The document attributed to John XXIII proclaims that the so‑called “Madonna di Caravaggio” is to be recognized as the principal heavenly Patroness of the Diocese of Caxias (Brazil), grounding this decision on the alleged fervent Marian devotion of local faithful, the transplanted Italian cult, and the existing shrine at Farroupilha, while granting her all liturgical honors accorded to a diocesan principal Patron. Its polished Latin, canonical formulas, and sentimental Marian rhetoric veil the same poisoned root: the consolidation of the conciliar revolution’s counterfeit authority through the instrumentalization of an unapproved apparition cult and the manipulation of popular piety to anchor an emerging neo‑church in place of the Catholic Church.
Idolatrous Marian Cult as a Pillar of the Conciliar Usurpation
The text is short, but its doctrinal and ecclesiological implications are grave. Its author is the initiator of the post‑1958 line of usurpers, John XXIII, whose entire public action must be read as preparation of the conciliar subversion. The letter is not an innocent local concession; it is a juridical and symbolic move by which the paramasonic structure occupying Rome exploits an apparition‑based devotion to legitimize its own usurped “apostolic” power, redirecting souls from the *Regnum Christi* (Kingdom of Christ) and the immutable Marian doctrine of the Church to a sentimental, apparition‑centered, people‑driven pseudo‑Catholicism.
The text calls upon formulae of authority—*ad perpetuam rei memoriam*, *certa scientia*, *plenitudo potestatis*—to cloak an act that in substance:
– Elevates a non‑dogmatic, extra‑scriptural, apparition‑dependent Marian cult to central liturgical prominence.
– Treats alleged supernatural phenomena and popular sentiment as quasi‑foundations for ecclesial identity.
– Presupposes the intact authority of a hierarchy already internally subverted by modernism the condemned synthesis of all heresies (*Pius X, Lamentabili*, *Pascendi*).
Thus, we are compelled to expose each level: factual, linguistic, theological, and symptomatic.
Substituting Apparition Devotion for the Kingship of Christ
On the factual and theological plane, the letter asserts:
“Christifideles dioecesis Caxiensis… excolunt Beatam Mariam Virginem, quae a ‘Caravaggio’ appellatur… Eo enim Christifideles… more peregrinantium, pietatis causa, catervatim accedunt…”
Translation: “The faithful of the Diocese of Caxias… honor the Blessed Virgin Mary, called ‘of Caravaggio’… There the faithful in crowds come as pilgrims for reasons of piety…”
This is used as primary justification to make this title the “principal heavenly Patroness.”
Measured by integral Catholic doctrine before 1958, several disorders appear:
1. The Church’s Marian doctrine is rooted in dogma: Divine Maternity (Ephesus), Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, universal Mediation in subordination to Christ. Legitimate Marian cult must lead clearly, directly, and doctrinally to:
– Confession of Christ’s absolute Kingship over individuals, families, and states (*Pius XI, Quas Primas*: peace and order only in the Kingdom of Christ).
– Fidelity to the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
– Greater devotion to the Most Holy Sacrifice and sacramental life in the state of grace.
2. Elevating a localized apparition‑linked title—without dogmatic necessity, without universal tradition, and without compelling, rigorously discerned evidence of supernatural origin—to the rank of principal Patroness of a diocese discloses a gravely inverted hierarchy of goods:
– What is certain (Christ the King, Our Lady’s universal titles as defined and rooted in Tradition) is subordinated, liturgically and psychologically, to what is historically dubious and theologically unnecessary.
– Patronage is being determined from below—by “fervor” and imported devotions—rather than from above, namely, by the *mens Ecclesiae* grounded in dogma and Tradition.
– This is precisely the modernist method condemned by *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*: the “religious sense” of the community generating norms for cult and doctrine (*Lamentabili* 22, 54).
3. The letter’s logic echoes the condemned notion that faith and its expressions emerge from collective consciousness:
– *Lamentabili* 22 condemns the idea that dogmas are mere interpretations of religious facts elaborated by human consciousness.
