, liberalism, socialism, Freemasonry—so vehemently condemned by Pius IX and Pius X.
– Detached from the Christocentric, monarchic, social Kingship emphasis of Pius XI: no reminder that all civil and ecclesiastical order must submit to Christ.
Such silence is not neutral. In the context of 1959, it is symptomatic: heavenly patronage is invoked as an ornament for a structure already preparing to enthrone secular notions of “human dignity” and religious pluralism above the rights of Christ the King.
3. Instrumental use of authentic saints and devotions
Making Mary “of Good Counsel” and Saint Benedict patrons is, in itself, consonant with authentic tradition. But precisely therein lies the perversion:
– Mary under this title is associated with seeking divine counsel so as to conform entirely to God’s will and the perennial faith, not to innovate against it.
– Saint Benedict symbolizes precisely the opposite of conciliar aggiornamento: stability, obedience, doctrinal firmness, liturgical seriousness, the sanctification of culture under Christ.
To annex these figures to the nascent conciliar project is to hijack their symbolic capital in service of a program they would anathematize. This manipulation is a refined form of sacrilege: the true saints are pressed into the propaganda of the neo‑church.
4. Contradiction with the duty to oppose Modernism and secret societies
Pre‑1958 papal teaching, especially that of Pius IX and Pius X (as recalled in the supplied documents), imposes:
– Open, uncompromising opposition to secret societies, especially Freemasonry, and their program to subordinate or dissolve the Church within liberal modernity.
– Vigilance against Modernism as “synthesis of all heresies.”
– Faithful adherence to the Syllabus and anti‑liberal encyclicals, without “reconciliation with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” (explicitly condemned).
John XXIII’s entire approach—culminating in Vatican II—did exactly what Pius IX had condemned: sought terms with liberal modernity and laid theological foundations for religious liberty and ecumenism. The bland piety of this patronal letter must therefore be read as part of a broader infidelity: an antipope cloaking impending treason in traditional devotions.
Symptomatic Level: A Microcosm of the Conciliar Strategy
This small decree exemplifies the systemic pathology of the conciliar sect:
1. Continuity in trifles, rupture in essentials
– Patronage of Mary and Benedict? Maintained.
– Use of Latin, Roman chancery style, seals, and formulae? Maintained.
– Radical reorientation on doctrine, religious liberty, ecumenism, liturgy, ecclesiology? Introduced under the same signatures.
This is the method: to create an illusion of continuity so that the faithful accept, almost unawares, the demolition of the foundations. A decree like this is meant to reassure: “See, nothing has changed; the Holy See still promotes Our Lady and Saint Benedict.” Meanwhile, catechesis, seminaries, and episcopal appointments are reconfigured to promote precisely what Pius X warned against.
2. Naturalization of illegitimate authority
– By issuing routine administrative and devotional acts, the usurper normalizes his occupancy of the Roman See.
– Local clergy and faithful, seeing “perfectly Catholic” patronage decrees, are disarmed and habituated to accept his authority in graver matters, including the council and its aftermath.
Thus, the letter is spiritually dangerous not for what it positively commands, but because it sedates resistance. It is anesthesia preceding amputation.
3. Erasure of the Church’s social and juridical militancy
Compare:
– Pius IX, in the Syllabus and related allocutions, condemns separation of Church and State, absolute freedom of cult, and subordination of ecclesiastical authority to civil power.
– Pius XI, in Quas primas, insists that rulers and nations must publicly honour and obey Christ the King, and he explicitly identifies laicism as a “plague.”
Against this backdrop, the New Norcia decree:
– Says nothing about the social reign of Christ over Australia or civil authority.
– Reduces the role of patrons to general “aid in needs,” with no note of their role as protectors of orthodoxy, enemies of heresy, and intercessors for the triumph of the Catholic faith in public life.
This omission is emblematic: the conciliar sect shifts from a juridical, militant conception of the Church to a sentimental, “pastoral,” and ultimately naturalistic conception. Marian and Benedictine patronage are domesticated into private comfort, divorced from the confession that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation and no legitimate worship.
4. Preparation for liturgical and doctrinal subversion
The decree grants to the patrons:
“honoribus et privilegiis liturgicis, quae principalibus locorum Patronis rite competunt.”
Yet within a decade:
– The conciliar revolution obliterates the Roman Rite in favour of a synthetic rite that distorts the theology of sacrifice, priesthood, and Real Presence.
