The document attributed to John XXIII briefly confirms St Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary and Confessor, as the principal heavenly Patron of the Diocese of Cúcuta. It invokes Joseph’s guardianship of the Divine Infant and Our Lady, notes the petition of Bishop Paulus Correa León and his clergy and flock, and, by alleged “apostolic authority,” confirms and declares St Joseph as patron with corresponding liturgical honors, nullifying any contrary provisions.
Usurped Authority Cloaked in Piety: The Patronage of Saint Joseph Instrumentalized
The text is externally pious, invoking St Joseph, *Custos Sacrae Familiae*, as protector of the faithful amidst earthly tribulations. But this very piety is weaponized to veil a juridically and theologically void act carried out by a man at the head of the conciliar revolution. The central thesis is simple: a beautiful name is here used as a mask for an authority that, in light of perennial Catholic doctrine, he did not possess, and for a structure already preparing the destruction of the social and liturgical reign of Christ the King.
Factual Plane: A Short Formula of Patronage Built on a Defective Title
Let us first state the bare elements of the document:
– It recalls the traditional devotion of the faithful to St Joseph as protector of the Holy Family and as powerful patron in hardships.
– It records that Bishop Paulus Correa León of Cúcuta, with clergy and faithful, chose St Joseph as heavenly Patron of the diocese.
– It states that John XXIII, “moved” by this petition and following consultation with the Sacred Congregation of Rites, by the “plenitude of apostolic power,” confirms and declares St Joseph as principal patron, attaching the proper liturgical honors.
– It insists that the letter be firm, valid, perpetually effective, and nullifies all contrary acts.
At the level of content in isolation, one could say: it acknowledges a legitimate saint, confirms localized patronage, and follows the classic legal style of papal chancery.
But this cannot be read in a vacuum. The decisive factual problem:
– The act proceeds from John XXIII, first in the line of conciliar usurpers who inaugurated the neo-church and its apostasy.
– The patronage is promulgated through the same juridical and liturgical apparatus that within a few years would be subverted to dismantle the *Most Holy Sacrifice* and enthrone a new religion of man, condemned in substance by Pius IX’s *Syllabus* and Pius X’s *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*.
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, an act relying on Roman authority usurped by a manifest modernist is devoid of true canonical force: *nemo dat quod non habet* (no one can give what he does not have). The continuity of formulas cannot confer legitimacy on a revolution.
Language as Mask: Traditional Chancery Style Serving the Conciliar Project
The rhetoric of this brief letter is revealing precisely in its apparent normality.
– The document uses classical legal and devotional expressions: Ad perpetuam rei memoriam, references to St Joseph’s custody of Jesus and Mary, *certa scientia ac matura deliberatione*, *plenitudine potestatis apostolicae*, declarations of perpetual validity, and sweeping nullification of contrary acts.
– This is the language of pre-conciliar bulls and briefs; it mimics the form of authentic papal acts.
But the crucial point: the rhetorical continuity is exploited to smuggle in the authority of a man who simultaneously prepared the greatest doctrinal, liturgical, and disciplinary subversion in Church history.
This juxtaposition is not accidental; it is method:
– By performing ostensibly orthodox micro-acts—confirming a patronage, issuing devout allocutions—the usurper normalizes his position in the eyes of clergy and laity.
– The same signature, same Fisherman’s Ring, same solemn style will soon convoke a “pastoral” council that overturns, in practice, the public kingship of Christ, the condemnation of religious indifferentism, and the doctrinal clarity laboriously defined by the true Magisterium.
Thus the language of this letter is not neutral. It functions as psychological preparation: to associate the revolutionary with authentic Catholic piety, so that when the poison is poured, the faithful drink it trusting the familiar chalice.
Violation of Catholic Ecclesiology: False Pontiff, Invalid Exercise of Petrine Prerogatives
From the unchanging doctrine prior to 1958:
– The Roman Pontiff is the visible head of the Church; his jurisdiction is supreme, full, immediate, and ordinary over all the faithful (Vatican I, *Pastor Aeternus*).
– However, “A manifest heretic cannot be Pope” in the sense of possessing authority in the Church, as explained by St Robert Bellarmine and the classical theologians cited in the Defense of Sedevacantism file. A non-member cannot be head: *non potest esse caput qui non est membrum*.
John XXIII’s doctrinal and practical orientations (to the extent historically verifiable): promotion of “aggiornamento,” praise for religious liberty trajectories, initiation of a council designed to reconcile the Church with condemned modern errors, rehabilitation of those previously censured for modernist tendencies—these elements are coherent with the system condemned by Pius X as *Modernismus, omnium haeresum collectio* (Modernism, the synthesis of all heresies; Pascendi).
