Whoever walks the dark roads of this age, says this text, will find a safe path of salvation if they cultivate heartfelt devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and spread the reign of her Immaculate Heart; therefore John XXIII, acceding to the request of Agustín Herrera, declares the “Blessed Virgin Mary of Fatima” principal patroness, together with St. Dominic, of the Diocese of Santo Domingo de Nueve de Julio in Argentina, granting her all liturgical honors and privileges proper to a diocesan principal patron, and he does so with all the solemn formulas of binding, perpetual juridical force. In one brief page, the paramasonic “pontificate” of Roncalli reveals both its cultic center and its method: elevation of the Fatima construct into a quasi-dogmatic axis of diocesan life, usurpation of papal authority to enthrone a fabricated apparition, and the quiet displacement of the true Christocentric, sacramental, and doctrinal order of the Church by a psychological operation.

---

Fatima Patronage as a Manifesto of the Conciliar Revolution

AD mode: Roncalli’s Usurped Voice and the Counterfeit Use of Apostolic Authority

From the first words, we are confronted not with a true successor of Peter, but with Angelo Roncalli, John XXIII, the initiator of the conciliar usurpation, speaking in the stolen cadences of papal authority. The document is framed:

“Ad perpetuam rei memoriam… certa scientia ac matura deliberatione Nostra deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine… perpetuumque in modum… praesentis Litteras firmas, validas atque efficaces…”

These are the very formulas with which true Popes defined dogmas, canonized saints, or promulgated universal laws. Here they are abused to:

– enthrone “Beata Maria Virgo a Fatima” as principal patroness of an entire diocese,
– anchor diocesan identity in a controversial, theologically suspect “apparition” whose message, as our supplied dossier shows, is saturated with ambiguities, conditional pseudo-oracles, political obsessions, and Masonic-symbolic staging.

The counterfeit is twofold:

1. Usurpation of potestas: A man already gravely suspected by serious contemporaries for modernist sympathies and condemned currents (cf. pre-1958 concerns about Roncalli’s associations) assumes the plenitude of apostolic power in order to dogmatize a private devotionscape foreign to the unchanging magisterium.

2. Transmutation of the munus Petrinum: Instead of guarding the depositum fidei (deposit of faith), he binds a local Church to the programmatic center of the emerging conciliar sect: Fatima as emotional engine and political myth, preparing the psychology for Vatican II’s cult of novelty, event-theology, and manipulation.

Theologically sound Catholic doctrine before 1958 is crystal clear:

– Private revelations are never a rule of faith; they cannot be imposed with binding force as essential structures of ecclesial life.
– The See of Peter exists to confess Christ, to defend doctrine against error, to promote the public reign of Christ the King (Pius XI, Quas Primas), not to establish a parallel magisterium of apparitions.

Thus, when Roncalli deploys solemn formulas to enthrone “Fatima” in diocesan law, he exhibits exactly what St. Pius X condemned in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi: the Modernist reduction of authentic authority into an instrument for new religious consciousness, built on mutable “signs of the times.” The form is Catholic; the content is a subversion. Simulata sanctitas, vera perfidia (“simulated holiness, real treachery”).

Factual Level: From Marian Piety to Cultic Engineering

The text is short; its implications are immense.

Key elements of the letter (in paraphrase and quotation):

– Roncalli states that those who traverse the dark paths of this century find a sure road of salvation if they sincerely honor Mary and work to spread the reign of her Immaculate Heart.
– He expresses joy that the faithful of the diocese have particular devotion to the Mother of God “called of Fatima.”
– At the request of Agustín Herrera, he designates the Blessed Virgin Mary of Fatima as principal patroness with St. Dominic for the Diocese of Santo Domingo de Nueve de Julio.
– He grants all liturgical honors and privileges proper to principal patrons.
– He insists with juridical severity that this decree is perpetual, firm, valid, efficacious; any contrary attempt is declared null and void.

