In this Latin letter “Eo contendentes,” dated 16 December 1960, John XXIII declares that, in order to promote the Kingdom of Christ, devotion to Mary should be fostered; responding to the request of Bruno Hippel of Oudtshoorn, he designates the Blessed Virgin Mary of the Immaculate Heart as the principal heavenly patroness of the Diocese of Oudtshoorn, granting the liturgical honors proper to a primary diocesan patron. The text is short, couched in pious formulas, but it functions as a devotional veneer masking a pseudo-magisterial authority already ruptured from the integral Catholic faith.
Marian Ornament over a Counterfeit Authority
Illegitimate “Apostolic” Act under a Usurped Pontificate
Already the very superscription “IOANNES PP. XXIII” forces the decisive doctrinal issue: this act proceeds from the first usurper of the conciliar line, whose entire program inaugurated the revolution later codified by the so‑called Vatican II. An act may employ traditional Marian language and yet be null as an exercise of papal power if the signer does not, in fact, possess the Petrine mandate.
Before 1958, the Church taught with absolute clarity that:
– A manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church nor hold jurisdiction; he is ipso facto (by the fact itself) deposed: as expounded by St. Robert Bellarmine and summarized in the pre-conciliar canonical doctrine that he who is not a member cannot be head. This is reaffirmed in the provided “Defense of Sedevacantism” file and corresponds to the perennial teaching of the Fathers.
– Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code: public defection from the faith vacates ecclesiastical office ipso facto, “without any declaration.”
– Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors condemns the notion that the Roman Pontiff and councils can err in defining doctrine (proposition 23) and the liberal idea that the Pope must reconcile himself with “modern civilization” (proposition 80).
John XXIII’s aggiornamento program, his convocation and direction of a council built upon principles later condemned in practice by pre-1958 magisterial criteria (religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism), and his practical abandonment of the integral anti-modernist front condemned by St. Pius X, manifest a new religion. In such a context, this letter is not a simple neutral devotional act; it is an attempt by a counterfeit authority to cloak its nascent revolution in Marian forms, thereby anesthetizing resistance.
What appears as a harmless patronal appointment is in reality part of the psychological strategy of the conciliar sect: preserve the external Marian shell while the interior doctrinal nucleus is being dissolved.
Factual and Juridical Level: A Devotion Built on Sand
The (ARTICLE) states, in essence:
“In striving that the Kingdom of Christ be propagated everywhere, we consider it not wrongly that this can be done more aptly and more easily if Marian devotion holds men’s hearts.”
and then, after recalling the request of Bruno Hippel, Oudtshoorn bishop, it concludes:
“We, by certain knowledge and mature deliberation of Ours, and from the fullness of Apostolic power, by the force of these Letters in perpetuity, constitute and declare the Blessed Virgin Mary of the Immaculate Heart as the principal Patroness before God of the whole Diocese of Oudtshoorn, together with all liturgical honors and privileges rightly belonging to principal patrons of dioceses. All things to the contrary notwithstanding.”
On the factual plane:
– The text assumes real papal jurisdiction (“fullness of Apostolic power”) over the diocese.
– It assumes the legitimacy of the modern diocesan structure and hierarchy emerging precisely in the period when the conciliar infiltration is maturing.
– It uses the formula of irrevocability and nullification of contrary acts, as in genuine papal rescripts, to project authenticity.
From the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine, the problem is not Marian patronage in itself—perfectly Catholic when exercised by a true Pope—but the subject exercising it and the historical-religious project in which it is embedded.
A true Pope could validly assign a Marian title as diocesan patroness; this would be rooted in the rights of the Church as a perfect society (Syllabus, 19; Quas Primas). But here the one who speaks invokes a power doctrinally incompatible with the faith preserved up to Pius XII. The act is juridically void because the agent is a usurper, and “from nothing, nothing arises” (ex nihilo nihil fit): without true papal authority, no binding ecclesiastical law or patronage is established. The solemn formulas become empty legal theater inside the paramasonic structure occupying the Vatican.
Linguistic Cloak: Pious Latin as Camouflage of the Revolution
The language is classical, brief, ostensibly supernatural. Yet precisely in its brevity and selectivity one discerns the new orientation:
– Christ’s Kingship is invoked only instrumentally: Marian devotion is proposed as a means to “better propagate” the “Kingdom of Christ,” but without any specification of the integral, public, social reign of Christ the King that Pius XI authoritatively defined. Pius XI teaches that peace and order come only when individuals and states submit to Christ’s kingship and that secularism is a plague (Quas Primas). The (ARTICLE) offers a vague “Regnum Christi” without confronting the liberal states’ apostasy—already condemned in the Syllabus and Quas Primas.
– The tone is devotional-bureaucratic: formulas like “e certa scientia ac matura deliberatione Nostra, deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine” (“from our certain knowledge and mature deliberation and from the fullness of Apostolic power”) mechanically reproduce traditional papal style while the person employing them has already set in motion the conciliar dismantling of precisely that “plenitude of power” as taught by Vatican I and pre-1958 doctrine.