When such a man assumes the papacy and immediately sets in motion a revolutionary council that:
– opens the path to religious liberty condemned in Pius IX’s *Syllabus* (e.g. condemned propositions 15, 16, 77–80),
– prepares the atmosphere for “ecumenism” that in practice denies the axiom *extra Ecclesiam nulla salus*,
– shifts from the reign of Christ the King (Pius XI, *Quas Primas*) to the cult of “human dignity” and “the rights of man”,
this is not an accidental misstep but a structural incompatibility with the integral Catholic faith.
Therefore, the invocation in this letter of plenitudo potestatis apostolicae is theologically hollow. The traditional formula is employed, but the subject lacks the necessary condition: Catholic faith untainted by manifest heresy or modernism. An act that depends on a forfeited office is canonically and morally null, regardless of its ornate wording.
Supernatural Realities Reduced to Immanent Utility
The text describes St Joseph as patron and protector “in this mortal life, so exposed to difficulties and hardships”:
English: “The blessed Joseph, who with watchful care protected the Divine Infant and His Mother, the Virgin Mary, the faithful not without reason have as a help in this mortal life, so subject to difficulties and troubles.”
Beatum Ioseph, qui Divinum Infantem eiusque Matrem Virginem Mariam vigili tutatus est cura, Christifideles non immerito praesidium habent in hac mortali vita, tot obnoxia difficultatibus atque aerumnis.
On the surface, this is unobjectionable: St Joseph is traditionally invoked for temporal and spiritual needs, especially at the hour of death.
Yet note what is emphatically absent:
– No mention of the necessity of the state of grace.
– No call to penance, conversion, or the abandonment of sin.
– No reference to St Joseph’s role as terror of demons, protector of Holy Church in the face of heresy and apostasy.
– No link between his patronage and fidelity to doctrinal integrity, the defense of the *Unbloody Sacrifice* of the Mass, or resistance to secularism.
The effect is subtle naturalization: Joseph appears primarily as a comforting figure in hardships, not as a militant patron of the Church Militant against the enemies condemned by Pius IX and Pius X (Freemasonry, rationalism, indifferentism, liberalism). Given who signs the document, this omission is not accidental. It reflects the emerging conciliar mentality that dilutes supernatural combat into generic consolation.
Silence about the supernatural stakes—grace, heresy, judgment, hell—is, in such a context, a grave symptom. *Tacere de necessariis est quasi negare* (to be silent about what is necessary is quasi a denial).
Liturgical Patronage in Service of a Coming Liturgical Devastation
The letter attaches to St Joseph the “honors and liturgical privileges” of a principal diocesan patron.
This language presupposes and outwardly respects the pre-1958 Roman liturgical order. But we must see the trajectory:
– Within a few years, under the conciliar sect, the liturgy would be violently re-engineered: the ancient Roman Rite effectively displaced by an ecumenically-oriented rite in rupture with the propitiatory, sacrificial, and God-centered theology—precisely what Pius XI in *Quas Primas* and Pius X in his anti-modernist legislation sought to protect as expressive of the Kingship of Christ.
– Devotions to St Joseph, Our Lady, and the saints would be progressively flattened into “options,” framed to support humanistic themes of “work,” “family,” “migration,” “social concerns,” rather than the call to adore Christ as King, reject errors, and fight sin and heresy.
Thus, a diocesan patronage, apparently rooted in Tradition, risks being absorbed into the neo-church’s horizontal cult, where saints are mascots for naturalistic agendas. The pious veneer of this letter becomes a staging ground: once the usurped authority is accepted here, it will be more easily obeyed when it demolishes the sanctuary.
Systemic Pattern: How Harmless Documents Legitimize a Counterfeit Church
Symptomatically, this apostolic letter displays a pattern typical of the conciliar usurpers:
1. Preserve the external ceremonial forms of the Papacy: seals, chancery formulas, Latin, references to saints.
2. Use these forms to exercise acts that appear entirely orthodox and uncontroversial—here, confirming St Joseph as patron.
3. Through these acts, elicit habitual recognition of their authority from bishops, clergy, faithful.
4. With that recognition secured, proceed to promulgate or convoke the real program: aggiornamento, doctrinal ambiguity, liturgical revolution, ecumenism, religious liberty, all condemned explicitly by the pre-1958 Magisterium.
This is the method of infiltration: simulatio continuitatis (simulation of continuity). The letter on St Joseph is not evil because it names the saint; it is evil because it co-opts a holy name to reinforce the false premise that John XXIII is a true Roman Pontiff whose later deeds must be read with indulgence.