On the surface, it appears as an innocent act of Marian devotion. But sober Catholic analysis, informed by doctrine and by the documented problems around Fatima (False Fatima Apparitions file), must expose:

1. The substitution of a geographically and historically specific apparition-label (“of Fatima”) for the timeless Marian titles rooted in Revelation and Tradition.
– In 2,000 years, the Church did not make “Lourdes” or other apparitions principal reference-points of diocesan identity with such juridical solemnity for entire territories unconnected to the apparition site.
– Here, an Argentinian diocese is bound to a Portuguese apparition’s brand-name: “a Fatima appellatam.” This is marketing, not magisterium.

2. The elevation of the “Immaculate Heart” as conceived by the Fatima narrative, detached from its authentic theological context.
– The document’s opening line effectively proposes a short Marian path of salvation: heartfelt cultus and propagation of the “reign” of her Heart.
– Catholic doctrine venerates the Immaculate Heart as closely united to Christ’s Sacred Heart; devotion is meritorious insofar as it leads to deeper worship of Christ and fidelity to His commandments, sacraments, and Church.
– The Fatimist configuration, as codified by Roncalli, subtly installs a parallel salvific program: geopolitical consecrations, national conversions without doctrinal evangelization, emotional activism, while the central dogmas and the Social Kingship of Christ are quietly sidelined.

3. An institutional lock-in of the Fatima operation through solemn canonical language.
– “Ad perpetuam rei memoriam” and the juridical sealing mean: the conciliar sect intends Fatima as a permanent structural pillar.
– This fits perfectly the staged strategy: implantation (1917–1958), universalization (1958–2000), ecumenical reinterpretation and control (post-2000), as described in the Masonic Operation “Fatima” file.

Under pre-1958 standards, this is a grave abuse: lex orandi is being altered to sustain an unapproved (infallibly) pseudo-prophetic narrative full of theological, logical, and ecclesiological contradictions.

Linguistic Level: Pious Latin as Veil for a Programmatic Deviation

The rhetoric is deliberately archaic, mimicking authentic Apostolic Letters:

– “certa scientia ac matura deliberatione”
– “plenitudine Apostolicae potestatis”
– “perpetuum in modum”
– “nunc et in posterum pleníssime suffragari”
– “irritum ex nunc et inane”

This choice of language serves three subversive functions:

1. Legitimation by imitation: By cloaking his decision in the same formulas used for canon law and solemn doctrinal acts, Roncalli blurs the line between the immutable deposit of faith and his personal, historically conditioned preference for a disputed apparition-cult.

2. Hiding the doctrinal vacuum: Note what is missing. There is no mention of:
– the Most Holy Sacrifice as the unique source of grace,
– the need for repentance, confession, state of grace, avoidance of mortal sin,
– the sovereignty of Christ the King over nations, as taught in Quas Primas,
– the errors of liberalism, naturalism, socialism, Freemasonry, solemnly condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX.
Instead, salvation-talk is reduced to Marian enthusiasm: an external path, emotional, extra-sacramental.

3. Soft replacement of Christocentrism with apparitional theocentrism:
– The axis of the sentence is not Christ’s Cross, but “Beatam Mariam Virginem colunt… eius Immaculati Cordis regnum propagant.”
– Mary is invoked specifically under the Fatima label; thus the entire supernatural economy is rhetorically reframed through a post-biblical apparition, whose “messages” already suggested extra-liturgical consecrations as quasi-conditions of divine favor.

This bureaucratic-sacral Latin functions as a smoke curtain: verba antiqua, mens nova (ancient words, new mind).

Theological Level: Contradiction with Integral Catholic Doctrine

Measured against pre-1958 magisterium, several grave deviations emerge.

1. Private Revelation Elevated into Normative Patronage

Integral Catholic teaching:

– Private revelations, even approved, are not part of the depositum fidei; they cannot oblige universal or quasi-universal belief.
– They may be tolerated or encouraged as prudent aids, never as structural axes or juridically entrenched obligations.

