The document under consideration is a Latin apostolic letter issued by John XXIII on 19 April 1960, in which he ostensibly confirms and proclaims the Blessed Virgin Mary under the title “Help of Christians” (Auxilium Christianorum) as the principal heavenly patroness of the Diocese of Viedma (Argentina), granting her all liturgical honours proper to a primary diocesan patron.

---

A Pious Façade Masking the Conciliar Inversion of Authority

The text seems brief, devout, impeccably Roman in form. It evokes traditional Marian devotion, acknowledges an existing cultus, and attaches to it the juridical dignity of a diocesan patronage. Yet precisely in this apparent orthodoxy lies the scandal: the usurper who signs this act stands at the threshold of the conciliar revolution, using the venerable Marian title of Auxilium Christianorum as a liturgical ornament for a structure already preparing to enthrone the very errors against which that title was historically invoked.

The Church before 1958 — through Trent, Vatican I, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII — invoked Mary Help of Christians as defender of the Church against heresy, liberalism, naturalism, Freemasonry, and revolutionary subversion. Here, in 1960, John XXIII, architect of the Council which would legitimize precisely those forces, dares to cloak his program with the language of Marian patronage. This is not harmless; it is parasitic. The letter is a juridical fig-leaf covering the transfer of authority from the unchanging reign of Christ the King to the “conciliar sect” that was about to be enthroned in His place.

Factual Level: A Legitimate Marian Title Co-opted by an Illegitimate Authority

Factually, the letter:

– Notes the strong local devotion of the faithful of Viedma to Mary as Help of Christians.
– States that the cathedral (or principal church) is dedicated to her under this title.
– Relates that Bishop Joseph Borgatti has requested the formal proclamation of this title as principal patroness of the diocese.
– Declares, with formulaic canonical language, that the Blessed Virgin Mary under this title is henceforth the principal heavenly patron of the diocese, attaching all liturgical honours and privileges.
– Closes with the standard solemn clauses of perpetuity and of nullity against any attempted contravention.

On the surface, nothing explicitly heretical appears in the Latin phrasing itself. The act, taken in isolation and read as if issued by a true Roman Pontiff within the continuous juridical and doctrinal order of the Church, would be unobjectionable and even laudable.

However:

– After 1958, with John XXIII as the first in the line of usurpers, the juridical subject has changed. The same external forms are now wielded by a paramasonic structure, not by the indefectible Catholic hierarchy as it existed until the death of Pius XII.
– The letter presupposes the legitimacy of an antipope and of a hierarchy already contaminated by conciliatory modernism, preparing for a council that would contradict the Syllabus of Errors (Pius IX), the anti-Modernist measures of St. Pius X (notably Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi), and the social kingship of Christ proclaimed in Quas Primas (Pius XI).
– Therefore, the “patronage” conferred is not a strengthening of the Catholic order, but an attempt by the neo-church to appropriate Catholic symbols to itself.

In classic Catholic doctrine, jurisdiction and authoritative acts are inseparable from the profession of the true faith. A manifest heretic or one inaugurating a revolution against defined doctrine cannot be head of the Church nor lawgiver in her name. As expounded by St. Robert Bellarmine and the pre-1958 theologians, a manifest heretic cannot be the visible head of the body of which he is not a member. The conciliar revolution publicly manifested by John XXIII and his successors places their acts outside the binding juridical continuity of the Church, even when clothed in traditional formulas.

Thus, what appears factually as a wholesome Marian decree becomes, in reality, an act of usurped authority: the conciliar sect signing Catholic-sounding decrees while preparing the demolition of Catholic dogma, liturgy, and the public reign of Christ.

Linguistic Level: Traditional Forms as a Camouflage of Subversion

The letter uses the venerable diplomatic and canonical language of the Holy See:

– Ad perpetuam rei memoriam;
– references to the devotion of the faithful;
– mention of the diocesan bishop’s petition;
– the solemn formula: certa scientia ac matura deliberatione Nostra deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine (with certain knowledge, after mature deliberation, and in the fullness of Apostolic power);
– the standard perpetuity and irritant clauses.

This stylistic continuity is not neutral. It is weaponized.

1. The rhetorical strategy is to lull the faithful into believing that nothing has changed:
– The impression is: same language, same Marian devotion, same curial protocol — therefore, same Church, same authority.
– But underneath this continuity of style, there is a rupture of substance. The same pen that issues this Marian patronage will convoke the council that enthrones religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism, and the cult of man — precisely those errors solemnly condemned by the Syllabus of Errors and by St. Pius X.

2. The letter is meticulously non-doctrinal and non-controversial:
– It avoids affirming truths that directly challenge the spirit of modernity: no mention of Mary’s role against heresy, Freemasonry, liberalism, Communism, or modernism.
– It avoids locating the title “Help of Christians” in its historical context — Lepanto, the defense against Turks and heretics, Pius VII’s liberation from Masonic captivity, the militant invocation of Mary as defender of the embattled Church.
– Instead, it speaks vaguely of “fruits” and “religious growth,” a soft, innocuous vocabulary compatible with the horizontal, sentimental religiosity of the emerging neo-church.