The unchanging Catholic response, grounded in doctrinal sources:
– Pius IX condemns the notion that the Roman Pontiff should reconcile himself with “progress, liberalism, and modern civilization” understood in the Masonic sense (Syllabus, 80).
– Pius X anathematizes the idea that dogma evolves with consciousness (Lamentabili 58–64; Pascendi).
– Pius XI in *Quas Primas* insists that peace and order are possible only if individuals and states publicly recognize the reign of Christ the King and submit laws to His law.
The conciliar revolution launched by John XXIII does the contrary: it methodically desacralizes law, liturgy, and doctrine in the name of the very trends condemned.
In that light, an apparently orthodox brief is not neutral; it is part of a tapestry of deceit. The poison is not always in the sentence; it lies in the signature.
St Joseph as Patron Against Modernism, Not Mascot of a Neo-Church
From the integral Catholic standpoint, St Joseph retains his role, independent of this invalid act:
– He is spouse of the Blessed Virgin, foster-father of the Word Incarnate, protector of the universal Church.
– He is invoked by true Catholics as defender of the *Unbloody Sacrifice*, guardian of virginal purity, model of silent obedience to authentic divine authority, terror of demons.
To employ his name to bolster a paramasonic, post-conciliar structure preparing to overturn the very elements Joseph protects—the virginal integrity of doctrine, the purity of worship, the obedience of faith to Christ’s kingship—is a spiritual misuse.
The genuine application consistent with Pius XI’s *Quas Primas* and the anti-modernist magisterium:
– St Joseph must be invoked precisely against the conciliar sect and its usurpers, as patron of those who adhere to the pre-1958 faith, against the democratization of the Church, against religious liberty, against false ecumenism, against the cult of man.
– His patronage over a diocese is real only insofar as that diocese clings to the integral faith and sacramental life. The further a local hierarchy surrenders to post-conciliar apostasy, the more its formal appeals to St Joseph become hypocrisy.
Nullity of the Act and the Duty of Discerning the Counterfeit
The letter seeks to guarantee its own permanence:
English: “We decree, establish, and declare that the present Letters should always stand firm, valid, and effective, and obtain and possess their full and complete effects; and that they fully avail all whom they concern now and in future; and that it must thus be duly judged and defined; and that from now on anything attempted to the contrary, knowingly or unknowingly, by anyone, with whatever authority, is null and void.”
Haec edicimus, statuimus, decernentes praesentes Litteras firmas, validas atque efficaces iugiter exstare ac permanere; suosque plenos atque integros effectus sortiri et obtinere; illisque, ad quos spectant seu spectare poterunt, nunc et in posterum plenissime suffragari; sicque rite iudicandum esse ac definiendum; irritumque ex nunc et inane fieri, si quidquam secus, super his, a quovis, auctoritate qualibet, scienter sive ignoranter attentari contigerit.
This solemn self-entrenchment collides with a higher principle articulated by the perennial Magisterium:
– No juridical formula can make valid an act issued by one who lacks the office whose power he claims.
– Lex iniusta non est lex (an unjust law is no law); analogously, an act grounded in usurped power is void despite its language.
From the integral Catholic perspective:
– The recognition of St Joseph as patron is good and consonant with tradition.
– The attempt of John XXIII to confirm it “from the plenitude of apostolic power” is a counterfeit exercise of an authority he did not legitimately possess, embedded within the machinery of the conciliar sect which would soon manifest its incompatibility with Catholic doctrine.
Thus:
– The faithful can and should honor St Joseph as protector; this does not depend on modernist decrees.
– They must, however, reject the authority-claim implicit in such documents and unmask the strategy by which pious acts are used to legitimize apostasy.
Conclusion: Piety Without Truth is Instrumentalized Superstition
The analyzed letter shows:
– Orthodox devotional phrasing,
– Continuity of legal style,
– Absence of explicit doctrinal error in its narrow lines,
and yet it functions as another brick in the edifice of the conciliar deception. It trains the senses to accept as “Pope” one who inaugurates a process that contradicts the solemn condemnations of Pius IX, Pius X, and Pius XI; it covers the emerging cult of man with the cloak of St Joseph.
The gravest bankruptcy here is not a direct heretical sentence inside this short text, but the underlying imposture:
the holy name of Joseph is invoked to consolidate the illegitimate rule of modernism over structures that still dared to speak in Latin.
Against this, integral Catholic faith demands:
– discernment between authentic and usurped authority,
– adherence to the unchanging magisterium prior to 1958,
– and the resolute refusal to let saints and devotions be co-opted as ornaments on the mask of the abomination of desolation.
Source:
Beatum Ioseph (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025