At first glance, this short Latin act of John XXIII, dated 1 July 1960 and issued “sub anulo Piscatoris,” merely proclaims the Marian title “Nossa Senhora da Ponte” (“Our Lady of the Bridge”) as the principal heavenly patroness of the diocese and episcopal city of Sorocaba in Brazil. It rehearses standard phrases about the Blessed Virgin as help of the faithful on their earthly pilgrimage, notes the local devotion and the bishop’s petition, mentions the recommendation of Arnaldo Lombardi as nuncio, and then, citing apostolic authority and the consultative vote of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, grants liturgical patronal status with the usual legal formulae and clauses of nullity against contrary acts. On the surface: a harmless, pious elevation of a local Marian cult. In reality: one more brick in the masonry of the emerging conciliar sect, instrumentalizing Marian language while corroding the foundations of the true Church’s authority and preparing the way for the cult of man under the guise of Marian patronages.

---

Marian Ornament Serving a Revolutionary Agenda

Concrete Function: Cloaking the Usurpation in Marian Language

On the factual level, the document does very little:

– It asserts that clergy and faithful of Sorocaba cultivate a special devotion to the Blessed Virgin under the title “da Ponte”.
– It notes that the image is venerated in a local temple.
– It reports that Bishop José Carlos de Aguirre asked that this title be proclaimed principal patroness of the diocese and episcopal city.
– It notes the support of Arnaldo Lombardi, acting as nuncio.
– It claims to act “certa scientia ac matura deliberatione Nostra deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine” (with sure knowledge, mature deliberation, and fullness of apostolic power), to declare this Marian title principal patron and to attach the liturgical privileges due to a primary patron.

These are, materially considered, elements fully compatible in themselves with Catholic tradition: the Church has always approved local Marian titles, rooted in authentic piety, ordered to the Most Holy Sacrifice and to the salvation of souls. But here one must apply the principle of *actus sequitur esse* (act follows being): a juridically valid act of pontifical power presupposes a true Pontiff, professing the true faith, inserted in the visible continuity of the Magisterium.

By July 1960, however, the man signing as “Ioannes PP. XXIII” is already the architect of the aggiornamento program, has convoked a “council” whose orientation will subvert Quas Primas of Pius XI and the Syllabus of Pius IX, and presides over a curial apparatus penetrated by tendencies explicitly condemned by St. Pius X in *Lamentabili sane exitu* and *Pascendi*. A pious-sounding act issued by an authority already committed to the principles of the coming revolution is not neutral; it is part of the system by which the neo-church covers its mutation under familiar formulas.

The theological bankruptcy lies not in the bare idea of a Marian patroness, but in the use of Marian patronage as incense masking the odor of apostasy.

Legal Phrases Without Ontological Ground: The Void “Plenitude of Power”

The letter culminates in a heavy juridical formula:

“certa scientia ac matura deliberatione Nostra deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine… praecipuam… Patronam constituimus ac declaramus… Contrariis quibusvis nihil obstantibus… praesentes Litteras firmas, validas atque efficaces iugiter exstare ac permanere…”

Here the entire architecture of pre-1958 pontifical style is copied: *plenitudo potestatis*, perpetuity, nullity of contrary acts. But these words, once the solemn expression of the true Papacy, are now deployed by one who, by doctrine and program, fractures the very continuity from which this plenitude derives.

From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, the contradiction is stark:

– The same person who invokes *Apostolicae potestatis plenitudo* will soon bless and inaugurate the “pastoral council” that enthrones religious liberty (condemned as an error in Syllabus prop. 15, 77-80), collegial democratization of authority, ecumenism with heretics and infidels, and de facto denial of the obligation of States to recognize the Kingship of Christ (against Pius XI, *Quas Primas*).
– The same paramasonic structure will suppress or replace the ancient Roman Rite, desacralize the sanctuary, and enthrone the cult of man, while continuing to issue such Marian and cultic decrees as if nothing had changed.

Thus, what appears as a small administrative favor to a local devotion is, in its context, one more exercise in usurped jurisdiction: sacred forms, evacuated of Catholic substance, mobilized to normalize obedience to an authority bent on the destruction of the very order it claims to guard.

The maxim *falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus* (false in one thing, false in all) cannot be applied mechanically to each historical detail, but it does apply to the claimed authority: an authority that systematically subverts defined dogma cannot be trusted to act as the organ of Christ’s juridical power. Its “plenitude” is rhetorical, not ontological.

Rhetoric as Anaesthetic: Sentiment Without Supernatural Demands

On the linguistic level, the letter is revealing. Its elements:

– Soft, affective emphasis: *“Praecipuo pietatis studio”*, *“praesidium tutissimum”*, *“metam… patriam caelestem”*, the people having her as *“tutricem peculiarem”*.
– Bureaucratic piety: the petition of the bishop, the commendation of the nuncio, the consultation of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, culminating in the standardized decree.

What is conspicuously absent?

