Ad perpetuam rei memoriam: this brief Latin act of John XXIII, EO CONTENDENTES, dated 16 December 1960, declares the Blessed Virgin Mary of the Immaculate Heart as the “principal heavenly patroness” of the diocese of Oudtshoorn (erected in 1951), assigning her the liturgical honors proper to a diocesan primary patron and invoking her protection and intercession for the spread of “the Kingdom of Christ” and the strengthening of Catholics in holiness. Behind this apparently pious Marian gesture, however, stands the already active program of conciliar subversion, sentimental Marian rhetoric instrumentalized to legitimize an authority devoid of Catholic substance, and a juridical formula that presupposes a power usurped and bent to the service of the emerging neo-church.

---

EO CONTENDENTES: Marian Ornament for a Revolutionary Usurpation

Factual Layer: What the Brief Says, and What It Presupposes

The text is formally simple. Its essential elements:

– It claims zeal “ut Regnum Christi quoquoversus propagetur” (“that the Kingdom of Christ be spread everywhere”).
– It asserts that this is “aptior et expeditius” (“more suitably and more expediently”) achieved if “Marialis religio animos teneat” (“Marian devotion holds men’s hearts”).
– It reports that Bruno Hippel, “bishop” of Oudtshoorn, petitioned that his diocese be entrusted to the patronage of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
– It grants this request, constituting the Blessed Virgin Mary of the Immaculate Heart principal heavenly patron of the diocese, with all corresponding liturgical honors.
– It invokes the standard juridical formulae of irrevocability, validity, and nullity contra contrafacientes.

In itself, the designation of a Marian patroness for a diocese lies wholly within authentic Catholic tradition, wherein particular Churches seek the special intercession of the Mother of God. Prior to 1958 such acts were integrated into, and presupposed, an intact doctrinal order. Here, however, every apparently orthodox phrase functions as camouflage: the act is issued by John XXIII, the initial public face of the conciliar revolution, whose program, already signalled in 1959 with the convocation of Vatican II, consists in dissolving precisely that *Regnum Christi* which he superficially invokes.

Thus the core problem is not the choice of Marian patronage, but the illegitimate subject performing it and the ideology served: a Marian seal placed on the project of the “Church of the New Advent,” transforming Our Lady from Queen of the Social Reign of Christ to emblem of a soft, irenic, and ultimately naturalistic “religion of the heart” compatible with liberalism and ecumenism.

Language as Veil: Pious Latin Serving a Naturalistic Agenda

The rhetoric is deliberately brief, solemn, and apparently harmless. Yet its key turns of phrase betray a mentality incompatible with integral Catholic doctrine.

1. Instrumentalizing Marian devotion as a technique of efficiency

The crucial sentence:

“Eo contendentes, ut Regnum Christi quoquoversus propagetur, id aptius et expeditius fieri posse non perperam arbitramur, si Marialis religio animos teneat.”

English sense: “Striving that the Kingdom of Christ be spread everywhere, we do not wrongly judge that this can be effected more suitably and more expediently, if Marian devotion holds hearts.”

– The logic here is technocratic: devotion to Mary is treated as a strategic means (“aptior et expeditius”) for expansion of “the Kingdom,” not first and foremost as an inherent duty of latria’s closest relative, *hyperdulia*, flowing from the Incarnation and Divine Maternity.
– Genuine Catholic teaching presents Marian devotion as organically ordered to Christ, flowing from revealed dogma and the economy of grace; it is not deployed as a pragmatic “tool” for institutional projects. To reduce it to “more expedient” pastoral utility is a subtle naturalization; grace becomes method.
– Such language harmonizes with the emerging conciliar praxis, where sacraments, devotions, liturgy are recast as pastoral instruments and psychological stimuli, subservient to humanist objectives, instead of supernatural means for salvation and the propitiatory *Sacrificium Missae*.

2. Ambiguous reference to the “Kingdom of Christ” detached from its social Kingship

The phrase “Regnum Christi” appears without any reference to:

– the duty of states to recognize the true Religion;
– the condemnation of religious indifferentism and liberalism;
– the Social Kingship of Christ forcefully taught by Pius XI in Quas primas, where he insists that peace and order are impossible until individuals and nations acknowledge Christ’s royal rights.