Roncalli, however, proclaims:

“Beatam Mariam Virginem a Fatima praecipuam apud Deum Patronam… totius dioecesis…”

This:

– fixes “Fatima” as a norm of diocesan spirituality,
– effectively institutionalizes a contested apparition as if it enjoyed papal and ecclesial indefectible authority,
– binds clergy and laity of that territory by law to a devotion whose theological content is beyond critical scrutiny once thus enthroned.

Such use of “Apostolic Letters” to dogmatize spiritual fashions is alien to Catholic tradition and is symptomatic of the conciliar spirit that will soon dogmatize “religious liberty,” “ecumenism,” and the cult of man.

2. Reduction of Salvation to Marian Affect and Apparitional Obedience

The opening formula is decisive:

“Qui huius saeculi caliginosas semitas terunt, mortales tutam expediunt viam salutis, si Beatam Mariam Virginem colunt ex animo, si eius Immaculati Cordis regnum pro viribus propagant.”

Translation: those who tread the dark paths of this age carve out a safe way of salvation if they sincerely venerate Mary and promote, as far as they can, the reign of her Immaculate Heart.

Measured against Catholic doctrine:

– The way of salvation is faith in Christ, supernatural charity, adherence to the one true Church, reception of the sacraments, observance of God’s commandments, perseverance until death.
– Marian devotion is powerful and highly recommended, but always subordinate, derivative, ordered to Christ. It is not a parallel soteriology.
– To present devotion and propagation of a particular Marian “reign” (shaped by Fatima messaging) as the condition of a “safe way of salvation,” without simultaneously stating the necessity of the true Faith, the Most Holy Sacrifice, the sacraments, and submission to the true Roman Pontiff, is to introduce a dangerous equivocation.

This equivocation is exactly the characteristic of the Fatima operation highlighted in our doctrinal file:

– “Hyper-acts” (consecrations, national ceremonies) instead of daily sacramental fidelity.
– Suggestion of national conversions without doctrinal evangelization.
– Focus on “Russia,” geopolitics, and consecration rituals instead of condemnation of the internal enemy of Modernism that St. Pius X unmasked.

Thus the letter perpetuates one of the core errors:

It displaces the primacy of Christ the King and the objective order of grace with an affective, apparition-centered devotion presented in salvific terms.

Pius XI, in Quas Primas, taught that true peace and order come only when individuals and states recognize and submit to the reign of Christ the King, and explicitly condemned the laicist secular order and indifferentism. Roncalli’s text, by contrast, does not invoke the Social Kingship of Christ or the binding character of His law upon the Argentine nation; it installs “Fatima” as patroness without any call to restore Catholic political and social order. Silence where the true magisterium speaks is itself a condemnation.

3. Silence About Modernism and Masonic Subversion

Authentic pre-1958 popes:

– Pius IX (Syllabus) denounced liberalism, indifferentism, separation of Church and State, “progress” and “modern civilization” as understood against God.
– Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII repeatedly exposed Freemasonry and secret societies as architects of the war against the Church.
– St. Pius X in Pascendi and Lamentabili condemned the entire Modernist program: evolution of dogma, vital immanence, democratic church, historicism.

This letter:

– Does not mention Modernism.
– Does not warn against the enemies within.
– Does not connect devotion to Our Lady with militant resistance to errors, with defense of doctrine, with the need to reject laicism, ecumenism, and naturalism.

Instead, it calmly legitimizes a cultic phenomenon that our supplied file rightly characterizes as potentially:

– Masonic psychological operation (symbolism of dates 1717–1917–2017, spectacle of the sun, staged narrative control),
– diversion of Catholic attention from internal apostasy to external political enemies,
– platform for an equivocal “conversion of Russia” open to ecumenical relativism.

By baptizing “Fatima” as diocesan patroness, Roncalli actively inscribes this diversion into the heart of ecclesial life. Silence about Modernism combined with official promotion of Fatima is not an accident; it is strategy.

