The document titled Plantaria novella, dated 21 May 1959 and attributed to John XXIII, designates Saint Isidore the Farmer as the principal heavenly patron of the Diocese of San Isidro in Argentina. It clothes this act in pious language about new dioceses as “young plantings” needing special celestial protection so that ecclesial life may flourish, and then, invoking alleged apostolic authority, declares Saint Isidore Patron with the usual liturgical privileges, nullifying all contrary provisions.
A Pious Facade Masking the Usurpation of Apostolic Authority
At first glance, this brief Latin text seems harmless: choosing a holy patron for a local Church, appealing to the intercession of a canonized layman renowned for his rural labor and piety. Yet precisely here lies the central scandal: a usurper, John XXIII, who inaugurates the conciliar upheaval, presumes to exercise the supreme apostolic authority while interiorly and programmatically subverting its foundations. The sweetness of devotional language becomes, in such a mouth, a rhetorical veil for a deeper ecclesiological and doctrinal crime.
The gravity of this tension must be exposed with clarity and rigor.
Illegitimate Assumption of Papal Jurisdiction: The Core Nullity
The entire document rests on the claim that John XXIII validly wields the plenitude of apostolic power:
«certa scientia ac matura deliberatione Nostra deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine»
(“by Our certain knowledge and mature deliberation and by the fullness of apostolic power”).
From the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine prior to 1958, this claim is indefensible and void:
– Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur (the first see is judged by no one) applies to a true Roman Pontiff, not to one who publicly promotes doctrines and orientations condemned by his predecessors. When a claimant embraces or prepares to embrace the very principles anathematized by the Magisterium, he thereby reveals that he does not hold the Catholic faith.
– St. Robert Bellarmine and the classical theologians (as quoted in the Defense of Sedevacantism file) affirm that a manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church; a non-member cannot be her head. This is not a marginal opinion but flows from the very nature of the Church as a visible society of one faith.
– Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors and Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi condemn the liberal, modernist, and historicist principles which would later find their systematic realization in the conciliar revolution convoked and launched under John XXIII.
The same person who, within a few years, convenes the assembly that enthrones religious liberty, collegial democratization, ecumenism with false religions, and the cult of man—ideas explicitly proscribed by the pre-1958 Magisterium—cannot coherently claim to act here as the guardian of Tradition. The act of designating a diocesan patron may be materially orthodox; formally it is infected by the usurpation of an authority incompatible with integral Catholic faith.
Thus, even where Plantaria novella remains externally pious, it is an exercise of a juridical power that, in light of the Church’s own doctrinal principles, he does not possess. The apparent canonical precision at the end—declaring all contrary acts “irritumque ex nunc et inane” (“null and void from now on”)—only underscores the irony: one who stands objectively against the prior solemn teaching attempts to nullify others’ acts, while his own claims are the ones falling under the note of nullity.
Instrumentalizing Devotion While Undermining the Church’s Constitution
The text’s central image is that of “new plantings”:
«Plantaria novella, recens videlicet constitutas dioeceses, expedit peculiari obtegi praesidio superno, quo laetioribus augescant incrementis…»
(“Young plantings, namely recently established dioceses, should suitably be covered by particular heavenly protection, so that they may grow with more joyful increase…”)
On the literal level, this is not erroneous: dioceses rightly seek heavenly patrons. Yet in 1959 this language is symptomatic:
– The multiplication and rearrangement of dioceses is presented as a self-evident good, without any reference to the grave doctrinal crisis already denounced by Pius X and Pius XI, or to the anti-Christian forces (freemasonry, secularism, socialism) exposed by Pius IX’s Syllabus.
– There is silence regarding the essential marks of ecclesial life: the integrity of doctrine, the purity of the Most Holy Sacrifice, the defense against Modernism. The “growth” invoked is purely institutional and affective: more activity, more organization, more “flourishing,” without any explicit insistence on guarding the deposit of faith unchanged.
