The document, issued by the usurper John XXIII on 7 October 1960, confers the title and privileges of a “minor basilica” upon the parish church of Our Lady of Mount Carmel in Padua, praising its architecture, artistic treasures, Marian devotions, and its role as a diocesan center of Marian celebrations. It solemnly elevates the church, invokes the authority of the “Apostolic See,” and decrees the juridical and liturgical prerogatives attached to the new dignity.
Christians of the Toluca region, following the initiative of their local hierarchy, petition that Saint Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin, and Saint Michael the Archangel be designated as co-principal heavenly patrons of the diocese, and that Saints Francis of Assisi, John Mary Vianney, and Isidore the Farmer be recognized as secondary patrons; John XXIII, in this brief Latin decree, solemnly approves, confirms, and promulgates this choice with the usual formulae of juridical perpetuity. The external form is pious and traditional, yet the act itself, issued by a manifestly modernist usurper, is an early symptom of the paramasonic occupiers’ attempt to cloak the impending conciliar revolution with venerable names while evacuating the substance of the Catholic religion.
The Latin text presents an act of John XXIII, issued from Castel Gandolfo on 5 September 1960, in which he declares the Blessed Virgin Mary under the title of the Immaculate Conception as the principal heavenly Patroness of the Diocese of Divinópolis (Brazil), invoking the long-standing Marian devotion of the region and granting the corresponding liturgical rights and privileges traditionally accorded to a diocesan principal patron.
The document under consideration is an Apostolic Letter of John XXIII dated 3 September 1960, by which he authorizes and orders the perpetual transfer of the head (primary relic) of Saint Venerius from the Church of St Peter in Reggio Emilia to the church dedicated to St Venerius in La Spezia, in response to the request of Giuseppe Stella, holder of the conciliar titles “Bishop of La Spezia, Sarzana and Brugnato”. The text recounts the ancient cult of St Venerius in the Gulf of La Spezia, the translation of his relics in the 9th century for protection from pirates, and now sanctions a new translation of his head so that the saint’s patronage may be more intensely honored at La Spezia; it concludes with the usual juridical clauses of validity and derogation from a decree of Clement VIII regarding relics. This seemingly pious brief, however, is an early and clear manifestation of the usurper John XXIII’s ecclesiological program: the instrumentalization of sacred things and saints’ relics to cloak the nascent conciliar sect with a semblance of continuity, while in reality detaching cult, law, and authority from the true, perpetual Magisterium of the Church of Christ.
John XXIII’s letter “Quod dilectum,” addressed to Cardinal Gracias and the Indian hierarchy on the occasion of a five‑year episcopal meeting, congratulates the local “Church” in India for its institutional growth, its charitable works, its cooperation with the civil order, the formation of clergy and laity, and calls for unity, obedience to bishops, disciplined seminaries, an “apostolate of the laity,” and concord with the surrounding society for the temporal and spiritual good of the nation.
The document under review is an apostolic letter of the usurper John XXIII, dated 18 August 1960, in which he “confirms” and “again constitutes” the Blessed Virgin Mary under the title of the Seven Sorrows (*Virgen de Dolores*) as the principal heavenly patroness of the Diocese of Sololá in Guatemala. The text praises the people’s attachment to the Sorrowful Mother, notes existing confraternities and devotions, and, invoking supposed apostolic authority, extends to this patronage the liturgical honors accorded to principal diocesan patrons, declaring all contrary dispositions null and void. Already in this apparently pious gesture one sees the smooth canonical varnish covering the deeper reality: the appropriation of true Marian devotion by the conciliar revolution in order to clothe its looming apostasy with the externals of Tradition.
In this brief Latin document, Roncalli–John XXIII, in the form of so-called Apostolic Letters, proclaims St. Vincent de Paul as the “principal heavenly patron” of the diocese and mission of Cuttack (India), praising the local devotion to him and solemnly extending to that territory the liturgical honors due to a primary patron. The text is couched in classical curial Latin, appealing to Vincent’s charity and expressing the hope that, under his patronage, “the Catholic cause” in that region may flourish.
Ioannes Roncalli, styling himself John XXIII, issues a brief Latin rescript in which he declares that Saint Raphael the Archangel is henceforth the principal heavenly patron and Saint John Mary Vianney the secondary patron of the Archdiocese of Dubuque, invoking the history of the local mission and the personal link of Dubuque’s first bishop with the Curé of Ars, and cloaking the act in the ordinary formulas of alleged apostolic authority, perpetuity, and canonical efficacy. This seemingly pious document, however, is one more brick in the façade of legitimacy erected by the conciliar usurper, parasitically exploiting authentic saints and pre-conciliar devotion to mask the dawning apostasy of the Church of the New Advent.
The text under consideration is a brief Latin decree in which John XXIII, invoking apostolic authority, proclaims the Blessed Virgin Mary under the title “of the Most Holy Rosary of Río Blanco” as principal heavenly patroness of the conciliar diocese of Jujuy, confirming to this cult all the usual liturgical rights of diocesan patrons and nullifying any contrary dispositions.
The document “Quemadmodum” (1 July 1960), issued by the usurper John XXIII as an apostolic letter, declares Saint Patrick, bishop and confessor, heavenly patron of the Diocese of Ibadan (Nigeria), founded in 1958. In elevated yet formulaic Latin, it appeals to the venerable custom of entrusting dioceses to celestial patrons for protection, edification, and growth in Christian virtue, and then proceeds, with the supposed plenitude of “apostolic” power, to constitute Saint Patrick as patron, granting the usual liturgical rights and privileges.
Behind this apparently pious act stands the same revolutionary authority that convoked the conciliar upheaval, and thus even such a short text functions as another brick in the construction of the neo-church: the name of an authentic saint is instrumentalized to legitimize a counterfeit hierarchy and an emerging new religion.
