The Latin text attributed to John XXIII bestows the title and privileges of a Minor Basilica upon the church of the Sorrowful Virgin Mary, known as “Nuestra Señora de la Soledad,” in Oaxaca (Antequera), appealing to its antiquity, material adornment, and long-standing popular devotion, and invokes papal authority to grant this juridical-liturgical dignity “in perpetuity” within the framework of the Roman structures occupying the Vatican. In reality, this apparently pious gesture is a juridical and theological Trojan horse: it instrumentalizes Marian devotion to consolidate the nascent conciliar revolution under a counterfeit authority, evacuating true ecclesial meaning while leaving only the bureaucratic shell of pre-1958 forms.

---

Marian Piety as a Vehicle of Illegitimate Authority

The document is short, but spiritually symptomatic. Its structure is clear:

– It recalls the ancient veneration of the image of the Sorrowful Virgin of the Soledad in Oaxaca.
– It notes the crowning of the image authorized by St. Pius X (18 January 1909).
– It praises the fruits of increased Marian devotion.
– It lists the aesthetic and historical qualities of the church.
– It reports the petition of Fortino Gómez León, then archbishop of Antequera.
– It, in the name of John XXIII, grants the title of Minor Basilica with all attendant rights and privileges.
– It declares this act perpetual and voids all contrary dispositions.

On the surface, nothing appears scandalous: Marian devotion, continuity with Pius X, solemn canonical form. This is precisely the problem. A key tactic of the conciliar and post-conciliar paramasonic structure is to cloak its subversion under the continuity of external forms. Here we see an act which, read in isolation, could pass as a conventional pre-1958 apostolic letter. But read in its time, author, and trajectory, it is one more stone in the façade: the appearance of Romanitas used to secure obedience to an authority already orienting itself against the integral faith.

Factual and Historical Layers: The Shell of Continuity

1. Reference to Pius X:
– The letter recalls that St. Pius X permitted the canonical coronation of the image. This is factual and verifiable.
– The invocation of Pius X functions rhetorically as borrowed capital: the figure who most forcefully condemned *Modernismus, omnium haereseon collectus* (*Pascendi*, confirmed by the decree *Lamentabili sane exitu*) is invoked to legitimize the act of a man who would inaugurate the very aggiornamento that Pius X doctrinally anathematized.
– This dissonance is not accidental; it is programmatic. The conciliar revolution survives by parasitically clinging to pre-conciliar devotions and forms, while subverting their doctrinal content.

2. The Basilica minor title:
– Before 1958, the concession of Minor Basilica status was:
– a recognition of tight union with the Apostolic See,
– an instrument to deepen the cult of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the liturgical life according to Roman discipline,
– always embedded within the integral doctrine of the visible, unitary, indefectible Church.
– In 1959, under John XXIII, the same juridical language is used, but already disconnected from the confession of the immutable doctrine that the same emerging regime will soon contradict at Vatican II (religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, anthropocentrism).

3. The promise of “perpetual” validity:
– The document insists that its provisions remain “firm, valid, and effective” and nullifies all contrary acts.
– This formal language, previously the expression of the *potestas iurisdictionis* of true Roman Pontiffs, is here appropriated by one who initiates a process diametrically opposed to the syllabus of Pius IX, to *Quas Primas* of Pius XI, and to the anti-modernist magisterium of Pius X and Pius XII.
– Thus, materially we see: juridical solemnity; formally and morally we see: the consolidation of an usurped authority employing the prestige of the past.

Linguistic Veneer: Pious Latin as Camouflage of a New Religion

The vocabulary is outwardly traditional: *Ad perpetuam rei memoriam*, “Apostolic authority,” Marian titles, praise of popular piety. Yet several linguistic traits betray the underlying program once placed in their historical context.

1. Absence of doctrinal density:
– Classical papal documents concerning Marian shrines tend to recall:
– the role of the Most Holy Virgin in the economy of Redemption,
– the call to penance, the sacraments, and the Most Holy Sacrifice,
– the submission of nations and rulers to Christ the King and His Church,
– explicit condemnations of contemporary errors.
– Here, the entire supernatural economy is reduced to sentimental and aesthetic notes:
– antiquity,
– “ornamentorum varietas,”
– “sacra supellex pretiosa,”
– popular fervour.
– There is no reminder of the conditions of salvation, no mention of *status gratiae*, no word of sin, judgment, hell, or the necessity to obey the integral Catholic faith. This silence is not neutral; it is accusatory. It reveals a mentality more comfortable with devotional folklore than with the claims of the Kingship of Christ.