Pius XI taught with sovereign clarity that peace and social restoration are possible only under the public reign of Christ the King and that secularism, religious liberty, and the banishment of Christ from laws and constitutions are the root of modern catastrophe. This brief of John XXIII, issued in 1960 in a world already ravaged by laicism, masonic regimes, and communist persecution, entirely omits such integral doctrine. The “Kingdom” is invoked in a disincarnate, spiritualized sense, perfectly compatible with the liberal-democratic order condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors (especially errors 55, 77–80).

Silence here is not accidental; it is symptomatic of the new orientation: a “Kingdom” without dogmatic teeth, without juridical claims, without condemnation of error.

3. Sentimental and diplomatic tone; absence of militant supernatural realism

The act employs soft, irenic language:

– “fore confisi, ut Dei hominumque Mater… mala omnia arceat, catholicae Fidei expertes ad veritatem Evangelii et unitatem Ecclesiae traducat, catholicam gentem ad sanctimoniam vitae confirmet.”

English sense: confident that Mary will ward off evils, lead those deprived of the Faith to the Gospel’s truth and unity of the Church, confirm Catholics in holiness.

What is missing?

– No mention of conversion to the one true Catholic Church as an exclusive necessity for salvation.
– No denunciation of heresy, schism, Freemasonry, socialism, communism — threats identified explicitly by pre-1958 popes as instruments of Satan.
– No recall of the divine judgment, hell, the need to die in the state of grace.
– No call to restore the public rights of Christ the King against apostate states.

The tone is pastoral in the degraded conciliar sense: consoling, vague, diplomatic. The note of *militia Christi*—fighting under Christ’s banner against the “synagogue of Satan,” so forcefully unmasked by Pius IX—is extinguished. This act trains souls to expect from “Rome” a tender, non-confrontational religiosity, while the enemies of God assault Church and society with unprecedented boldness.

Theological Level: Incompatibility with Integral Pre-1958 Doctrine

At first glance, nothing in the Latin text appears doctrinally heretical. Yet the entire act is theologically vitiated at its root by:

– the illegitimacy of its author as part of the usurping line beginning with John XXIII;
– the systematic omissions and ambiguities that manifest the *mens* of the conciliar revolution.

1. Illegitimate authority and the nullity of jurisdiction

Integral Catholic theology, represented by St. Robert Bellarmine and others (cf. synthesized in the provided Defense of Sedevacantism file), teaches:

– A manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church, for he cannot be head of what he is not even a member. *Manifestus haereticus statim cessat esse papa* (a manifest heretic, by that very fact, ceases to be pope), because he has already judged and condemned himself and is outside the Body.
– Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code: public defection from the Catholic faith effects automatic loss of office, without declaration.

John XXIII, as initiator and architect of the conciliar agenda, prepared and unleashed a council that enshrined:
– religious liberty against the doctrine of the Syllabus;
– ecumenism against the dogma of the unique Church of Christ;
– collegial and democratic distortions against the primacy and monarchy of the papacy.

The seeds of this program were not accidental fruits; they correspond to positions incompatible with the solemnly taught doctrine of prior popes. An act issuing from such a *mens*—without public abjuration, without repudiation of condemned errors—is devoid of true papal authority. Thus, even if materially the appointment of a Marian patron would be good, its juridical force as an “apostolic letter” rests on a usurped office and is spiritually co-opted by a paramasonic structure.

2. Perverting Marian devotion into an auxiliary of Modernism

Modernism, condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi and Lamentabili sane exitu, is the “synthesis of all heresies,” characterized by:

– evolution of dogma;
– reduction of faith to religious feeling;
– subordination of doctrine to historical consciousness;
– conciliatory adaptation to liberal society.

The brief’s treatment of “Marialis religio” as a means of more “expeditious” propagation of Christ’s Kingdom resonates disturbingly with this modernist dynamism:

– Marian devotion is emptied of dogmatic density (Immaculate Conception, Virginity, Divine Maternity, Mediatrix of all graces, Co-redemptrix understood in the traditional sense) and becomes a pliable symbol to mobilize emotions, shape a common “Christian” sentiment, and cover ecumenical and liberal projects with a pious varnish.
– The invocation of the Immaculate Heart, only a few decades after Pius XII’s consecration of the world, is performed in a context where the same emerging neo-church would later exploit that theme to justify ecumenical ambiguities and geopolitical theatrics, while ignoring the primordial enemy: internal modernist apostasy.