– *Lamentabili* 54 condemns viewing hierarchy and sacraments as stages of evolution of Christian consciousness.
– Yet here, a usurping “pontiff” treats a popular devotion as a quasi‑sovereign datum regulating liturgical order, precisely the democratized, bottom‑up religion modernism seeks.
Instead of proclaiming, in the spirit of *Quas Primas*, the Kingship of Christ over Brazil and commanding civil society to submit to His law, the text buries the call to public reign of Christ beneath an apparition brand, “Madonna di Caravaggio,” functioning as a local totem. This is not authentic Marian piety; it is Marianized naturalism—the replacement of the objective reign of Christ the King with vague, consoling religiosity.
Manipulated Latin Rhetoric as Veil for Ecclesiological Subversion
The linguistic form imitates pre‑conciliar solemnity:
– *“certa scientia ac matura deliberatione Nostra deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine…”*
– *“has Litteras firmas, validas atque efficaces iugiter exstare ac permanere…”*
These legalistic phrases once guarded de fide teaching and disciplinary actions serving the *salus animarum* according to perennial doctrine. Here they are weaponized to:
– Canonically enthrone a specific apparition‑associated title as principal diocesan Patroness.
– Provide juridical recognition to a devotion that itself functions as an identity‑marker for the emerging Church of the New Advent.
The style is sentimental and horizontal:
– Emphasis on “fervor,” “piety,” “pilgrims coming in crowds”;
– A purely human enthusiasm is taken as evidence of supernatural authenticity and as sufficient warrant for liturgical pre‑eminence.
The silence is more damning than the words:
– No mention of the absolute necessity of living and dying in the state of grace.
– No warning against sin, heresy, indifferentism, modernist corruption.
– No insistence on Our Lady’s role as destroyer of all heresies in defense of immutable dogma.
– No call to the civil rulers (then still existent, now annihilated) to recognize Christ the King, as mandated in *Quas Primas* and reiterated in the *Syllabus of Errors*.
By its omissions, the text discloses its mentality: religion is presented as pilgrimage, sentiment, and local Marian warmth—while the militant, doctrinal, anti‑liberal, anti‑masonic edge of Catholic Tradition is erased. This is exactly the naturalistic, laicist drift denounced by Pius XI: secularism grows when Christ’s Kingship is not publicly proclaimed and defended; here, instead, the public identity of a diocese is bound to an apparition trademark.
Apparition‑Centered Devotion as Instrument of Diversion
The structural pattern matches the broader strategy, manifest in analogous operations:
– Elevation and spread of apparition‑based cults that:
– Shift focus from dogma to “messages,” emotions, nationalistic or ethnic religiosity.
– Provide transnational symbols for the conciliar sect distinct from the traditional theology of the Cross and the Most Holy Sacrifice.
– Divert energy from fighting modernist apostasy and masonic infiltration within clergy and institutions.
The provided file on the so‑called Fatima phenomena exposes the mechanism:
– Private revelations lack infallible guarantee.
– Overemphasis on spectacular phenomena and “hyper‑acts” of worship undermines confidence in the sufficiency of the Mass and sacraments.
– Political‑apocalyptic messaging distracts from the true central battle: modernism and enemies within.
Analogously, the promotion of “Madonna di Caravaggio” as principal Patroness fits this schema:
1. It entrenches a quasi‑visionary Marianism as the affective core of diocesan identity.
2. It trains the faithful to receive their religious orientation from extra‑magisterial phenomena filtered and approved by modernist authorities, instead of from the defined deposit of faith.
3. It allows the usurping hierarchy to appear “Marian” while architecting the forthcoming council that would enshrine religious liberty, ecumenism, and the cult of man—errors directly condemned by the *Syllabus* and the entire pre‑1958 Magisterium.
Thus the letter is not neutral: it is a liturgical‑juridical lever for the psychological annexation of souls to the conciliar sect.