2. Functional use of Marian devotion:
– The text praises that Marian religion has “more deeply taken root” and that Catholic life has increased in that region.
– But this is presented merely as an empirical, sociological success, not as the fruit of doctrinal fidelity, of the rejection of error, or of submission to the immutable magisterium.
– Such language conveniently prepares Marian devotion to be absorbed into the coming conciliar project: Mary not as *terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata* (terrible as an army set in array) against heresy, but as an emotional symbol compatible with religious pluralism and humanistic fraternity.

3. Bureaucratic maximalism:
– The heavy insistence on legal formulas – nullity of contrary acts, perpetuity, full suffrage, etc. – without doctrinal content, reveals a juridicism emptied of truth.
– This is the same pattern by which the conciliar sect later claims:
– to “reform” the Most Holy Sacrifice into a protestantised assembly;
– to “develop” doctrine into its contradiction (*religious liberty* against the Syllabus; *ecumenism* against the dogma “outside the Church no salvation”).
– A pseudo-Rome speaks like Rome, signs like Rome, seals like Rome, but orders the flock, gently and legally, towards another faith.

Theological Confrontation: Marian Basilica in a System of Apostasy

The core theological problem is not that a Marian shrine in Mexico is honoured, but that such acts are carried out within, and at the service of, a structure that systematically rejects pre-1958 doctrine in practice and later in principle.

1. Authority and heresy:
– Integral Catholic theology, clearly articulated by St. Robert Bellarmine and reflected in the 1917 Code, teaches that a manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church, because he is no member of the Church.
– When one who inaugurates and promotes a process that will:
– exalt religious liberty condemned by Pius IX,
– legitimize ecumenism with heretics and infidels,
– relativize the social Kingship of Christ against *Quas Primas*,
– favour the very “modern civilization” anathematized in the Syllabus,
performs acts of jurisdiction, there arises the grave question of legitimacy.
– The fact that, in 1959, the full spectrum of later conciliar errors is not yet promulgated does not exonerate the orientation: the signals are public, programmatic, and opposed to the defensive line built by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII.

2. Marian devotion versus Modernism:
– True Marian cult is inseparable from:
– adherence to all dogmas with the same, immutable sense (*eodem sensu eademque sententia*);
– hatred for heresy and error;
– defence of the rights of Christ the King and His Church against states, sects, and secret societies.
– Pius IX in the Syllabus, Pius X in *Pascendi*, Pius XI in *Quas Primas* do not present Mary as patroness of a “human family” of equal religions, but as Mother and Queen of the one true Church.
– The letter in question, while not explicitly modernist, perfectly fits the modernist method condemned by St. Pius X: preserve devotions, forms, and language, but detach them from dogmatic militancy, so that the faithful are lulled into an affective Catholicism compatible with doctrinal surrender.

3. The social Kingship of Christ:
– Pius XI taught with unambiguous clarity that peace and order come only from acknowledging Christ’s reign in private and public life; states must publicly venerate and obey Him, and legislation must conform to His law.
– In the mid-20th century, especially in Latin America, the advance of secularism, freemasonry, and communism demanded clear papal denunciations and calls for Catholic confessional order.
– Instead, in such documents, we see:
– no reminder of the duty of the Mexican authorities to recognize Christ the King,
– no condemnation of Masonic or liberal errors,
– no application of the Syllabus against the very forces subverting Catholic Mexico.
– The Marian Basilica is honoured, but the state’s apostasy and the Church’s enemies are not confronted. This is the essence of practical modernism: pious ceremony without supernatural combat.

Symptomatic Exposure: How a Short Decree Reveals the Conciliar Project

This letter, read through the lens of the integral Catholic faith, is not an isolated devotional nicety. It is emblematic of a method with four grave features:

1. Exploitation of Legitimate Devotions to Secure Obedience

By recognizing and honouring a beloved local shrine:

– The conciliar sect cements emotional loyalty among the faithful and clergy who still identify Catholicism with Rome’s external insignia.
– The Marian image, crowned by Pius X, becomes a collateral for the credit of John XXIII: if he honours “our” Virgin, he must be the same Catholic Roman Pontiff as his predecessors.
– This psychological mechanism disarms doctrinal vigilance. The faithful asked:
– not whether the teaching aligns with the Syllabus, *Pascendi*, *Quas Primas*,
– but whether the “pope” appears pious, gentle, Marian, smiling.
– Thus devotions are weaponized against doctrine. What should be ramparts of orthodoxy become sentimental bridges into the new religion.

2. Silence on Modernist and Masonic Threats

Integral magisterium before 1958:

– explicitly identifies secret societies and masonic forces as principal enemies of the Church (Pius IX, Leo XIII),
– names secularization, liberalism, indifferentism as mortal dangers,
– warns incessantly against doctrinal evolutionism and biblical criticism that dissolves the faith (Pius X, *Lamentabili*, *Pascendi*).

