Inclitam Dei Genetricem is a brief Latin letter in which John XXIII, in his first year as claimant to the papacy, confirms and proclaims the Blessed Virgin Mary under the title “from the Most Holy Rosary of Arma” as the principal heavenly patroness of the Diocese of Sonsón in Colombia, granting her all liturgical honors and privileges of a diocesan principal patron. The act appears externally pious and Marian, yet it functions as one of the first juridical-seeming seals by which the conciliar usurper overlays authentic Catholic Marian devotion with the authority of an emerging neo-church, thereby instrumentalizing the Immaculate Virgin as a decorative emblem for a revolution that will soon attack the very foundations of her Son’s Kingship and His true Church.
Marian Language as a Veil for the Inauguration of Revolution
This text must be read for what it is: not an isolated devotional note, but an inaugural gesture of a man who, within a few years, will convoke the engine of apostasy known as Vatican II, open the doors to condemned liberalism, and preside over the first systematic steps of dismantling the reign of Christ the King in public life.
On the surface, this letter:
– evokes the “renowned Mother of God” and local Marian devotion at Rionegro,
– recognizes the image of Our Lady of the Rosary “de Arma” as especially venerated,
– at the request of Albert Uribe Urdaneta, “bishop” of Sonsón, declares and confirms this Marian title as principal heavenly patroness of the diocese,
– clothes the act in canonical formulas: “certa scientia,” “matura deliberatione,” “plenitudine potestatis Apostolicae,” and the classic clauses on perpetual validity and nullity of contrary acts.
The formula is exquisitely “traditional” in appearance. The deception lies precisely there: Marian and liturgical vocabulary is harnessed to confer apparent continuity and juridical solidity upon the authority of one who inaugurates the conciliar sect. It is the methodology of subversion cloaked in Latin.
The Factual Substitution of Authority under a Marian Banner
On the factual level, several points must be unmasked.
1. John XXIII signs as Roman Pontiff in November 1958, immediately after the death of Pius XII, at the very threshold of the post-1958 rupture.
2. The letter assumes as self-evident:
– the legitimacy of John XXIII’s authority;
– the legitimacy of the new diocesan structure and of Albert Uribe Urdaneta’s position;
– the continuity of juridical and liturgical order, while in reality the foundations for revolution are being set.
3. The act concerns a devotion to Our Lady of the Rosary—a devotion historically bound to:
– the triumph over heresy (Albigensians),
– the victory of Catholic arms against Islam (Lepanto, 1571),
– public recognition of the Queenship of Mary inseparably united to the social Kingship of Christ.
If exercised by a true Pontiff, such a patronal proclamation would organically reinforce Catholic militancy, the integral faith, and the subordination of temporal society to Christ and His Church. Yet in this context, the same traditional form is pressed into service to confirm, under Marian patronage, a local hierarchy and structure that will soon be integrated into the conciliar, ecumenical, religiously indifferentist “Church of the New Advent.”
In other words: a legitimate Marian devotion is symbolically annexed to an illegitimate authority, turning Our Lady into a seal on the paramasonic restructuring of ecclesiastical life.
Bureaucratic Piety: The Linguistic Symptoms of Controlled Continuity
The language deserves precise examination.
We read the usual solemnities: *“ad perpetuam rei memoriam”*, *“certa scientia ac matura deliberatione”*, *“plenitudine Nostra Apostolica potestate”*, the heavy nullity clauses, etc. These are not in themselves problematic; they echo centuries of papal juridical style.
But in the mouth of John XXIII, and given subsequent history, this solemn language becomes a mechanism of deception: an aesthetic of continuity used as camouflage for discontinuity.
By choosing such a minor object—patronage of a diocese—for one of his early acts and wrapping it in full juridical dignity, he:
– projects the impression of unbroken normality in the succession of pontiffs;
– reassures the faithful: “Everything continues as before, we venerate Our Lady, we grant patronages, nothing has changed”;
– prepares hearts to accept as coming from the same Marian, paternal, traditional authority the future opening to religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism, and all the condemned errors listed by Pius IX in the Syllabus.
This is precisely the tactic of the *abominatio desolationis* (abomination of desolation): to occupy Catholic forms while draining out Catholic substance. The Latin clauses about nullifying contrary acts are bitterly ironic: the usurper solemnly invalidates any future contradiction to his decree, while he himself is about to contradict the entire pre-existing Magisterium on far weightier matters.
Theological Disjunction: Mary’s Patronage Without Christ’s Kingship
At the theological level, the letter is revealing not so much for what it says as for what it omits.
The text speaks of:
– “lauding the kind Mother of God,”
– imploring her help and consolation,
– seeking her maternal protection for the newly established diocese.
All this is in itself good and traditionally Catholic. However, read in the light of Pius XI’s *Quas Primas* (1925), a grave omission emerges.
Pius XI teaches that:
– peace and order are impossible unless individuals and states publicly recognize and submit to the reign of Christ the King;
– the Church has the right and duty to demand public recognition of Christ’s social Kingship;
– the feast of Christ the King is instituted precisely to oppose laicism, naturalism, and indifferentism.
