The Latin text published under the name of John XXIII, entitled “Religionis domicilium,” is a brief decree by which the Mexican shrine of the Blessed Virgin Mary of the Seven Sorrows, commonly called “Nuestra Señora de la Soledad” in Oaxaca (Antequera), is elevated to the rank of Minor Basilica. It recalls the crowning of the image authorized by St. Pius X in 1909 and, invoking “Apostolic” authority, grants the title, rights, and privileges associated with basilicas to this church, declaring all contrary acts null.
Marian Vocabulary as a Cloak for the Conciliar Revolution
The text appears, at first glance, as a pious, even traditional, proclamation: Latin form, Marian devotion, reference to St. Pius X, solemn legal style, bestowal of liturgical privileges. Yet precisely this combination unmasks its deeper perversity: under the respectable externals of pre-conciliar Catholicism, the very architect of the impending conciliar disaster consolidates his usurped authority, instrumentalizes an ancient Marian shrine to legitimize his regime, and habituates clergy and faithful to obedience toward a new religion preparing to enthrone man and expel the social Kingship of Christ.
The issue is not the shrine, nor the authentic popular devotion to the Sorrowful Virgin; it is the use of Marian piety as a liturgical-political anesthetic to conceal the transfer of jurisdiction from the true Catholic Magisterium to the emerging conciliar sect.
Canonical Form, Subverted Authority: The False Claim of “Apostolic” Power
The central self-assertion of the document is its pseudo-pontifical formula:
“certa scientia ac matura deliberatione Nostra deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine” (“with Our certain knowledge and mature deliberation and by the fullness of Apostolic power”).
Here lies the first and gravest problem:
– Pre-1958 Catholic doctrine holds with metaphysical clarity: Non christianus, non papa (“one who is not a Christian cannot be pope”). This is not a slogan but a doctrinal axiom: he who is not a member cannot be head.
– St. Robert Bellarmine: a manifest heretic ceases by that fact to be pope and head, as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the Church. He insists that manifest heretics are already outside the Church, deprived of all jurisdiction.
– Classical canon law (1917 CIC, can. 188 §4) affirms that public defection from the faith triggers automatic, tacit resignation of ecclesiastical office.
– John XXIII, elected after the death of Pius XII, will soon convoke and preside over the revolutionary council that enthrones collegiality, religious liberty, ecumenism, and the cult of man—positions explicitly condemned by Pius IX’s Syllabus, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Pius XI. His line is therefore, in its roots and fruits, incompatible with the integral doctrine that defines a Catholic.
From the perspective of integral Catholic theology, one cannot attribute plenitudo potestatis (the fullness of Apostolic power) to a man who initiates and embodies the very system of errors anathematized by his predecessors. The solemn style of “Religionis domicilium” does not create authority; it presupposes it. And where manifest doctrinal rupture exists, that presupposition fails.
Thus, every juridical clause in the letter (“we establish,” “we decree,” “we declare null and void”) is canonically vacuous: it rests on a usurped office. The shrine itself does not cause scandal; the claimed signer does.
Invocation of St. Pius X: Parasite on the Memory of the Anti-Modernist Pope
One of the most revealing lines is the recollection:
“Sanctus Pius PP. X… concessit, ut idem simulacrum suo nomine et auctoritate aurea redimiretur corona” — Saint Pius X granted that the same image be crowned in his name and with his authority.
This juxtaposition is not innocent.
– St. Pius X, author of Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi, anathematized Modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies,” condemned the subordination of doctrine to historical relativism, denounced the very tendencies later canonized by the conciliar sect.
– The usurper regime strategically wraps itself in references to St. Pius X to fabricate a sense of continuity, the so-called “hermeneutic of continuity,” which is nothing but a rhetorical instrument of deception: using the vocabulary and figures of true Catholicism to smuggle in a new religion.
By grounding the decree in Pius X’s prior crowning, John XXIII’s text parasitically exploits the authority of the anti-Modernist pontificate to authenticate his own. This is precisely the method of the conciliar revolution: retain the shell (names, devotions, some rubrics) while emptying the substance (exclusive truth, doctrinal fixity, the Social Reign of Christ) and inverting authority.
The shrine’s history and the crowning by a true pope are objectively good. But when a future architect of apostasy stands upon that foundation to present his signature as the organic continuation of Pius X, the maneuver becomes morally poisonous.
Factual Layer: Pious Details without Supernatural Demands
The document lists several factual points:
– Ancient and intense popular devotion to the Sorrowful Virgin at Oaxaca.
– Authorisation of the canonical coronation (1909) by St. Pius X.
– Growth of “Marian religion” and Catholic life in the region.
– Architectural dignity, precious ornaments, and sacred furnishings of the shrine.
– Petition by Archbishop Fortino Gómez León for Minor Basilica status.
– Granting of the title and juridical privileges.
None of these, taken in themselves, are problematic; they are consistent with traditional praxis. Precisely here lies the danger: the faithful are trained to assume that where such elements appear, the authority behind them must be Catholic.