4. Contradiction with the Principle: God’s Law Above Human and Sectarian Projects

The letter’s perspective is horizontal and sentimental:

– “paths of this age,” “safe way of salvation” via devotion,
– rejoicing in a popular Marian enthusiasm.

Absent:

– No reminder that states must officially honor Christ, legislate according to His law, and reject the “rights” condemned in the Syllabus.
– No insistence that only the Catholic religion has rights before God and that public worship of error offends the Divine Majesty.
– No call for integral Catholic reconstruction of society.

Instead of proclaiming that all authority must bow to Christ the King, Roncalli solemnizes a diocesan cult centered on an apparition whose post-1958 handlers will be used precisely to promote:

– “Peace plans” rooted in diplomacy, not the Social Kingship,
– soft ecumenism and sentimental piety,
– a pan-religious narrative in which Our Lady’s words can be reinterpreted to fit dialogue with schismatic and infidel religions.

Here, the fundamental axiom of Catholic political theology—*lex aeterna superat omnes leges humanas* (“the eternal law is above all human laws”)—is absent, replaced by the unspoken axiom of the conciliar sect: “religion” is a spiritual resource at the service of humanity’s self-salvation, and apparitions are usable symbols in that project.

Symptomatic Level: Fatima Patronage as Symptom and Tool of the Neo-Church

This Apostolic Letter is not an isolated devotional gesture. It is a node in a larger system.

1. Integration into the Conciliar Narrative

The document (1959) stands at the edge of the council that Roncalli will convoke:

– It binds a local church to Fatima precisely as the conciliar revolution prepares to:
– democratize ecclesial structures,
– establish a false religious liberty regime,
– launch ecumenism and dialogue with Freemasonry’s ideological fruits,
– present a “pastoral” magisterium that suspends condemnation in favor of accommodation.

Fatima, packaged as quasi-official, serves as a transitional myth:

– It seems anti-communist and Marian, thus reassuring conservative faithful.
– It subtly shifts the center from doctrinal clarity to apocalyptic curiosity, secrets, and conditional prophecies.
– It enables the conciliar sect later to claim prophetic legitimacy (“Our Lady prepared the council, the new evangelization, etc.”) while systematically betraying the integral faith.

By making “Fatima” principal patroness, Roncalli ensures that priests and faithful will be catechized in this narrative; resistance to the council will then seem resistance to “Our Lady.” This is psychological blackmail disguised as piety.

2. The Mechanism of False Obedience

Note the juridical violence of the closing formulas:

“Haec edicimus, statuimus, decernentes… irritumque ex nunc et inane fieri, si quidquam secus… attentari contigerit.”

This is the rhetoric of infallible certainty applied not to dogma, but to the cultic enthronement of a non-dogmatic apparition-title.

Thus, the conciliar sect trains consciences:

– to accept as “Catholic obedience” the unconditional reception of its innovations,
– to feel disloyal, disobedient, “against Mary” if they question Fatima’s centrality or the new liturgical/ecclesial order that will later be draped in its mantle.

Obedience is severed from Tradition and reattached to the revolutionary hierarchy.

Yet true Catholic doctrine, as expressed before 1958, teaches:

– Roma locuta, causa finita only when Rome speaks with the voice of the perennial magisterium in continuity with all ages.
– If someone—claiming to be Pope—uses authority to promote ambiguous or erroneous cultic structures, or to underwrite Modernist strategies, this abuse does not bind in conscience against the integral faith.

This letter, by misusing solemn forms, becomes a case study in how the neo-church weaponizes misunderstanding of obedience to secure acceptance of its program.