– No mention of sin, repentance, confession, or the necessity of the state of grace.
– No link of Marian patronage to fidelity to the integral Catholic faith, to rejection of error, or to submission to the Social Kingship of Christ.
– No call to defend the Church against Freemasonry, liberalism, indifferentism, socialism, or modernist heresies, all explicitly exposed by Pius IX and St. Pius X.
– No affirmation that the same Blessed Virgin, patroness of a local church, demands that her children reject any doctrine contrary to what the Church has “always and everywhere” believed.

This sugary, generic Marianism is characteristic of the conciliar sect’s method:

– Marian language is tolerated or even encouraged, provided it is disconnected from militant Catholic dogma and the condemnation of errors.
– Devotion is aestheticized and localized, made a matter of “identity” and feeling, rather than a standard of doctrinal rigor and moral conversion.

In contrast, authentic pre-1958 Magisterium links Marian honor inseparably with doctrinal clarity and moral militancy. Pius XI in *Quas Primas* does not veil his teaching under vague consolations: he proclaims the duty of States to recognize Christ the King and denounces laicism as a plague. Pius IX in the Syllabus does not speak of “dialogue,” but anathematizes indifferentism and liberalism as deadly errors.

Here, by contrast, the text functions as anaesthetic: it reinforces emotional attachment to a local Marian image while the usurping hierarchy prepares the betrayal of Christ’s rights in doctrine, worship, and public life.

Subtle Displacement of the True Center: Marian Patronage Without Christ the King

A deeper theological symptom appears in the way the letter talks about the purpose of Marian help:

“Alma Dei Genetrix mortalibus… praesidium tutissimum est constituta, ut ad metam, patriam scilicet caelestem, queant pervenire.”

It is true in itself: Our Lady is given to us as sure help to reach heaven. But notice what is omitted:

– No mention that this path is inseparably tied to the one true Church, *una, sancta, catholica et apostolica*, outside of which there is no salvation as taught constantly and explicitly (for example, the Council of Florence).
– No mention that the same Mother protects those who adhere to the integral deposit of faith, not to “pluralism.”
– No mention that the temporal and social order must be subject to Christ the King, as Pius XI solemnly proclaims: peace and order are impossible where Christ’s reign is publicly denied.

The Blessed Virgin is invoked as patroness of a diocese, but her patronage is not explicitly anchored in the public reign of her Son over that land. This is precisely the logic condemned by *Quas Primas*: the tendency to confine religion to private consolation and local devotions, while granting public space to naturalistic or liberal principles.

In Sorocaba, as everywhere, authentic Marian devotion should lead necessarily to:

– Rejection of the errors listed in the Syllabus.
– Defense of the Most Holy Sacrifice in its sacrificial, propitiatory character.
– Affirmation of the rights of Christ the King over legislation, education, and social customs.

Instead, this letter cultivates a Marianism that can coexist peacefully with the nascent conciliar program: a sentimental bridge (apt image) over which the faithful are led from Catholic order into neo-church innovations, without perceiving the rupture.

Instrumentalization of Local Devotion: The Political Use of Patronages

The symptomatic pattern is clear:

– A local devotion, organically grown, is recognized from above.
– The ruling structure thus appears solicitous, “close to the people,” honoring their piety.
– In return, the faithful’s sense of loyalty is redirected toward the same authority that is preparing to overturn their liturgy, dilute doctrine, and subordinate the Church to the world.

This is a classic technique of revolutionary transformation:

– Leave in place as many external forms and affective references as possible (Marian feasts, local patronages, traditional vocabulary).
– Gradually shift their doctrinal content and hierarchical reference point to a new, modernist framework.
– Ensure that any resistance appears as disobedience not only to “the pope” but to “Our Lady” herself, now invoked by documents of the conciliar sect.

Thus, the letter’s insistence on juridical force—*“praesentes Litteras firmas, validas atque efficaces”*—is doubly perverse:

– It uses the idiom of real pontifical authority in service of a structure that rejects the dogmatic antithesis to liberalism and modernism.
– It uses Marian patronage to bind consciences to that usurped authority.

A genuine Catholic act would have:

– Rooted the patronal proclamation explicitly in the perennial Magisterium;
– Recalled the faithful to adhere to condemned propositions’ opposites (against indifferentism, rationalism, socialism, etc.);
– Linked devotion to the defense of the integrity of the Roman Rite and sacramental discipline.

Here, silence speaks. The absence of such affirmations is not neutral; it is symptomatic of a new orientation.

Continuity of Form, Mutation of Substance: The Modernist Strategy at Work

St. Pius X, in *Pascendi* and confirmed in *Lamentabili sane exitu*, unmasks the tactic of the modernists:

– Preserve Catholic words, deny Catholic meaning.
– Affirm piety, deny dogma or reinterpret it as mutable religious experience.
– Speak of Christ, but reduce His Kingship to inward, symbolic or “eschatological” domains.
– Speak of the Church, but transform her into a democratic, evolving “people of God.”

This letter perfectly illustrates the preparatory phase:

– It speaks in classical Latin, with traditional canonical formulae.
– It speaks of the Blessed Virgin in edifying terms.
– It engages the Sacred Congregation of Rites, as if nothing is changing in doctrine or worship.