The provided file on “False Fatima Apparitions” rightly warns that such Marian themes can be harnessed as psychological operations to divert eyes from modernism and to sanctify ecumenical and political agendas. The use of the Immaculate Heart in the 1960 brief fits this pattern: a dazzling Marian title placed on a structure that, in fact, is preparing to enthrone religious liberty, collegiality, and the cult of man.

3. Silence on the Social Kingship of Christ and Rejection of Liberalism

According to Pius XI’s Quas primas, the universal kingship of Christ entails:

– obligation of individuals and states to recognize and publicly honor Christ;
– submission of civil laws to divine and natural law;
– condemnation of secularism and exclusion of religious indifferentism as grave errors.

EO CONTENDENTES mentions “Regnum Christi” but omits:

– the error of secularism and the duty of Catholic confessional states;
– any rejection of the liberal propositions condemned by Pius IX (e.g., that the Church ought to be separated from the State, that religious freedom in the liberal sense is beneficial, that the Roman Pontiff should reconcile himself with modern civilization).

What appears is a muted, private “kingdom,” served by “Marian devotion,” leaving intact the liberal order. This is congruent with John XXIII’s public optimism towards the modern world and his refusal to continue the intransigent line of Pius IX to Pius XII. The brief is a small but telling tile in that mosaic: an act of “papal” authority which never dares to recall the binding condemnations of the Syllabus, never confronts the anti-Christian state, never proclaims Christ as King of constitutions and parliaments.

The omission, in light of the magisterial clarity of earlier popes, functions as an implicit repudiation.

Symptomatic Level: A Micro-Sign of the Conciliar Revolution

EO CONTENDENTES must be read as a symptom. Certain structural features reveal how such documents serve the conciliar sect:

1. Canonical solemnity masking doctrinal subversion

The act deploys the full juridical apparatus:

“certa scientia ac matura deliberatione Nostra, deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine… praesentes Litteras firmas, validas atque efficaces iugiter exstare ac permanere… irritumque ex nunc et inane…”

The form imitates genuine papal legislation, emphasizing:
– “certain knowledge,” “mature deliberation,” “fullness of apostolic power,” “perpetual validity,” and the nullity of any contrary attempt.

But:
– Theologically, *plenitudo potestatis* presupposes the man is truly pope. A manifest heretic, or one preparing the overthrow of prior dogma, lacks that capacity.
– Morally, the solemn style seeks to place beyond question what must be questioned: the legitimacy of the legislator and his intentions. The rhetorical inflation of authority is itself symptomatic: the more the conciliar usurpers undermine doctrine, the more pompously they cloak their decrees.

2. “Marialis religio” as preparation for ecumenism and false unity

The brief asks that Mary lead those “catholicae Fidei expertes” (deprived of the Catholic faith) to the “veritas Evangelii et unitas Ecclesiae” (truth of the Gospel and unity of the Church). On the surface, this sounds Catholic. In context, however:

– John XXIII’s projected “unity” is not the return of heretics and schismatics to the one fold under the Roman pontiff, but the ecumenical convergence of communities recognized as partial realizations of the Church.
– Later conciliar developments confirm this trajectory: “dialogue” replaces conversion; “partial communion” replaces abjuration of error.
– Marian titles are retained to reassure the unsuspecting faithful that continuity subsists, even as the content of “unity” is radically relativized.

Thus Marian patronages like EO CONTENDENTES habituate Catholics to accept an authority which speaks Catholic devotions while incubating doctrines already incompatible with the pre-1958 Magisterium.

3. Concealment of the true enemy: internal modernism

The brief prays that Mary drive away “mala omnia” (“all evils”) from the diocese. But which evils?

– There is no word about the primary scourge denounced by St. Pius X: Modernism within the clergy, the poisoning of seminaries, the profanation of Scripture, the undermining of dogma.
– No warning against Masonic infiltrations that Pius IX identified as the “synagogue of Satan,” plotting precisely the subjugation and dissolution of the Church.
– Instead, a generic “all evils” is invoked, which can readily be interpreted as social or psychological ills, leaving the chief doctrinal cancer unmentioned.

This silence operates like smoke: the faithful are encouraged to feel liturgically and marianly secure, while the arson of doctrine is prepared from within.