But there are telling omissions:
– No mention of the Most Holy Sacrifice as propitiatory, nor emphasis on confession, state of grace, or conversion from sin as conditions to benefit from Marian intercession.
– No reminder that all Marian privilege exists solely in relation to Christ’s Kingship and the unique salvific mission of the Catholic Church.
– No insistence on the exclusive truth and necessity of the Catholic faith in a region ravaged by Freemasonry, liberalism, syncretism, and revolutionary ideologies.
The silence is not accidental; it is programmatic. Marian devotion is affirmed as cultural-religious heritage, emotionally rich, aesthetically notable, yet not explicitly tied to the hard edges of dogma, moral law, and the demand for conversion. This anticipates the conciliar method: retain devotions but declaw them, turning them into sentimental, inclusive symbols rather than weapons against error and sin.
Linguistic Layer: Smooth Legalism Masking the Appropriation of the Sacred
The rhetoric deserves close examination. Key features:
– Formal solemnity: “Ad perpetuam rei memoriam,” “certa scientia,” “matura deliberatione,” “plenitudine,” “firmas, validas atque efficaces”. This is the linguistic register of authentic papal acts; here it is reutilized by one who will inaugurate a doctrinal rupture.
– Laudatory but horizontal emphasis: repeated stress on pietas, “ardent devotion,” antique beauty, precious objects, people’s attachment—without corresponding doctrinal sharpness.
– Juridical maximalism: sweeping nullity clause—everything contrary to this decree is “irritum… et inane” if attempted by anyone, of any authority, knowingly or unknowingly.
This last clause is especially ironic and revealing.
– The text claims for the usurper an absolute immunity and efficacy, precisely while the same historical person will open the doors to doctrines explicitly condemned by Pius IX’s Syllabus and St. Pius X. It is legalistic thunder without metaphysical lightning.
– The conciliar sect habitually deploys such formularies as if sacramental: believing that the mechanical repetition of traditional legal language can confer legitimacy upon a counterfeit magisterium.
The style is that of the Catholic Church; the underlying intent and future trajectory are not. Thus the language itself becomes an instrument of deception: a counterfeit currency minted with the image of pre-1958 papacy to finance the construction of a new religion.
Theological Layer: Marian Devotion Detached from the Reign of Christ the King
From the vantage of integral doctrine, authentic Marian acts must be:
– Christocentric: oriented to the unique mediation and Kingship of Christ.
– Ecclesial: affirming the one true Church as necessary ark of salvation.
– Anti-modernist: fortifying the faithful against indifferentism, naturalism, and rationalism.
Pius XI, in Quas primas, teaches with adamant clarity that peace and order are possible only when individuals and states publicly recognize and submit to Christ’s Kingship; the Church must demand freedom and supremacy in matters of faith and morals; and secularist exclusion of Christ is branded “public apostasy”. Marian cult, in Catholic tradition, is subordinate to this royal dominion: the Virgin leads souls to obey Christ’s law and to confess His reign over nations.
“Religionis domicilium” never once:
– recalls that the shrine, its privileges, and its graces exist to draw Mexico away from anti-Catholic liberalism, Freemason revolutions, and syncretism, back under the social reign of Christ;
– invokes the necessity of the Catholic religion as the one true faith;
– warns against modern errors condemned in the Syllabus, Lamentabili, or Pascendi;
– calls civil authority to protect and honor this Marian center as part of the kingship of Christ.
Instead, the shrine is treated primarily as a “home of religion,” adorned, frequented, favored—a devotional jewel. It is theologically reduced to a sacred space of affective piety and aesthetic distinction, without a clear mandate to combat the errors devouring Mexico and the world.
This silence is accusatory:
– In a century already ravaged by socialism, laicism, protestant sects, Freemasonry (explicitly unmasked as the “synagogue of Satan” by Pius IX), and modernist theology, a genuinely Catholic supreme pastor could not just decorate; he would arm.
– A document tied to Marian sorrow (“Perdolentis”) ought to echo the sorrow of the Mother over sin, heresy, and the loss of souls; instead, we find bureaucratic solemnity and harmonious applause.
Qui tacet consentire videtur (“He who is silent is seen to consent”). In the face of rampant errors already condemned by the pre-1958 Magisterium, such silence about the supernatural stakes—state of grace, hell, judgment, necessity of the true Church—betrays a new mentality: religion as patrimony and sentiment, not as absolute supernatural order binding all men and nations.
Symptomatic Layer: A Prototype of the Conciliar Method
This short decree is not an isolated curiosity; it is an early, crystalline specimen of the method by which the conciliar structures occupying the Vatican operate:
1. Continuity of externals:
– Latin, chanceries, seals, invocations of the Blessed Virgin and saints, references to prior popes.
– Apparent respect for traditional devotions and popular piety.
2. Internal mutation of authority:
– The same signatures that will soon introduce religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, and liturgical revolution present themselves here as guardians of Marian devotion.
– Acceptance of such acts by clergy and faithful builds the practical obedience network through which later doctrinal novelties are imposed.
3. Reduction of supernatural militancy:
– Devotions are encouraged, but their integral content is muted.