3. The Fatima Apparitions as Instrumentalized Myth

Given the supplied “False Fatima Apparitions” file, several specific points align ominously with Roncalli’s act:

– Theological objections: The apparition’s demands (consecration of Russia, etc.) relativize the sufficiency of the Most Holy Sacrifice, insinuating new conditions of peace outside the ordinary sacramental economy.
– Logical contradictions: Conditional prophecies versus guaranteed “triumph,” inconsistencies typical of human fabrication.
– Diversion from apostasy: Obsession with communism while ignoring Modernist infiltration and the “enemies within” condemned by St. Pius X.
– Ecumenism project: “Conversion of Russia” left vague, exploitable for pan-Christian relativism.
– Masonic operation: Symbolic dates, theatrical “sun miracle,” staged global diffusion under tightly controlled narratives, culminating in post-conciliar appropriation.

Roncalli’s letter does not discern; it canonizes the complex of these elements as a pastoral good.

Thus, his act functions as confirmation, not refutation, of the thesis that Fatima has been used as a psychological operation against the Church: the usurper enthrones the operation’s icon as patroness.

Rejection of Pseudo-Traditional Appropriation

Those pretending to be traditional Catholics who attempt to “save” Roncalli or the conciliar sect by appealing to his Marian gestures fall into a deadly illusion.

– A usurped structure can drape itself in Marian language while undermining Marian doctrine and the reign of Christ.
– True Marian devotion is inseparable from militant defense of the unchanging Faith, rejection of Modernism, denunciation of ecumenical syncretism and religious liberty, and obedience to genuine Catholic authority.

To use this Apostolic Letter as proof of “orthodoxy” is to ignore:

– the systematic rejection of the Syllabus in favor of liberalism,
– the silence about, or practical reversal of, Quas Primas,
– the toleration and promotion of theologians and bishops infected by Modernism,
– the instrumentalization of apparitions (especially Fatima) for a new religious narrative.

In short: pious Latin formulas attached to a corrupted program do not sanctify the program; they incriminate it.

The Only Catholic Response: Return to the Immutable Rule of Faith

From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, the evaluation is uncompromising:

– The letter’s theology of salvation via propagating the “reign” of the Fatima Immaculate Heart, absent explicit subordination to Christ’s Kingship, the sacraments, and defined dogma, is gravely disordering.
– Its use of solemn juridical formulas to enthrone a controversial apparition as principal patroness is an abuse of what it imitates as papal authority.
– Its silence on Modernism, Freemasonry, secularism, and the Social Kingship of Christ reveals a naturalistic, sentimentalist, and ultimately Modernist mindset.
– Its role in the choreography leading to Vatican II brands it as a symptom and tool of the conciliar sect’s broader apostasy.

Therefore:

– Lex credendi, lex orandi: where the law of prayer is twisted to center a dubious apparition and to support a revolutionary structure, the faithful must hold fast instead to the lex credendi of the pre-1958 magisterium.
– Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus: salvation is not attained through adherence to post-conciliar apparitional cults or obedience to usurped authorities, but through the integral Catholic faith, preserved by those who remain in continuity with the perennial doctrine and valid sacraments.
– Regnum Christi, non regnum concilii: peace is only possible in the kingdom of Christ, as Pius XI taught, not in the kingdom of Fatima mythology or conciliar diplomacy.

The only coherent Catholic stance is to:

– reject the binding force of such an act emanating from the conciliar apparatus,
– strip Fatima of the quasi-dogmatic and juridical aura imposed by Roncalli and his successors,
– expose the entire apparatus—apparitions, pseudo-pontifical decrees, manipulated devotions—as part of the abominatio desolationis occupying the holy place,
– return without compromise to the doctrine, liturgy, discipline, and Marian devotion as taught and lived in the Church prior to the revolutionary seizure of structures.

Either Christ the King reigns through His unchanging Church, or the counterfeit reigns through sentimental apparitions and usurped authority. This document stands as a monument to the latter—and a summons for all who love the Blessed Virgin to abandon the conciliar mythology and cleave to the immutable Faith.

---

Source:
Qui Huius Saeculi, Epistula Beata Maria Virgo « a Fatima » in praecipuam Patronam una Cum Sancto Dominico, Confessore, eligitur totius dioecesis S. Dominici Novem Iulii, d. 23 m. Martii a. 1959, Ioann…   (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025