In this Latin letter dated July 8, 1959, John XXIII proclaims the Marian image known as the “Goldene Madonna” (Our Golden Lady) of Essen as the principal heavenly patroness of the newly erected diocese of Essen, invoking her under the titles of Mother of Good Counsel and “Domina Nostra Aurea,” and, with the usual curial formulae, grants her all liturgical honors accorded to diocesan principal patrons, declaring the act perpetual and nullifying any contrary dispositions. This apparently devout gesture is in fact one of the early juridical and symbolic seals of the conciliar revolution, mobilizing Marian language to lend sacred prestige to a nascent pseudo-hierarchy already detached from the immutable constitution of the Church of Christ.
Marian Ornament as Revolutionary Seal: The Essen Patronage as a Symptom of Usurpation
From Apostolic Constitution to Administrative Fetish: A New Diocese without Apostolic Foundation
On the purely factual level, the document is short and formal; yet every line presupposes an ecclesiological structure that must be measured against the perennial doctrine taught before 1958.
Key elements of the text:
– It presupposes and confirms the erection of the “diocese of Essen” by Pius XII (AAS reference), and presents John XXIII’s act as the normal development of that structure.
– It describes Essen as an industrial, commercial center and situates the “Goldene Madonna” as an ancient Marian cultic focus in that city, allegedly calling workers “from the magnitude of business to the duties and sweetnesses of religion.”
– It notes that the Blessed Virgin, under the title of Mother of Good Counsel, was patroness of the historical community of consecrated virgins connected to the church.
– It then, “out of the fullness of Apostolic power,” declares the same Blessed Virgin, under the compounded titles of Mother of Good Counsel and Our Golden Lady, to be principal heavenly patroness of the entire diocese, adding the standard sweeping clause that any contrary acts are null and void.
This is presented as a simple liturgical-pastoral disposition. Yet from the perspective of the integral Catholic faith, the entire operation is fatally compromised at its root: it adorns a new territorial and hierarchical structure which, in the light of solid doctrinal principles (St. Robert Bellarmine, Pius IX, St. Pius X) and the manifest modernism of John XXIII and his successors, cannot be regarded as organically continuous with the visible Apostolic Church, but as its occupation by a paramasonic, conciliar sect.
Once the head is usurped by a manifestly heterodox claimant, his decrees no longer participate in the authority of Christ; Marian patronage “granted” by such a usurper becomes a pious-looking seal affixed to an alien edifice.
Linguistic Cosmetics: Pious Latin Wrapped around an Empty Throne
The rhetoric of the letter is standard pre-conciliar curial Latin, which can easily deceive the unwary by its continuity of style. The devil here is not in vulgar language, but in what is silently assumed.
1. Pseudo-apostolic self-presentation:
– The text speaks in the first person plural, invoking certa scientia ac matura deliberatione… deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine (“with certain knowledge, mature deliberation, and the fullness of Apostolic power”).
– This formula is traditionally reserved to a true Roman Pontiff, Vicar of Christ. But:
– The same John XXIII would convoke the Second Vatican Council, opening the floodgates of condemned liberalism and modernism (see Pius IX, Syllabus Errorum 15–18, 55, 77–80; St. Pius X, Lamentabili sane and Pascendi).
– By willfully promoting doctrines and practices previously anathematized (religious liberty, false ecumenism, collegiality, a naturalistic cult of man), he fulfilled exactly the scenario treated by classical theologians: a manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church he openly subverts.
– Therefore, the pompous claim to the “fullness of Apostolic power” is not a neutral phrase; it is a juridical mask covering an objective usurpation.
2. Sentimental-pastoral tone as sedative:
– The text constructs a gentle, aesthetic narrative:
– “quasi ut filios suos e negotiorum magnitudine ad religionis vocet officia et suavitates” – “as if to call her children from the magnitude of business to the duties and sweetnesses of religion.”
– There is no mention of:
– The need for the state of grace.
– The reality of mortal sin common in industrial, dechristianized environments.
– Judgment, Hell, or the Social Kingship of Christ.