– The letter promises that Mary will “lead those lacking the Catholic faith to the truth of the Gospel and the unity of the Church,” but in the mouth of the conciliar project “unity” means ecumenical relativism, not return to the one Ark of Salvation. There is a double-speak: traditional vocabulary, modernist content to follow.
This is the linguistic strategy of post-1958 post-conciliarism: speak the words of Tradition while preparing their subversion. St. Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi denounces this method: errors are cloaked under pious formulas, dogmas emptied from within under the pretext of “deeper understanding” and “pastoral adaptation.”
Thus this short text, precisely by what it omits, greatly accuses itself.
Theological Level: Marian Devotion Detached from the Integral Reign of Christ
The (ARTICLE) links Marian devotion to the propagation of Christ’s Kingdom, but remains silent on:
– The necessity of submission of civil society to Christ the King, as taught infallibly in principle by the ordinary and universal magisterium and solemnly proposed by Pius XI: states are bound to publicly honor Christ and to conform their laws to His law (Quas Primas).
– The condemnation of liberalism, laicism, indifferentism, and ecumenism in the Syllabus and earlier papal teachings.
– The necessity of guarding the flock from modernist errors explicitly condemned by St. Pius X.
Instead, it operates within a historical moment in which John XXIII already promotes “opening to the world” and prepares the council that will enthrone religious liberty, interreligious “dialogue,” and the cult of human dignity over the rights of Christ the King. Marian patronage here becomes a sentimental ornament to a program of doctrinal subversion.
This is a theological perversion of Marian cultus:
– True devotion to Mary is inseparable from full adherence to the unchanging faith. The Mother leads to the true Son, not to a new, evolving “christianity” reconciled with error.
– Employing the Immaculate Heart—so often misused in the conciliar milieu—as a banner for a church that exalts religious liberty, praises false religions, and refuses to condemn Masonic and modernist errors is a sacrilegious instrumentalization.
In line with the “False Fatima Apparitions” file, it must be underlined: the conciliar sect exploits Marian imagery—especially around the Immaculate Heart—in a way that aligns disturbingly with psychological-operation patterns: emotional mobilization, spectacular symbolism, and diverted attention away from the true enemy: modernist apostasy inside the structures. Even leaving aside particular apparition claims, this letter participates in the same mechanism: Marian language is used without doctrinal clarity, serving as ecclesial anesthetic.
Symptomatic of the Conciliar Project: Harmless Acts as Tools of Subversion
One might object: is appointing a diocesan patroness really a sign of doctrinal revolution? Yes—because of context and intent. In revolutionary processes, continuity of forms is essential to conceal rupture of substance. Several points reveal the deeper pattern:
1. Invocation of “Apostolic power” by one preparing its self-dissolution
John XXIII’s line leads directly to the conciliar redefinition of the Church as a democratic, collegial, dialogical body, contradicting the solemn teaching of Vatican I on the primacy and full, supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. To invoke plenitudo potestatis (fullness of power) while inaugurating a system that, in practice, denies it, is a badge of duplicity.
2. Abstraction from the war against modernism and Freemasonry
Pius IX in the Syllabus, Leo XIII in their anti-Masonic teaching, and Pius X in Pascendi exposed the organized, sectarian assault against the Church. The (ARTICLE) speaks of Mary’s protection against “evils” in the diocese, but does not name the principal evil of the time: modernist penetration and Masonic machinations in church structures themselves. This silence is eloquent. It stands in brutal contrast to the clarity of the pre-1958 magisterium, which identified the enemy and commanded uncompromising resistance.
3. Sentimental Marianism instead of doctrinal militancy
Pius XI, in instituting the feast of Christ the King, insists that only the public, juridical, social recognition of Christ’s kingship can heal nations; he condemns laicism as a mortal plague. Here, Marian devotion is proposed vaguely, stripped of the call to public conversion of states, emptily spiritualized. This fosters a religion of feelings, compatible with liberal regimes and religious pluralism—the very errors anathematized in the Syllabus.
4. Ecclesial centralization without Catholic content
The letter exhibits the style of a centralized, hierarchical decision; yet the same regime will soon decentralize doctrine into episcopal conferences, relativize dogma through ambiguous pastoral texts, and embrace ecumenism. Patronal appointments and similar acts become decorative flourishes to legitimize a hollow, man-centered institution.
5. Instrumentalization of Mary’s Immaculate Heart within a pseudo-mystical narrative
Within the broader conciliar sect, devotion to Mary’s “Immaculate Heart” is interwoven with questionable apparitions and political manipulations, diverting attention from the single authentic remedy always preached by the true Church: repentance, the return to the unchanging doctrine, defense of the Most Holy Sacrifice, eradication of modernist errors. Here again, a Marian title is isolated from the robust doctrinal and sacramental framework and annexed to a new irenic ideology.
Silences that Condemn: No Word on Sacraments, State of Grace, or Judgment
The gravest indictment against this (ARTICLE) lies not in what is said, but in what is conspicuously unsaid.