Contradiction with Pre‑Conciliar Magisterium and Ecclesial Order
From the perspective of immutable doctrine, several specific contradictions emerge.
1. The primacy of Christ the King and the true Church over all public life.
– *Quas Primas* teaches that public peace and order can only be restored when individuals and states publicly accept the reign of Christ and submit their laws and institutions to His law.
– The *Syllabus of Errors* (especially 55, 77–80) condemns liberalism, indifferentism, the equation of all forms of worship, and the idea that the Papacy should “come to terms” with modern civilization.
In the letter:
– No call to the civil order to honor Christ the King.
– No admonition against secularized political structures.
– Instead: a diocesan identity defined by shrine‑pilgrimage Marianism, fully compatible with liberal pluralistic frameworks. This is functional secularism wrapped in Marian language.
2. The role of the Magisterium versus popular sentiment.
– Traditional doctrine: *Ecclesia docens* (teaching Church) authoritatively judges, regulates, and, when necessary, suppresses dubious devotions for the sake of purity of faith and right worship.
– *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi* condemn the subjectivist inversion whereby the “religious experience” of the people becomes the criterion.
The letter does precisely what is condemned:
– It leans on how the faithful “cultivate” this Marian title, as if their fervor is a theological argument.
– It allows imported ethnic devotion to determine the official Patroness rather than fostering universal, dogmatically grounded patrons that express Catholic unity and doctrine.
This is the democratization of cult, which is theologically perverse: *lex orandi* must be determined top‑down from divinely revealed truth, not bottom‑up from popular taste.
3. Prudence regarding private revelations and apparitions.
Authentic pre‑1958 praxis was cautious:
– Private revelations, even when judged worthy of belief, are never made normative for faith; they cannot rival Scripture, Tradition, or the liturgy.
– The Magisterium carefully avoids binding diocesan or universal identity to a specific apparition‑based title that hinges on contested supernatural claims, lest devotional excess overshadow the central mysteries.
The letter violates this prudence:
– It does not merely permit a cult; it canonically enthrones an apparition‑associated title as principal Patroness.
– This effectively ratifies and institutionalizes an apparition narrative as the symbolic heart of diocesan spirituality, without any doctrinal necessity.
– By doing so, it conditions the faithful to accept apparition‑based identities and prepares the terrain for other operations (as seen with Fatima), which the file rightly analyzes as possible instruments of distraction or infiltration.
Symptomatic Revelation of the Conciliar Sect’s Method
The letter’s deeper significance emerges when viewed as symptom of the conciliar revolution:
– John XXIII, inaugurator of the modernist line, signs a text that looks entirely “traditional”: Latin, Marian, shrines, pilgrimages.
– Yet the effect is to:
– Confirm his claim to papal authority in the minds of the faithful via devotional gestures without engaging doctrine.
– Establish patterns: sentimental Marian acts, liturgical promotions, and local patronage decisions that create emotional allegiance to his person and to the nascent neo‑church.
– Avoid any confrontation with liberalism, socialism, or masonic assaults on Church and society which Pius IX characterized as the “synagogue of Satan.”
This strategy aligns with what Pius X had already unmasked: modernists do not typically attack dogma frontally at first; they alter its vital environment—liturgy, devotions, disciplines—so that the dogma becomes lifeless, marginalized, and eventually reinterpreted.
In this sense:
– The use of apparition‑titles as principal patrons is a form of symbolic engineering.
– The Marian figure is detached from her role as *Terror daemonum*, defender of orthodoxy, and Queen subject to Christ the King’s social reign, and is recast as a vague celestial patroness legitimizing the pastoral projects of a modernist leadership.
Grave Silence on Modernism, Masonic Sect, and Sacramental Reality
Silence, here, is accusation.
At the time of this letter (1959):
– Modernism had not disappeared; it had entrenched itself inside seminaries, universities, and episcopates, precisely as Pius X warned.