Exposure of the Bankruptcy: Why This Pious Facade Cannot Stand

From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, several conclusions are unavoidable:

1. A Marian decree issued from a throne of usurpation cannot bind consciences as papal law

Given:

– the theological impossibility of a manifestly modernist “pope” overturning prior infallible doctrine and yet remaining head of the Church;
– the explicit principles summarized in the Defense of Sedevacantism file (Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas, Canon 188.4);

the authority claimed by John XXIII in EO CONTENDENTES is at best that of a private person occupying the physical structures of the Apostolic See. The act’s content, insofar as it is not evil in itself (Marian patronage), may be tolerated materially by the faithful; but it carries no guarantee of divine assistance, and it serves practically as part of the conciliar sect’s strategy of self-legitimation.

2. Use of authentic devotions within an apostate framework is itself a grave abuse

To press Marian devotion into the service of:

– ecumenical falsity,
– religious liberty,
– a “kingdom” severed from the Social Kingship of Christ,

is a sacrilegious inversion. It turns the Mother of God into an emblem for the very errors her Son’s Vicar traditionally condemned.

Pre-1958 doctrine obliges Catholics to repudiate such manipulations. *Lex orandi, lex credendi* (“the law of prayer is the law of belief”): when the law of prayer is commandeered by enemies of the faith, their texts, even when repeating sound phrases, work to deform belief by selective emphasis and systematic silence.

3. The brief’s omissions amount to a practical denial of previous magisterial teaching

By:

– never recalling that only the Catholic Church is the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation, as traditionally taught;
– never affirming the obligation of states to submit to Christ the King;
– never mentioning the condemnations of liberalism, indifferentism, and modernism;

EO CONTENDENTES prepares souls to accept the post-1962 program wherein:

– religious liberty is exalted;
– all “churches” are recognized as partners;
– political secularism is tolerated, even praised;
– dogma is relativized and pastoralism enthroned.

This is not an innocent gap; it is the quiet denial of the very doctrines that sustained the papal documents cited in the Syllabus, Quas primas, and Lamentabili. A magisterial voice that dares not repeat its predecessors’ core condemnations reveals that it no longer shares their faith.

4. Therefore, the document exemplifies theological and spiritual bankruptcy

The spiritual bankruptcy lies in:

– replacing the militant Church of Christ the King with a vague “Kingdom” advanced “more expediently” by feelings of Marian piety, divorced from doctrinal clarity and social obligation;
– exploiting venerable forms (Latin, solemn seals, Marian titles) to fortify obedience to an authority engaged in systemic revolt against prior teaching;
– diverting attention from internal apostasy toward a consoling cult, which in practice neutralizes resistance.

Under the appearance of honoring the Immaculate Heart, EO CONTENDENTES inscribes her name into the ledger of a nascent anti-church. This is not true filial homage to Mary, who said: “Do whatever He tells you”—and He commanded the observance of all His words, all His commandments, all His dogmas, without adulteration or compromise.

Reasserting the Authentic Catholic Response

Confronted with such texts, the faithful who hold the integral Catholic faith must:

– Distinguish between legitimate Marian doctrine and its conciliar instrumentalization.
– Refuse to grant dogmatic or juridical weight to acts issued by a manifestly modernist usurping hierarchy.
– Return to the explicit teaching of pre-1958 popes, councils, and Fathers:
– Christ’s kingship is universal, social, and juridical.
– The Catholic Church alone is the ark of salvation.
– Liberalism, religious indifferentism, modernism, freemasonry and their variants are irreconcilable with the Faith.
– Recognize that genuine Marian devotion always leads to:
– confession of the one true Faith without compromise;
– hatred of heresy and error;
– love of the Most Holy Sacrifice and sacramental life in continuity with Apostolic Tradition;
– fidelity to the perennial Magisterium, not to its conciliar counterfeit.

In this light, EO CONTENDENTES stands as a polished shard of the conciliar revolution: externally smooth, internally disordered, the Marian smile of a structure that, having lost the Faith, attempts to clothe its apostasy in the language of piety. Such a gesture, precisely because it abuses holy things, must be unmasked and rejected as unworthy of the Mother of God and of the Kingdom of her Son.

---

Source:
Eo contendentes, Litterae Apostolicae Beata Maria Virgo ab Immaculato Corde in primariam caelestem Patronam dioecesis Oudtshoornensis eligitur, d. 16 m. Decembris a. 1960, Ioannes PP. XXIII   (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025