The letter:
– Does not exhort clergy and faithful to guard the integrity of the faith against the modernist errors already condemned by St. Pius X.
– Does not recall the necessity of living and dying in the state of grace, frequent worthy participation in the true Most Holy Sacrifice, and fidelity to the full Catholic moral law.
– Does not mention the Four Last Things: death, judgment, heaven, hell. Marian protection is treated almost as an automatic atmospheric benevolence, not intrinsically linked to conversion from error, penance, and sacramental life as taught immutably by the pre-1958 Church.
– Does not reaffirm the unique salvific necessity of the Catholic Church against indifferentism and ecumenism, explicitly condemned in the Syllabus (15–18).
This silence is not accidental. It reflects a naturalistic-pastoral mentality: soothe, decorate, encourage vague piety, but refrain from militant dogmatic clarity. Exactly what St. Pius X condemns in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi: doctrines relativized, dogmas treated as historical expressions subject to development, the supernatural reduced under an imprecise rhetoric of “love” and “unity.”
Contradiction with Pre-1958 Magisterium on Christ’s Kingship and Ecclesial Mission
Compare the (ARTICLE) with Pius XI’s Quas Primas (1925), which we must take as doctrinal criterion:
– Pius XI insists that the root of modern evils is the rejection of Christ and His law from public and private life, and that lasting peace is impossible until states recognize His reign.
– He institutes the feast of Christ the King precisely to condemn laicism and to remind rulers and peoples of their obligation to submit to Christ in legislation, education, and public morals.
– He denounces the idea that religion should be private or indifferent among many; he demands visible, juridical acknowledgment of the Kingship of Christ and freedom for the Church as a perfect society.
The (ARTICLE) only says, in effect: let us foster Marian devotion so that “the Kingdom of Christ” be spread. No condemnation of liberalism, no assertion of the rights of Christ the King over the state, no warning against secularism, no explicit reaffirmation of the one true Church over false religions. This truncation of the doctrine of kingship is itself a betrayal.
Tolerating such dilution is precisely what Pius IX condemns as liberal Catholicism, and what Pius X exposes as the method of Modernism. The letter thus reveals its alignment with the conciliar preparation: preserve Catholic vocabulary, evacuate its uncompromising content.
Exposure of Conciliar Sect Strategy: Harmless Marian Decrees as Legitimization
Seen in continuity with subsequent developments of the conciliar sect, this text is emblematic:
– Marian and devotional exteriorities are maintained to reassure the faithful and disarm their vigilance.
– Real doctrinal combat (against modernism, Freemasonry, religious liberty, ecumenism, evolution of dogma) is abandoned.
– Authority claims are asserted with the traditional juridical register, while that authority is, in practice, surrendered to “the people of God,” collegial structures, and dialogue with the world.
This is not innocent; it is a calculated tactic. As Pius X warned, Modernists infiltrate, remain under Catholic forms, and only gradually reveal the revolutionary content. The post-1958 “neo-church” thus uses “apostolic letters,” Marian patronages, and pious rhetoric as a mask for the abomination of desolation: the enthronement of man in the Temple of God, the displacement of the Unbloody Sacrifice by an assembly meal, the replacement of missionary imperative with ecumenical negotiation.
Therefore, even such a brief document must be unmasked as part of a larger anti-Catholic system: an illegitimate authority employing honored symbols (Mary, Immaculate Heart, Christ’s Kingdom) in order to gain psychological and spiritual credit for a structure that has already abandoned the integral faith.
Return to the Immutable: Mary Honored Only in the True Church
From the perspective of the integral Catholic faith, the response is clear:
– Marian patronages established by true Popes within the true Church are to be honored, as they arise ex fide integra (from the integral faith) and direct souls to the authentic Christ, His Sacrifice, and His reign over individuals and societies.
– Acts issued by usurpers who publicly and programmatically deviate from that faith carry no binding force; they belong to a paramasonic, conciliar structure whose “devotions” serve to disguise apostasy.
– True devotion to the Immaculate Heart cannot be separated from militant rejection of Modernism, denounced by St. Pius X as the “synthesis of all heresies,” nor from confession of the full social Kingship of Christ as taught by Pius XI and rooted in all prior doctrine.
Mary is Queen because Christ is King; and Christ is King not only of hearts, but of nations, laws, and institutions. Any so-called “Marian” act that does not reaffirm this and that proceeds from those who subvert it is a counterfeit ornament on the façade of Babylon.
The faithful who desire to remain Catholic must, therefore:
– Reject the pseudo-pontifical acts of the conciliar usurpers, however pious in form.
– Cling to the pre-1958 magisterium as the sure rule of faith, recognizing that dogma does not evolve with history, contrary to the condemned modernist thesis.
– Honor the Blessed Virgin, including under the title of her Immaculate Heart, only within the framework of the unchanging doctrine, the true Sacrifice, and the exclusive rights of Christ the King over Church and society.
Anything else is sentimentality in the service of the revolution.
Source:
Eo contendentes (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025