Yet this is John XXIII, whose entire pontificate is oriented toward reconciling the Church with what Pius IX had condemned: “progress, liberalism and modern civilization” (Syllabus, prop. 80), towards softening dogmatic opposition, silencing talk of enemies of the Church, and preparing to abandon the confessional State.

Thus:

– Theologians before 1958, like those cited in the decrees against Modernism, demand that every ecclesiastical act be read in continuity with defined doctrine: if not, it is to be rejected.
– Here, continuity is only verbal. The same apparatus that pronounces *Nossa Senhora da Ponte* patroness will, within a few years, assist in promulgating a new Ordo Missae, an ecumenical orientation, and a doctrine on religious liberty diametrically opposed to the Syllabus.

To accept this letter uncritically as a simple Marian favor is to ignore the principle that authentic magisterial authority cannot simultaneously affirm and deny the same truths. *Non potest lumen cum tenebris convenire* (light cannot have fellowship with darkness).

Silence on Enemies: Erasure of the Supernatural Combat

Perhaps the gravest theological symptom is the total omission of the supernatural battlefield:

– Not one word about the devil, heresy, Freemasonry, or the “synagogue of Satan” unmasked by Pius IX as the animating center of the sects warring against the Church.
– Not one reference to the duty of pastors to protect their flock from false doctrine and licentious morals.
– Not one hint that Marian patronage obliges a militant stance against the world, the flesh, and the devil.

In the Syllabus we see the opposite spirit: clear naming, clear condemnation, refusal to compromise. In *Lamentabili*, concrete propositions are singled out and anathematized.

The letter analyzed, in contrast, floats in a vacuum of conflict-free spirituality. This is exactly the “pastoral” tone that will be enthroned at Vatican II: no condemnations, only “dialogue” and “esteem.”

Such a tone is not innocent. The omission of the supernatural enemies of souls, in an official act, is itself a pastoral betrayal. To speak of the Mother’s patronage without naming the threats from which she protects is to reduce her to a symbolic mascot of cultural religiosity.

Authentic Marian devotion makes war on error; this text makes peace with silence.

The Bridge Image: From Catholic Mediation to Syncretic Passage

The very title “Nossa Senhora da Ponte” (“Our Lady of the Bridge”) is providentially revealing.

Rightly understood:

– Mary is the *pons* leading souls from sin to grace, from earth to heaven, by bringing them to Christ and to His true Church.
– The bridge is one-way: from error to truth, from the world to the Kingship of Christ, from rebellion to obedience to the integral Catholic faith.

Under the conciliar mentality:

– The “bridge” becomes a figure of religious relativism, cultural mediation, “unity in diversity.”
– Marian symbols are co-opted to soften and legitimize the crossing from Catholic exclusivity to pluralistic syncretism.

This letter does not yet state such relativism explicitly; Modernism rarely does so at once. But its bland generalities and lack of doctrinal edge prepare the reinterpretation: devotion severed from dogmatic clarity becomes malleable clay for the conciliar sect.

True integral Catholic faith insists: Mary is not bridge to “dialogue” between truth and error; she crushes the serpent, who is the father of lies. Any Marian act that refuses to confess this warfare is deficient.

Conclusion: Pious Words as Veil for an Anti-Catholic Transformation

Measured against the unchanging Catholic doctrine before 1958:

– The content of the letter, considered in isolation (approval of a Marian patronage), would be materially acceptable.
– The language, however, is already marked by a “pastoral,” conflict-avoiding style at odds with the clarity of Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII.
– The context—John XXIII’s role in inaugurating the conciliar revolution—reveals the act as part of a broader pattern: Marian and traditional formulas used to secure obedience to an authority engaged in systemic apostasy.

From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, the letter’s core problem is not that it names Our Lady patroness of Sorocaba, but that it:

– Asserts a plenitude of apostolic power detached from fidelity to prior dogma.
– Exploits legitimate Marian terminology to strengthen attachment to a hierarchy that will shortly contradict the Syllabus and *Quas Primas*.
– Omits every serious reference to sin, error, the Social Kingship of Christ, or the supernatural enemies of the Church, thereby embodying the modernist tactic: sweet words, doctrinal anesthesia.

Authentic Catholic piety must therefore:

– Reclaim and purify local Marian devotions, firmly reinserting them into the doctrinal and liturgical order of the pre-1958 Church.
– Reject the authority-claims of those who, while wrapping themselves in Marian phrases, dismantle the faith she has always protected.
– Recognize that any act of a paramasonic structure, even if outwardly pious, serves its underlying design unless explicitly and integrally conformed to the perennial Magisterium.

Where Mary is truly honored, Modernism cannot reign. Where Modernism reigns, Marian patronages become ornaments on the bridge that leads not to the heavenly homeland, but to the abyss.

---

Source:
Praecipuo pietatis, Litterae Apostolicae Beata Maria Virgo, vulgo « Nossa Senhora da Ponte » appellata, in praecipuam Patronam dioecesis et episcopalis urbis Sorocabanae eligitur, d. 1 m. Iulii a. 196…   (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025