3. Silence as linguistic apostasy:
– The gravest indictment is not in what is said, but in what is not said.
– There is no explicit reaffirmation of the exclusive truth of the Catholic Church.
– No proclamation of the necessity of living and dying in the state of grace.
– No reference to the Most Holy Sacrifice, to the sacraments as necessary means of salvation, to final judgment, hell, or the urgency of conversion.
– The Marian title is reduced to a decorative patronage for “the faithful people” without asserting that her help is ordered to submission to Christ the King and His one true Church.

This stylistic anesthesia is characteristic of the conciliar sect: retaining pious lexemes while evacuating them of their militantly supernatural content. It is the rhetoric of slow poisoning.

Theological Level: Marian Patronage Without the Social Kingship of Christ is Emptied of Catholic Meaning

Authentic Catholic theology, codified long before 1958, teaches:

– Mary as Auxilium Christianorum is inseparable from her role in defending the Church Militant against heresy and apostasy.
– The public and private life of individuals and nations must submit to the reign of Christ the King. As Pius XI states in Quas Primas, peace and order will not return until individuals and states recognize and obey the Kingship of Christ.
– The Church is a perfect, sovereign society (*societas perfecta*) with divine rights and duties above all temporal powers (Syllabus of Errors, especially propositions 19-21, 39-55 as condemned).

Measured against this immutable doctrine, the letter reveals three fundamental theological problems.

1. Usurped Apostolic Authority

The document grounds its act in the “fullness of Apostolic power” (*Apostolicae potestatis plenitudo*). But:

– The same person who claims this fullness is the one who convoked the council that would doctrinally contradict the Syllabus, dismantle the anti-Modernist discipline, and endorse principles (religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality) explicitly anathematized by pre-1958 magisterium.
– According to the constant teaching summarized by the traditional theologians and canonists, a manifest promoter of previously condemned doctrines cannot be the rule of faith for the Church nor exercise true Apostolic jurisdiction.
– Therefore the appeal to Apostolic plenitude is void in reality, even if valid in external form; it is the simulacrum of authority within a neo-church parasitizing Catholic structures.

2. Neutralization of Mary’s Militant Role

Mary Help of Christians was historically invoked:

– Against the Ottoman threat (Lepanto, 1571).
– Against Protestant and rationalist errors.
– In gratitude for deliverance from Masonic and revolutionary persecution.

Popes such as Pius VII, Leo XIII, and St. Pius X saw in this title a standard of battle against liberalism, Freemasonry, and modernism. Yet John XXIII:

– Reduces the title to a sentimental patronage for a local diocese.
– Offers no reminder that Mary’s help is specifically opposed to the anti-Christian ideologies which, by 1960, were ravaging Argentina and the world: socialism, atheistic Communism, laicist liberalism, naturalism, and, crucially, the theological modernism condemned in Lamentabili and Pascendi.
– Does not mention the obligation of the diocese to defend the integral Catholic faith under her patronage, nor to resist the errors condemned by Pius IX and St. Pius X.

This is not mere omission; it is theological emasculation. A Marian title forged in combat is turned into a harmless ornament, perfectly compatible with interreligious “dialogue” and the coming cult of human dignity severed from Christ’s social reign.

3. Patronage Disconnected from the Infallible Magisterium Against Modernism

The letter implicitly presents continuity:

– Same Marian devotions.
– Same Roman chancery style.
– Same appeals to the “good of religion.”

But it is issued without:

– Any reaffirmation of the binding character of the anti-Modernist oath.
– Any reinforcement of the anathemas of the Syllabus and of Lamentabili.
– Any warning against the very doctrinal novelties which would soon be elevated in the Council.

In other words, Marian patronage is invoked in abstraction from the doctrinal war raging against the Church. This abstraction is impossible in genuine Catholic theology: Mary does not “patronize” a structure that prepares to enthrone the errors explicitly condemned by her Son’s vicars.

Symptomatic Level: A Micro-Sign of the Conciliar Revolution’s Method

This short letter is a clinical specimen of the conciliar method:

– Maintain external continuity (Latin, Marian devotion, curial formulae).
– Exercise acts of apparent Catholic governance (e.g., naming patron saints).
– Simultaneously prepare, by silence and stylistic choices, for a radical reorientation of doctrine and praxis.

Several symptomatic elements stand out:

1. Exploiting Legitimate Piety to Legitimize an Illegitimate Regime

By granting a Marian patronage desired by clergy and faithful, John XXIII:

– Wins local goodwill.
– Wraps his putative “pontificate” in the aura of Marian devotion.
– Anchors the Diocese more firmly, not in the perennial magisterium, but in personal loyalty to his regime.