– Benedictine monasteries across the world are pressured or induced to adopt this new rite and the new theology.
Thus, the same structure that pretends to honour Saint Benedict as patron simultaneously undermines everything Benedictine liturgy and spirituality stand for. The patronal language is betrayed in practice.
Silence as Condemnation: What This Decree Does Not Say
The gravest indictment of this text is its silence—especially in 1959.
At a time when:
– Modernism had already been identified as “the synthesis of all heresies.”
– Secret societies, including Freemasonry, waged open war on Church and Christian civilization.
– States increasingly enshrined laicism, divorce, abortion, and secular humanism.
A Catholic successor of Pius X and Pius XI, invoking Mary of Good Counsel and Saint Benedict for an abbey nullius, would naturally:
– Exhort the monks and faithful to stand firm against Modernist novelties.
– Recall the duty to defend the integrity of doctrine and liturgy.
– Insist on the necessity of the public reign of Christ in Australian society.
– Denounce the errors tearing at Church and civilization.
Instead, we find only administrative piety. No mention of:
– The necessity of remaining in the state of grace.
– The Four Last Things.
– The exclusivity of the Catholic faith.
– The intrinsic opposition between the Church and liberal indifferentism.
Such an omission, in such a context, is not accidental. It is the symptom of a new religion in gestation: the humanitarian, ecumenical, state‑submissive neo‑church that will soon enthrone “religious liberty” and “dialogue” in place of Christ the King and the Syllabus.
Rightful Veneration versus Conciliar Co‑optation
It must be clearly distinguished:
– The veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary “of Good Counsel” and of Saint Benedict, as such, is entirely orthodox and laudable. These devotions are organically integrated into pre‑1958 Catholic spirituality.
– The conciliar sect’s appropriation of these devotions for its own juridical acts does not invalidate the devotions; it compromises those who allow them to be used as seals on a counterfeit authority.
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith:
– The faithful must honour Our Lady and Saint Benedict precisely by rejecting the conciliar project that misuses their names.
– True heavenly patronage over places like New Norcia cannot be invoked to stabilize structures that propagate a falsified liturgy, doctrinal relativism, or union with the usurping line of antipopes.
– To appeal to Saint Benedict while professing communion with an antipope who promotes religious liberty and interreligious equality is an objective contradiction.
Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief): a patronage decree from a usurper is part of a false lex orandi insofar as it presupposes a false lex credendi. The answer is not to despise authentic saints, but to despise the counterfeit claim to rule in their name.
Conclusion: Anodyne Parchment of a Darker Revolt
This 1959 letter, in its bare text, appears orthodox, devout, and juridically impeccable. That is precisely why it is theologically instructive: it shows how the conciliar revolution wrapped itself, at first, in the most conventional formulas in order to perpetuate an illusion of continuity.
– The usurper calls upon Our Lady of Good Counsel yet ushers in a council that dissolves the binding force of prior condemnations.
– He honours Saint Benedict yet presides—directly and by preparation—over the sabotage of the liturgical and monastic patrimony Benedict embodies.
– He asserts “Apostolic fullness of power” while wielding it against the very anti‑liberal, anti‑modernist constitution of the Church that alone justifies such a claim.
Therefore, this document must be rejected as an act of pontifical authority, read only as evidence of the conciliar sect’s tactic: to speak like a Pope in trivialities in order to act like a revolutionary in essentials.
True devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary “of Good Counsel” and to Saint Benedict today demands that:
– We refuse recognition to the conciliar antipopes and their paramasonic, neo‑church structures.
– We cling to the unchanging doctrine of the Church prior to 1958, including the Syllabus, Pascendi, Lamentabili, Quas primas, and the entire anti‑modernist magisterium.
– We understand that no accumulation of pious phrases or local patronage decrees can sanitize the apostasy of a system which enthrones man, relativizes dogma, and profanes the Most Holy Sacrifice.
Our Lady, Seat of Wisdom and of Good Counsel, does not whisper ambiguity. Saint Benedict does not bless revolution against Christ the King. Their true patronage stands with the faithful remnant who preserve the integral Catholic faith against the structures occupying the Vatican and against all attempts to conscript their names into the service of the conciliar abomination of desolation.
Source:
Beatam Mariam Virginem (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025