In this 1959 act:

– there is absolute silence about the ideological and spiritual war then raging:
– no mention of communism,
– no mention of laicism,
– no mention of freemasonry,
– no mention of modernist infiltration.
– The Church in Mexico, repeatedly attacked by liberal and Masonic forces, receives from this “authority” not the trumpet giving a certain sound, but ceremonious phrases and legal privileges.

Such silence is guilty. When wolves devour the flock, a shepherd who limits himself to aesthetic compliments of the sheepfold, without naming the wolves, manifests, at best, blindness; at worst, complicity.

3. Transformation of Ecclesial Acts into Pure Formalism

Pre-1958 juridical acts of the papacy:

– were ordered to the defence of the faith, sanctification of souls, and assertion of the Church’s divine constitution against usurping states and ideologies.
– Even recognitions of shrines or privileges were woven into a robust doctrinal discourse.

Here:

– The juridical act floats in a vacuum:
– It asserts its own perpetuity and authority,
– without rooting itself in a broader dogmatic reaffirmation against contemporary errors.
– This anticipates the conciliar game:
– promulgate texts saturated with legal-formal declarations,
– while injecting ambiguous or heterodox doctrinal principles (religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality),
– then demand unconditional obedience to the form, while the content corrodes the faith.

4. Piety Without Conversion: A Devotional Humanism

The letter commends popular piety but:

– does not summon the faithful to:
– frequent confession in the true sacrament,
– participation in the Most Holy Sacrifice according to the Roman rite venerably handed down,
– rejection of superstition, syncretism, or naturalistic nationalism,
– submission to all defined dogmas in their immutable meaning.
– It reads as if:
– the mere existence of an old church with a crowned image and precious ornaments,
– together with affective Marian devotion,
– sufficed as proof of healthy Catholic life.

This is a proto-conciliar spirituality: religion as cultural-religious identity, supported by emotions and symbols, fundamentally horizontal, easily harmonized with future ecumenism and religious liberty. It empties the Marian sword and leaves only the lace.

Contrast with Pre-1958 Magisterium: The Missing Notes

Measured against the integral doctrine of the popes consistently up to Pius XII, the deficiencies of this act are evident:

– Pius IX in the Syllabus uncompromisingly condemns:
– the equality of religions,
– the secular state,
– liberal indifferentism,
– subjecting the Church to civil power.
– St. Pius X declares war on Modernism and mandates the anti-modernist oath.
– Pius XI in *Quas Primas* insists on:
– the public, social reign of Christ,
– the duty of rulers and nations to submit to Him and His Church,
– denunciation of laicism as a mortal plague.
– Pius XII defends the sacrificial, propitiatory character of the Mass and warns against liturgical and doctrinal deformations.

In this 1959 letter:

– None of these lines is recalled, reinforced, or organically assumed.
– The Roman See, instead of using a Marian shrine as a bastion of doctrinal militancy, reduces it to a decorative “religionis domicilium,” tame and safe for the coming revolution.

The contrast is doctrinally decisive. Where authentic magisterium uses Marian cult as a sword against error, the conciliar project will use it as opium to tranquilize resistance.

Conclusion: A Velvet Glove Over the Iron Hand of Apostasy

This short apostolic letter is, in itself, a secondary act. Yet under the light of the integral Catholic faith and the pre-1958 magisterium, it becomes a revealing fragment of a larger design:

– A structure that:
– claims the legal and ceremonial forms of the papacy,
– refuses to speak and act with the doctrinal virility of Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XI,
– prepares the faithful to accept, in the name of “renewal,” precisely those errors their predecessors had anathematized.

By:

– praising Marian devotion without tying it explicitly to doctrinal intransigence;
– granting honours without calling to conversion, penance, and militant fidelity;
– invoking the authority of a predecessor who had condemned modernism while heading toward its rehabilitation;

this act participates in the spiritual deception of the “Church of the New Advent”: a neo-church that dresses itself in familiar garments only to introduce another gospel without openly tearing down the façade.

The shrine of Nuestra Señora de la Soledad, like countless other authentic devotions, belongs to the heritage of the true Church. But any attempt by the conciliar sect to appropriate such sanctuaries for its cult of man and its ecumenical religion must be exposed and rejected. Marian piety cannot legitimize a system that, in doctrine and practice, wages war on the Kingship of Christ, the exclusivity of the Catholic Church, and the immutable magisterium solemnly defended by the very popes it dares to name.

---

Source:
Religionis domicilium   (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025