This is a political use of devotions: the conciliar sect feeds on genuine Catholic piety, while poisoning faith at the doctrinal and liturgical level.

2. The Empty Formalism of Juridical Clauses

The text concludes with strong juridical language:

“We decree and establish that these Letters be firm, valid, and efficacious… that if anything be attempted contrary hereto, it shall be null and void.”

The irony is stark:

– The same signature that threatens nullity on any contradiction of this minor act is preparing to assault, in practice, the dogmas and condemnations of previous popes.
– The conciliar sect brandishes juridical formulae against hypothetical future dissenters, while itself trampling the far more solemn condemnations of the authentic papal magisterium.

This inversion is satanic in its logic: the lesser is enforced; the greater is betrayed.

3. Silence on the Public Reign of Christ the King

For a diocesan patronage of Mary Help of Christians, especially in 1960, faithfulness to Quas Primas would demand:

– A clear reminder that Christ must reign over Argentina, its laws, its institutions, its education.
– A call that under Mary’s patronage, the diocese resist laicism, liberalism, socialism, Freemasonry, and religious indifferentism.

Instead, there is nothing. The social kingship of Christ is absent. The letter reads as though the Church exists purely in the private devotional sphere, gently blessing local sentiment. This aligns perfectly with the coming conciliar embrace of “religious liberty” condemned by Pius IX, and with the reduction of Christ’s reign to an invisible, purely spiritual influence — the very error Pius XI explicitly opposed.

Exposure of the Deeper Apostasy: Marian Language Without Marian Faith

From the standpoint of integral Catholic faith, several brutal conclusions follow.

1. Instrumentalization of the Blessed Virgin

The document uses Mary’s revered title while the same regime:

– Was about to strip altars, deform the Most Holy Sacrifice into an ecumenical meal, and dilute Marian doctrine and devotion under the pretext of “ecumenism.”
– Would progressively silence her role as destroyer of all heresies and Queen of the Church Militant.
– Would foster an environment where Marian dogma is relativized for the sake of “dialogue” with Protestants and other religions.

To place Mary’s name as a patroness over a diocese while subjecting that diocese to catechesis, liturgy, and governance contrary to the faith is a spiritual mockery. It resembles the tactic of revolutionary regimes that preserve venerable symbols while inverting their meaning.

2. False Security for the Faithful

The faithful of Viedma are encouraged to trust in Mary’s help, yet:

– They are not warned that remaining attached to a neo-church which will soon promulgate doctrinally poisoned catechisms, sacrilegious rites, and false ecumenism, is incompatible with fidelity to her Son.
– There is no indication that the help of Mary presupposes adherence to the integral Catholic faith, frequentation of true sacraments, and subjection to a legitimately Catholic hierarchy.
– The letter fosters the illusion that Marian patronage and conciliar apostasy can co-exist. This illusion has contributed to the decades-long paralysis of conscience among many who still cherish devotions while imbibing the poison of post-conciliar errors.

3. Denial in Practice of Pre-Conciliar Condemnations

Although not explicit here, this document belongs to the body of acts of John XXIII, whose larger program (convoking the council, rehabilitating modernist currents, praising religious liberty and “openness to the world”) is diametrically opposed to:

– The condemned propositions of Lamentabili, which reject the evolution of dogma and the subordination of faith to historical criticism.
– The Syllabus of Errors, which condemns religious indifferentism, the separation of Church and State, and the exaltation of “modern civilization” against the rights of the Church.
– The anti-Modernist Oath, still formally in force in 1960, but practically undermined by the very climate John XXIII was fostering.

To pretend that such a regime can, by issuing a Marian patronage decree, clothe itself with Catholicity, is to ignore the principle that lawmaking authority in the Church is inseparable from adherence to the prior magisterium. Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief) cannot be invoked where the external law of prayer is commandeered to prop up unbelief.

Conclusion: A Devout Shell, Theological Bankruptcy Within

This apostolic letter, taken in isolation, is brief, decorous, apparently orthodox. Yet once placed within the real historical and doctrinal context:

– It is an act of an antipope, exercising a usurped authority contrary to the integral magisterium before 1958.
– It employs beautiful Marian language while serving a system that soon systematically attacked the very dogmatic and liturgical order Mary has always defended.
– It reduces the militant title “Help of Christians” to a neutral, apolitical ornament — a functional betrayal of her role as vanquisher of heresies and protectress of the besieged Church.

Thus, the text stands as a minor but revealing monument of spiritual and theological bankruptcy: an empty vessel of pre-conciliar rhetoric, filled not with the wine of uncompromising Catholic truth, but with the diluted water of a nascent conciliar humanism which Mary, true Auxilium Christianorum, can never bless.

---

Source:
Auxiliatricem Virginem, Litterae Apostolicae Beata Maria Virgo, quae ut Auxilium Christianorum invocatur, in praecipuam Caelestem Patronam Dioecesis Viedmensis eligitur, d. 19 m. Aprilis a. 1960, Ioan…   (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025