– Secret societies and hostile liberal governments continued their war against the Church, as Pius IX and Leo XIII plainly documented.
– The Faithful needed clear denunciation of:
– doctrinal relativism,
– religious liberty errors,
– ecumenical betrayal of the dogma “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus,”
– masonic infiltration.
Instead, they received:
“Fore confidimus, ut, Dei Genetrice tuente ac deprecante, res catholica ea in regione magis magisque vigescat.”
“We confidently hope that, with the Mother of God protecting and interceding, the Catholic cause in that region may more and more flourish.”
But:
– No mention of the conditions for such flourishing: sound doctrine, rejection of condemned errors, centrality of the Most Holy Sacrifice, confession of Christ’s social Kingship.
– No warning against receiving sacraments from compromised modernist clergy, no insistence on integral catechesis, no condemnation of liberal and socialist errors devastating Latin America.
It is pure vague optimism, a hallmark of conciliar rhetoric, diametrically opposed to the sober clarity of Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, and Pius XI. This naturalistic optimism, severed from militant doctrinal clarity, is already a betrayal.
Usurped Authority and Invalid Foundation
Finally, the entire juridical edifice invoked in the letter rests on the premise that John XXIII is Roman Pontiff. According to the integral Catholic principles reaffirmed before 1958:
– *A manifest heretic cannot be Pope*: as expounded by St. Robert Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas, and the unanimous teaching that one outside the Church cannot be its head.
– *Canon 188.4 (1917)*: public defection from the faith vacates ecclesiastical office by the fact itself.
– *Cum ex Apostolatus Officio* (Paul IV) affirms that elevation of one who has deviated from the faith is null and void.
The conciliar line from John XXIII forward:
– Prepared and promulgated doctrines and practices formally or practically contradicting prior solemn teaching on religious liberty, ecumenism, the social Kingship of Christ, and the uniqueness of the Catholic Church.
– Embraced collaboration with forces and ideologies condemned repeatedly by true popes.
– Elevated apparition cults and anthropocentric theologies as markers of identity for a new religion.
Therefore:
– The “plenitude of apostolic power” claimed in this letter is at best simulated; its invocations of juridical perpetuity (*firmas, validas atque efficaces iugiter exstare*) are empty formulas in the mouth of one who, by his program and acts, aligns not with the Petrine mandate but with the modernist agenda already anathematized.
– The faithful owe no obedience to acts that presuppose an authority objectively contradicted by public adherence to condemned principles.
Conclusion: From Marian Facade to Apostasy
Though brief, this letter is a precise microcosm of the conciliar sect’s method:
– Cloak usurpation under traditional forms and Marian vocabulary.
– Replace militant doctrinal clarity and the public Kingship of Christ with sentimental, apparition‑driven devotions.
– Allow popular enthusiasm to play magisterial, shaping liturgy and patronage, inverting the proper order.
– Maintain total silence about modernism, masonry, and liberalism, while pretending to bless “the Catholic cause” with a new title and shrine.
Against this counterfeit, the integral Catholic response is:
– To adhere exclusively to Marian devotions and titles firmly rooted in Tradition and subordinated to Christ’s universal Kingship and the dogmatic teaching of the true Church.
– To reject the instrumentalization of Our Lady as a banner for modernist programs and apparition‑centered pseudo‑spiritualities.
– To expose the acts of the conciliar usurpers, including such “apostolic letters,” as juridically and theologically void where they serve the revolution rather than the deposit of faith.
Regnum Christi veniat per Immaculatum Cor Mariae (May the Kingdom of Christ come through the Immaculate Heart of Mary) – but only in the sense in which all true popes understood it: the triumph of the Social Reign of Christ the King, the crushing of modernist and masonic errors, and the restoration of the Most Holy Sacrifice and sacraments in the one true Church, untainted by the idolatries and novelties of the post‑1958 abomination of desolation.
Source:
… (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025