– This sweet devotional veneer without doctrinal backbone is precisely the psychological profile that Pius X identified as modernist pastoral strategy: disarming vigilance by emotional religiosity while eroding dogmatic intransigence.
3. Legal hypertrophy as substitute for faith:
– The document piles up juridical formulas:
– “Contrariis quibusvis non obstantibus… firmas, validas atque efficaces… irritumque ex nunc et inane…”
– This excessive stress on formal validity is incongruous in a context where the very subject (the “Pontiff”) lacks legitimacy. It functions like an incantation: if the words of authority are solemn enough, no one will dare ask whether the speaker possesses that authority.
– True doctrine, however, is clear: Non-Christianus nullo modo potest esse Papa (a non-Christian in no way can be Pope) as synthesized from Bellarmine and the tradition he reports. A manifest modernist who exalts condemned principles ceases to be a member of the Church; his acts, no matter how solemnly shawled, are void of spiritual authority.
The refined Latinity thus becomes a cosmetic for apostasy: veneration of Our Lady is instrumentalized to legitimize a power structure already marching toward the “abomination of desolation.”
Theological Dislocation: Marian Patronage Detached from the Kingship of Christ
According to the perennial magisterium, Marian cult is not a decorative accessory; it is intrinsically subordinate and ordered to the reign of Christ and the integrity of divine Revelation.
Pius XI in Quas Primas teaches that:
– Peace and order can only exist where Christ reigns socially and politically.
– States and rulers are bound to recognize publicly the Kingship of Christ.
– Secularism and religious indifferentism are condemned as a “plague” that dissolves law, morals, and society.
Measured against this standard, what does the Essen letter reveal?
1. Horizontalization of Marian mediation:
– The letter presents Mary primarily as:
– A gentle presence in a busy commercial city.
– A traditional emblem linked to local history and a women’s community.
– Absent:
– Any assertion that Mary’s patronage means uncompromising adherence to the Catholic faith as the only true religion (condemned denial in Syllabus 21).
– Any recall that true Marian devotion necessarily rejects error, heresy, Freemasonry, and liberalism.
– The effect is to reduce Marian patronage to a harmless cultural and psychological support compatible with a secular, pluralistic order.
2. Silence on the Social Kingship:
– No mention of:
– Christ’s supreme rights over Essen, over German public life, over industry, over legislation, over education.
– This silence stands in stark contrast with Pius XI’s insistence that:
– Civil rulers sin if they do not publicly honour Christ.
– Laws contrary to Christ are null before God.
– When a so-called “pontiff” establishes official patronage and studiously omits the obligations of states and societies to Christ the King, this omission is not accidental. It reflects a new theology where “patron saints” enrich local colour while the public order is ceded to secularism.
3. Inversion of ends:
– Traditionally, elevation of a principal patron is ordered:
– To strengthen supernatural faith.
– To defend against heresy.
– To sanctify public and private life.
– Here:
– The rhetoric focuses on the city as an industrial hub.
– Marian symbolism is deployed as spiritualization of economic modernity.
– It anticipates the conciliar and post-conciliar method: Marian honours granted, while simultaneously dismantling the doctrinal foundations that give those honours objective meaning. This contradiction is itself a sign of the new religion.
In synthesis, the letter presents Mary without the necessary doctrinal edge: no call to submission to Christ’s law, no condemnation of error, no reminder of the Church as the one ark of salvation. A Marian emblem is enthroned as patroness of a structure that will soon become a laboratory of ecumenism and liturgical subversion.
Historical and Structural Context: A Decorative Act in Service of the Conciliar Sect
To grasp the symptomatic gravity, one must place this text in its precise moment: July 1959, in the first year of John XXIII’s claim to the papacy.
1. Proximity to the conciliar revolution:
– Only months earlier, John XXIII had signalled his intention to convoke a council that would:
– “Update” (aggiornare) the Church.
– Replace doctrinal militancy with dialogue, precisely the “reconciliation with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization” condemned as Error 80 in the Syllabus.