In this letter, while honoring Our Lady of the Rosary—a title historically bound to militant defense of the faith and of Christian civilization—there is not a single word:
– calling the diocesan faithful or Colombian society to the public social reign of Christ;
– denouncing liberalism, socialism, Freemasonry, condemned errors, or the attacks on the rights of the Church;
– linking Marian patronage to the defense of the integrity of doctrine, sacraments, or the Most Holy Sacrifice.
This silence is not accidental. It is a programmatic silence.
Authentic Marian devotion in the Magisterium of Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII is never detached from:
– hatred of heresy and error;
– condemnation of secret societies and liberalism;
– affirmation of the exclusive truth of the Catholic Church and the necessity of submission to her.
Here, Marian language is carefully sterilized:
– purely affective,
– localized,
– liturgically decorative,
– emptied of doctrinal militancy.
It is a Marianism that prepares for the council which will later be sold as “under the mantle of Mary,” while in fact neutralizing the doctrinal combativeness that true devotion to the Mother of God necessarily engenders.
From Patroness to Mascot: Instrumentalizing Our Lady for the Conciliar Sect
The symptomatic question is: what spiritual function does such a document play in 1958?
1. It legitimizes, in the eyes of the faithful, John XXIII as Marian and “traditional,” masking his role in launching a council whose outcomes (religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, “dialogue”) directly contradict the pre-1958 Magisterium.
2. It uses Our Lady as a kind of “brand” for diocesan identity under the emerging conciliar framework. Instead of being the *terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata* (“terrible as an army set in battle array”) against heresy, she is reduced to:
– a soft patroness,
– invoked generically for “help and consolation,”
– safely detached from the forthcoming doctrinal demolitions.
3. It integrates authentic popular piety into the structures that will soon promulgate:
– the new “mass,”
– sacramental mutilations,
– ecumenical “prayer” with false religions,
– acceptance of religious liberty condemned in the Syllabus.
Thus, Marian patronage is turned into a psychological adhesive binding souls to a hierarchy that will betray the faith.
This is the precise inverse of the historical role of Marian Shrines, which served as fortresses of orthodoxy and conversion. Here, the shrine and its title are peacefully absorbed into what becomes a conciliar diocese: Our Lady is invoked to bless an institution that will, within a few years, spread the anti-doctrines condemned by Pius IX, St. Pius X, and Pius XII.
The Formulas of Juridical Gravity in the Mouth of an Antipope
Consider the central juridical clause (paraphrased): John XXIII, with certain knowledge, mature deliberation, and fullness of Apostolic power, confirms or constitutes and declares the BVM of the Most Holy Rosary “de Arma” as principal heavenly patroness of the Sonsón diocese, “with all honors and liturgical privileges which duly belong to principal patrons,” and decrees that this act is to be firm, valid, and effective perpetually, nullifying any contrary attempt.
Pre-conciliar theology, as summarized by authors like St. Robert Bellarmine and, in a juridical line, echoed by canonists Wernz-Vidal and by the 1917 Code (can. 188.4), teaches:
– a manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church (*non potest esse caput qui non est membrum*);
– public defection from the faith entails loss (or non-acquisition) of office;
– the Church’s indefectibility excludes a scenario in which the universal Magisterium binds the faithful to heresies.
When a claimant whose pontificate inaugurates:
– the council that enthrones religious liberty against the Syllabus;
– ecumenism against the dogma of “no salvation outside the Church;”
– collegiality against the primacy’s traditional exercise;
– anthropocentric worship against the social Kingship of Christ;
uses the full solemn juridical apparatus for such acts, the faithful are confronted with a contradiction:
– either the Church has defected (impossible),
– or the man and the connected structure lack the authority they pretend to exercise.
Thus, this letter, in itself apparently harmless, becomes a witness against the conciliar sect. Its very juridical solemnity, colliding with the subsequent doctrinal revolution, manifests the non-Catholicity of the usurping authority:
– If the same “plenitudo potestatis” that trumpets Marian patronage then binds consciences to condemned liberal principles, the conclusion, according to classical doctrine, is that this *plenitudo* is simulated, not real.
Silence on Combat: From the Rosary as Weapon to Rosary as Ornament
The title in question invokes Our Lady of the Rosary—“de Arma.” Historically:
– The Rosary is explicitly described by Roman Pontiffs as a *spiritual weapon* against heresy, Islam, and the enemies of the Church (e.g., Leo XIII’s many encyclicals).
– The very term “arma” (weapons) in a Marian context evokes the Church Militant, spiritual combat, and the duty of Catholics to defend the faith.
What is missing here?
– No call to use the Rosary as *arma fidei* (weapon of faith) against modern errors.
– No condemnation of socialism, Freemasonry, or secular liberalism which Pius IX and Leo XIII identified as sworn enemies of Christ and His Church.
– No connection to the duty of the diocese and its civil authorities to submit to Christ the King, as Pius XI so forcefully teaches: peace is only possible in Christ’s Kingdom, and rulers must publicly honor and obey Him.