This silence is not neutral. Given the historical context, it becomes a revealing omission:
– Just decades earlier, Pius X explicitly condemned the dream of transforming dogma, sacraments, hierarchy into products of historical evolution (see Lamentabili propositions 52–55). Yet the coming conciliar program—prepared under John XXIII—will treat precisely these immutable realities as modifiable. Plantaria novella speaks of new dioceses as seedlings but does not recall that the Church’s doctrinal root cannot be hybridized with the errors of the age.
– Pius XI in Quas primas insists that peace and true prosperity come only from the public recognition of the social reign of Christ the King; he denounces laicism and religious indifferentism as mortal plagues. Here, in an act of governance for a Latin American diocese—an area increasingly targeted by secular ideologies—there is no reaffirmation of Christ’s royal rights over civil society, no warning against liberalism or socialism, no echo of Quas primas. Instead, a soft, pastoral, non-combative tone prevails.
What appears as benign is, in reality, consistent with a broader strategy: preserve the sentimental shell of Catholic piety (saints, patrons, ceremonies), while deracinating its militant doctrinal content, preparing the faithful to accept the coming revolution without resistance.
Theological Ambiguity Through Pious Minimalism
Viewed against the doctrinal clarity of prior pontiffs, the text’s theological profile is strikingly thin:
– It speaks of the hope that, under Saint Isidore’s protection, «res catholica ea in regione vigescat atque Christifideles ad optimam persequendam vitae rationem provocentur»
(“the Catholic cause in that region may thrive and Christ’s faithful may be encouraged to pursue the best way of life”).
But:
– There is no explicit reference to perseverance in the one true faith against error.
– No mention of the necessity of the state of grace, of repentance, of final judgment.
– No reminder that all human activity, including agriculture and social life, must submit to the law of Christ the King.
– No denunciation of the anti-Christian currents condemned in the Syllabus, despite their evident presence.
Such omissions are severe. The pre-1958 Magisterium repeatedly emphasizes that silence about essential supernatural truths in favour of vague moralism or sociological flourishing is itself a betrayal. Pius X in Pascendi unmasks the Modernists’ tactic: they retain some formulas but drain them of their dogmatic content, replacing supernatural categories with imprecise, experiential language.
Here, Plantaria novella reduces the Church’s concerns to:
– Structural consolidation (new dioceses).
– Generic moral encouragement (“the best way of life”).
– Harmless invocation of a saint’s patronage.
There is no militant confession of the exclusive truth of the Catholic faith in the sense defended by Pius IX (Syllabus, propositions 15–18 condemned). The silence functions as a theological anesthesia, habituating clergy and people to a soft, undogmatic ecclesial discourse. Such minimalism, placed on the lips of a man who will soon convoke the council of aggiornamento, is not accidental; it manifests the inner rupture.
Linguistic Symptoms of Conciliar Mentality in Embryo
The rhetoric of the document, though couched in traditional Latin formulas, subtly signals the new orientation:
1. The image of “new plantings” suggests organic institutional expansion, but without doctrinal descriptors such as militia, defensio fidei, or regnum Christi. The language of combat and kingship central to Quas primas is absent.
2. The emphasis on local devotion to a lay saint, while in itself legitimate, fits into a pattern later amplified by the conciliar sect: multiplication of localized, sentimental, cultural devotions as substitutes for the robust assertion of universal doctrinal claims. The neo-church happily promotes “close-to-life” holy figures while undermining the dogmatic edifice that made their sanctity intelligible.
3. The solemn legal closure—declaring the act firm, valid, effective, and all contrary things null—exhibits juridical self-confidence detached from doctrinal continuity. It is the language of someone who claims undiminished papal authority while preparing to hollow out its doctrinal constraints.
In short, we witness a dissonance: externally classical form, internally aligned with a coming revolution that treats Tradition as a museum of symbols to be rearranged at will. This stylistic duplicity is a hallmark of the conciliar deformation.