– No direct clash with modern errors; no explicit anathema; no anti-liberal, anti-Masonic, anti-indifferentist edge so central to Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII.
4. Preparation of a “Marian” alibi:
– By decorating a shrine of Our Lady of Sorrows, the usurper line can later pose as defenders of Marian piety.
– Marian language is exploited to sedate consciences: how could the same authority that crowns statues and grants basilica titles be also the architect of apostasy? That psychological dissonance becomes the shield of the revolution.
In other words, “Religionis domicilium” is a textbook case of how the conciliar sect colonizes genuinely Catholic realities: it does not at first attack them; it embraces, blesses, and elevates them under its control, thereby transforming them into instruments of its counterfeit authority.
Instrumentalization of Local Hierarchy and the False Security of Legal Obedience
The petition of Archbishop Fortino Gómez León and the enthusiastic response of clergy and faithful demonstrate another pattern: the post-1958 structures thrive on habituated obedience to whatever emanates from “Rome,” irrespective of doctrinal continuity.
– The archbishop petitions one he believes to be a true pope; the faithful rejoice; acts are celebrated in good faith.
– Objectively, however, this dynamic binds legitimate devotions and sincere Catholics to the authority-network of the conciliar sect, which will later demand their submission to:
– false ecumenism (denounced beforehand by Pius XI in Mortalium animos),
– religious liberty as a public right for error (condemned in the Syllabus),
– liturgical innovations that deform the theology of the Sacrifice.
This demonstrates why integral Catholic theology insists that authority is not a sociological fact but a theological reality: once the See is effectively occupied by those who propagate condemned doctrines, their jurisdictional acts, however pious in appearance, are tools of usurpation.
To be clear:
– The faithful attachment to Nuestra Señora de la Soledad is not evil; on the contrary, authentic Marian devotion is a channel of grace.
– The evil consists in chaining that devotion to the signatures and seals of those who are constructing a new religion and using such acts to normalize their regime.
The Gravity of Omissions: No Warning Against Modernist Poison
The most damning evidence of the spirit animating this letter is not what it says, but what it systematically refuses to say, in a time when:
– Modernism, condemned as “the synthesis of all heresies”, persists in seminaries and theological faculties.
– Freemasonry and revolutionary sects wage organized war against Church and throne, especially in Latin America.
– Indifferentism spreads, leading souls to believe that any religion suffices.
– Political powers cement secular states divorced from Christ the King.
Genuine pre-1958 papal teaching—Pius IX’s Quanta cura, the Syllabus, Leo XIII’s encyclicals on the Christian constitution of states, St. Pius X’s Pascendi, Pius XI’s Quas primas—would never allow a solemn act touching a major shrine to abstain totally from:
– affirming the exclusive truth of the Catholic Church,
– denouncing contemporary errors,
– summoning civil and ecclesiastical authorities to subject themselves to Christ the King,
– warning the faithful about the eternal stakes: salvation or damnation.
The letter’s total silence on these essential themes is not accidental. It reveals a nascent “pastoral” style that will be codified at the council: speak warmly of devotion, identity, culture, and “religion,” but avoid the divisive absolutes of dogma, condemnation, and the rights of Christ over nations.
This omission is, in the order of supernatural justice, a grave fault. To adorn a shrine and withhold the hard truths necessary for the salvation of its pilgrims is to risk making Marian piety a sentimental sedative rather than a summons to repentance.
Conclusion: A Soft-Edged Decree as a Hard Sign of Usurpation
“Religionis domicilium” is, taken superficially, a harmless, even edifying document: it exalts Our Lady, recognizes an ancient sanctuary, uses noble Latin, and echoes the style of earlier ages. Precisely by this, it is an effective instrument of the conciliar project:
– It fuses genuine Marian devotion with obedience to a line of authority that will soon overturn the condemned errors of liberalism and Modernism into official policy.
– It accustoms Catholics to see no contradiction between anti-modernist predecessors and a regime marching in the opposite direction, because both “speak Marian.”
– It deploys the full juridical solemnity of papal acts to mask the absence of the one thing that gives such solemnity its force: adherence to the integral, immutable Catholic faith.
The church of Nuestra Señora de la Soledad remains an authentic place where souls can invoke the Sorrowful Virgin. But the letter that raises it to a Minor Basilica under the signature of John XXIII must be read as a symptom and a warning: the conciliar sect does not destroy tradition only by open rupture; it captures it, seals it, and uses it as the gilded scabbard for a blade aimed at the heart of the Church.
Roma locuta est (“Rome has spoken”) once meant the end of dispute because Rome professed the same faith “quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus” (what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all). When those occupying Rome bless, crown, and decree while simultaneously preparing to enthrone doctrines anathematized by their predecessors, the faithful must discern: not every Latin seal is Catholic, and not every Marian smile is free from the shadow of betrayal.
Source:
Religionis domicilium, Litterae Apostolicae Basilicae Minoris Honoribus Privilegiisque Decoratur Ecclesia B. Mariae V. Perdolentis, Vulgo « Nuestra Señora De La Soledad » Appellatae, In Urbe Et Arciii… (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025