Instead, the Rosary is domesticated: a devotional decorum around an administrative act, with no hint of the militant, doctrinally sharp Catholic ethos.
This aestheticization of the Rosary is a microcosm of the conciliar process:
– Keep Catholic symbols;
– empty them of their anti-liberal, anti-modernist edge;
– integrate them into a “pastoral,” irenic, religiously relativized framework.
Conciliar Fruits Already Prefigured: Local Patronage in a Coming Neo-Church
Viewed symptomatically, this letter is an early cell of the organism that will become the conciliar sect:
1. The same type of formula will be later used:
– to “approve” new liturgical forms that deny the propitiatory, sacrificial nature of the Mass;
– to “canonize” figures emblematic of religious liberty and ecumenism;
– to reconfigure dioceses and episcopates into administrators of syncretistic, man-centred cult.
2. The diocese that here receives a Marian patroness will later:
– adopt the pseudo-rite of Paul VI;
– be governed by men ordained in mutilated rites;
– teach catechesis infected with the very modernism condemned in *Lamentabili sane* and *Pascendi*.
The letter therefore functions as a pseudo-sacralizing precursor: it clothes in Marian terms the very structure that will soon abandon the integral Catholic faith.
But Our Lady is not the property of the conciliar sect. The Immaculate Virgin is Mother, Queen, and Destroyer of all heresies. Any attempt by the neo-church to co-opt her patronage against the integral faith is sacrilegious: she cannot be authentically invoked to sanction religious liberty, ecumenical indifference, and the cult of man.
The Irony of “Contrariis Quibusvis Nihil Obstantibus”
The closing formula, declaring all contrary provisions null and void, is particularly ironic.
– John XXIII declares this Marian patronage perpetually valid, regardless of “any contrary things whatsoever.”
– Yet the same conciliar process will trample without scruple the solemn, doctrinal, and disciplinary acts of previous true popes:
– ignoring the Syllabus of Errors;
– neutralizing *Quas Primas* and the doctrine of Christ’s social Kingship;
– marginalizing or contradicting *Lamentabili sane* and *Pascendi*, where modernism is anathematized as the synthesis of all heresies.
The neo-church respects its own minor decrees “irreformably,” while treating the grave anti-liberal, anti-modernist, pro-Kingship teaching of authentic popes as expendable “contextual” pieces. This inversion alone exposes its non-Catholic spirit.
In Catholic doctrine, lower-level acts must be subordinate to higher-level, more solemn teachings. Here we see the opposite dynamic: a pseudo-pontiff uses traditional formulas for a local patronage while preparing to disregard and effectively reverse the gravest doctrinal condemnations of the 19th and early 20th centuries. That incoherence cannot be reconciled with the indefectibility and consistency of the true Church.
Our Lady Against, Not With, the Conciliar Sect
From the perspective of the integral Catholic faith, several firm conclusions impose themselves:
– Authentic Marian devotion is inseparable from fidelity to the entire, unchanged doctrine of the Church:
– unity of faith,
– exclusivity of salvation in the Catholic Church,
– condemnation of liberalism, indifferentism, modernism, Freemasonry,
– affirmation of the social Kingship of Christ and the rights of the Church over nations.
– A structure that:
– exalts religious liberty as a right;
– engages in pan-religious “dialogue”;
– suppresses the Most Holy Sacrifice in favor of a protestantized meal;
– effaces talk of mortal sin, state of grace, hell, and the need for conversion;
cannot validly claim the patronage of the Immaculate Virgin as if she endorsed its apostasy.
This letter thus becomes a symbol of a deeper perversion: the conciliar sect desires to decorate its humanistic, relativistic project with Marian titles and shrines so as to seduce simple faithful. But the Mother of God is not a mascot for apostasy; she stands with the unchanging Magisterium before 1958, not with the innovators who would place “dialogue,” “human rights,” and “religious liberty” above the sovereign rights of her divine Son.
Therefore, the only coherent reading is:
– To honor Our Lady of the Rosary “de Arma” in continuity with the pre-1958 doctrine:
– as patroness of militant fidelity to the traditional faith;
– as defender of the true Most Holy Sacrifice and valid sacraments;
– as Queen who demands that Colombia, and every nation, submit to Christ the King in public law and social life.
– To reject the attempt of John XXIII and his successors to appropriate her veneration as an ornament for their man-centred neo-church.
In that sense, even this small document unwittingly testifies: either Marian patronage remains bound to the integral Catholic faith and thus stands against conciliar apostasy, or it is falsified and emptied, and then no juridical formula—no *certa scientia*, no *contrariis quibusvis nihil obstantibus*—can turn sacrilegious misuse into Catholic truth.
Source:
Inclitam Dei Genetricem, Litterae Apostolicae Beata Maria V. A Sacr.Mo Rosario « De Arma » Praecipua Caelestis Patrona Dioecesis Sonsonensis In Columbia Constituitur, XXVIII Novembris a. 1958, Ioannes… (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025