– The Essen letter conforms perfectly to that spirit:
– No threat to liberal society.
– No word about condemned secret societies, though Pius IX explicitly identifies Masonic sects as the vanguard of this war against the Church.
– Marian patronage is harmlessly “integrated” into a modern industrial city.
2. Legitimization of a new territorial architecture:
– The diocese of Essen, carved for technocratic efficiency, is emblematic of a shift:
– From an organic Catholic Christendom vision to a bureaucratic management of religious consumers.
– By placing a solemn Marian seal on such a structure, John XXIII performs an operation analogous to the later use of Marian devotions, pseudo-saints, and emotional cults in the Church of the New Advent:
– Maintain pious externals to tranquilize consciences while revolution proceeds in doctrine, liturgy, and discipline.
3. Lack of supernatural gravity:
– No mention of:
– Confessional integrity against Protestantism.
– Defense against socialism, communism, or Masonic influence in German public life.
– The Last Things, or the danger of damnation for those rejecting the Catholic faith.
– Instead, we see a smooth institutional text: Marian title, legal formulas, zero doctrinal battle. This stands in stark contrast to the fiery clarity of Pius IX and Pius X against the enemies of the Church.
– Such a shift from combat to accommodation is precisely what St. Pius X condemned as modernism’s practical program.
This act is thus not neutral: it is a small but clear specimen of the new conciliar style—using Marian language to decorate a surrender to the world.
Mary as Icon of a Neo-Church: Patroness Appropriated, Not Honoured
One might object: Is it not in itself good to honour the Mother of God as principal patroness? The answer, doctrinally, depends on the subject who honours and the end for which.
1. Principle: Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu (a good act requires integrity of all elements; any essential defect corrupts it).
– For a juridical act of the Church to be salutary:
– The authority must be legitimate.
– The act must be ordered to the true faith and the salvation of souls.
– Here:
– The claimant John XXIII stands historically as inaugurator of a continuum of doctrinal subversion.
– The Essen structure is integrated from the outset into the conciliar project.
– The letter is silent on supernatural essentials.
2. Marian devotion severed from doctrinal militancy:
– Authentic Marian cult:
– Leads to repudiation of error and submission to the Catholic magisterium as it has been always and everywhere taught.
– Is inseparable from belief in the unique salvific role of the Church (Syllabus 16–18).
– The Essen act:
– Affirms Mary’s patronage without one word against religious indifferentism, ecumenism, or secularism.
– Places her as “heavenly patroness” of a populace soon to be fed with the new rites, new catechisms, and new doctrines of post-conciliarism.
– In effect, her holy name is co-opted as a banner under which souls are led, step by step, away from the integral faith.
3. Instrumentalization as cover for apostasy:
– The conciliar sect repeatedly exploits Marian symbols, select devotions, and emotional cults to:
– Simulate continuity.
– Sedate resistance.
– The Essen patronage letter is an early example:
– It gives the illusion of piety while preparing a terrain on which the Most Holy Sacrifice will be replaced by the anti-liturgical fabrication of the New “Mass”, and where ecumenism and religious freedom will reign in place of Quas Primas’ Christ the King.
Thus, Mary is not truly honoured here as Queen of an integral Catholic diocese; she is pressed into service as an ornament of the emergent neo-church.
Conciliar Fruits in Essen: Predictable Consequences of a Counterfeit Blessing
Though this specific letter is limited, its logic and timing anticipate the empirical trajectory observable (and verifiable) in places like Essen under the conciliar regime:
1. Doctrinal erosion:
– Post-1960s diocesan structures aligned with Vatican II notoriously:
– Tolerated or promoted religious indifferentism.
– Diluted catechesis on mortal sin, Hell, the necessity of the Catholic faith.
– Embraced ecumenical services, interreligious “dialogue,” and state-secular norms contrary to the Kingship of Christ.
2. Liturgical devastation:
– Within such dioceses, the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was displaced by the Novus Ordo rite:
– Constructed according to principles harmonious with the very liberal and rationalistic errors condemned by Pius IX and St. Pius X.