Contradiction with the Pre-Conciliar Doctrine of the Church and Its Enemies
Measured by the unchanging teaching of the true Magisterium, several symptomatic contradictions emerge:
– Pius IX unequivocally identifies Freemasonry and liberal, laicist systems as principal enemies of the Church, striving to subjugate and destroy her. He insists the Church must resist, denounce, and never reconcile herself with “progress, liberalism and modern civilisation” understood in that sense (Syllabus, proposition 80 condemned). John XXIII, however, is precisely the figure who will smile upon that world and introduce the language of reconciliation with it.
– Pius X warns that dogma, sacraments, hierarchy are not evolutionary products of the community but divine institutions. The conciliar project, under John XXIII and his successors, will effectively treat them as adaptable “plantings” to be pruned for modern man. In this light, the metaphor of plantaria novella, detached from any assertion of immutability, becomes ominous.
The issue is not that choosing Saint Isidore is wrong; rather, the act is theologically parasitic on a usurped authority oriented toward precisely those modernist ends condemned by earlier pontiffs. When an anti-modernist pope establishes a patronage, the gesture is organically ordered to defending the faith. When a proto-conciliar usurper does so, it functions instead as a devotional ornament stabilizing a counterfeit structure.
Symptom of the Conciliar Sect’s Method: Preserve the Shell, Destroy the Core
This document is a small but telling specimen of the broader method of the Church of the New Advent, the paramasonic neo-church which will fully manifest itself after 1962:
– Maintain familiar external tokens: Latin texts, saints, diocesan titles, solemn formulas, legal precision.
– Omit any clear reaffirmation of condemned truths: no anti-liberal, anti-modernist edge; no insistence on the absolute necessity of submission to the one true Church; no echoes of the Syllabus or Pascendi.
– Gently reorient the faithful’s sensibilities away from doctrinal militancy toward harmless devotions, preparing them to accept ecumenism, religious freedom, anthropocentric liturgy, and the cult of man without perceiving an abrupt rupture.
The choice of a humble, rural lay patron fits perfectly into this system: the conciliar structures favor “accessible” figures that can be invoked in a humanitarian, social, or cultural key, avoiding the sharp doctrinal outlines of confessors and popes who fought liberalism and heresy. Saint Isidore himself, canonized by true popes, is not at fault; the problem lies in his instrumentalization by a structure already turning against the uncompromising Faith.
The Only Authentic Criterion: The Kingship of Christ and the Immutable Faith
Integral Catholic doctrine, as reiterated with sovereign clarity in Quas primas, Syllabus, and Lamentabili, imposes an unbending criterion:
– The Church’s acts are authentic only insofar as they:
– Confess the exclusive truth of the Catholic Faith;
– Uphold the immutability of dogma;
– Defend the divine constitution of the Church (papal primacy, hierarchical authority, sacramental order);
– Assert the social reign of Christ the King over individuals and nations;
– Oppose naturalism, liberalism, indifferentism, and all masonic projects.
Plantaria novella, read in context, fails this test not by explicit heresy within its lines, but by its integration into a usurped antipontifical ministry bent on contradicting those principles elsewhere. The mildness of this text is itself accusatory: in an age of accelerating apostasy and organized anti-Christian forces, a supposed successor of Pius X chooses to speak only of administrative seedlings and a pious patron, remaining silent where he should denounce, ambiguous where he should define, ornamental where he should guard.
Such is the spiritual bankruptcy revealed: a counterfeit authority reassuring the faithful with traditional gestures while quietly transplanting them into a garden already marked out for conciliar mutation. Under the immutable law of Christ the King, under the doctrinal judgments of the true pre-1958 Magisterium, such an authority cannot be accepted; its acts, however sweetly phrased, must be weighed, unmasked, and, where founded on usurped power, regarded as devoid of binding force.
Source:
Plantaria Novella (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025