– To connect this with a Marian patronage granted by a usurping antipope only underlines the perverse symbolism: Our Lady’s name used to crown an altar from which her Son’s propitiatory Sacrifice is obscured or denied.
3. Moral and sacramental collapse:
– The same environment quickly manifests:
– Communion in the hand.
– Profanations of the Blessed Sacrament.
– Indulgence towards sins crying to Heaven, presented as “pastoral.”
– None of this can coherently be understood as fruit of authentic Marian patronage; rather, it reveals that the initial “consecrations” and “patronages” were hollow formulas issuing from a counterfeit authority.
The Essen letter, read retrospectively in the light of these fruits, confirms the principle taught by the pre-1958 Magisterium: where modernism seizes the helm, Marian language is not a guarantee of orthodoxy but a camouflage for deformation.
Usurped Authority and the Nullity of Acts: Why This Decree Cannot Bind the Faithful
Given the doctrinal framework supplied by authoritative theologians and codified principles prior to 1958, the juridical value of such a letter must be judged.
1. Manifest heresy and loss of office:
– Pre-conciliar doctrine (as accurately summarized by authors like St. Robert Bellarmine and acknowledged by the classical manuals) upholds:
– A manifest heretic is not a member of the Church and cannot be its head.
– A public defection from the faith results in loss (or non-acquisition) of jurisdiction.
– When a claimed “pope” inaugurates, promotes, and persists in principles solemnly condemned (religious liberty in the liberal sense, ecumenism that relativizes the one true Church, anthropocentric cult), and uses his position to implement them globally, the conditions described in those doctrinal sources are objectively fulfilled.
– Therefore, his particular administrative acts, even when clothed in traditional formulas, lack true apostolic authority.
2. Canonical principle:
– Lex dubia non obligat (a doubtful law does not bind).
– A fortiori, an act proceeding from an authority rendered null by notorious heresy cannot bind the faithful in conscience as an ecclesial law.
– The Essen decree therefore:
– Does not impose on Catholics faithful to the integral pre-1958 magisterium any obligation to recognize the conciliar hierarchy of Essen as legitimate.
– Its use of Our Lady’s patronage cannot oblige acceptance of a counterfeit structure.
3. Distinction between object and misuse:
– The Mother of God remains Queen of Heaven and earth; her intercession is objectively powerful.
– The fact that a usurper misuses her name to crown his structures:
– Does not stain her.
– Does expose him and his sect as sacrilegious manipulators of sacred realities.
Consequently, the faithful must distinguish between true Marian devotion (rooted in the perennial faith, sacraments, and hierarchy) and pseudo-Marian gestures issued from post-1958 paramasonic structures. The Essen letter belongs to the latter category.
Conclusion: Behind the Golden Madonna, the Leaden Weight of Apostasy
The apostolic style of “Essendiae in urbe” seduces by its apparent continuity, its Marian vocabulary, its legal precision. But when the veil is torn away by the clear light of the magisterium of Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Pius XI, its reality appears:
– A usurping authority invoking “Apostolic power” while preparing, by doctrine and council, the demolition of Apostolic Tradition.
– A new diocesan construct proudly integrated into industrial modernity, without one word about the Social Kingship of Christ or the exclusive claims of the Catholic religion.
– The holy name of the Blessed Virgin annexed as heraldic decoration for the conciliar sect occupying the structures of the Church.
Under such conditions, the supposedly pious decree becomes a document of spiritual disorientation:
– It teaches Catholics to accept as normal a Marian devotion severed from dogmatic militancy and social kingship.
– It habituates them to obey voices issuing from an authority that no longer guards, but overturns, what it solemnly received.
Against this counterfeit, the integral Catholic faith holds fast:
– Christ must reign—in doctrine, in worship, in public law.
– Mary is honoured only where her Son’s rights are defended without compromise.
– Any structure or “decree” that serves to normalize modernist usurpation, however clothed in Latin solemnity, must be unmasked and repudiated as part of the great deception.
Source:
Essendiae in Urbe (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025