“Salubri ducti”: Patronage Decrees in the Service of a Rising Pseudo-Magisterium
The Latin text issued under the name of John XXIII on 28 September 1960 (“Salubri ducti”) formally confirms St Joseph and St Michael the Archangel as “co-principal patrons” of the diocese of Toluca, and St Francis of Assisi, St John Mary Vianney, and St Isidore the Farmer as its “secondary patrons,” granting them the usual liturgical rights and privileges and nullifying all contrary provisions.
In itself seemingly pious and traditional, this brief act functions as a calculated use of venerable devotions to cloak and normalize the authority of the nascent conciliar usurpation and to bind true saints to a counterfeit ecclesial project.
Instrumentalizing Saints to Sanction an Illegitimate Authority
On the factual level, the document:
– Rehearses a traditional principle: the faithful choose heavenly patrons whose protection and example guide them toward virtue.
– Reports that the Toluca clergy and people, under Bishop Arturo Vélez Martínez, selected St Joseph and St Michael as principal patrons, and St Francis, St John Vianney, and St Isidore as secondary patrons.
– States that “John XXIII,” guided by the Sacred Congregation of Rites, confirms and declares these patrons with all liturgical rights, commanding the perpetual validity of this decree and nullity of anything contrary.
Precisely here lies the core problem: an act that appears to presuppose integral Catholic doctrine is in fact a juridical and symbolic maneuver by an intruder in the Apostolic See—part of the line that begins with John XXIII—to vest his pseudo-pontifical authority with the aura of St Joseph’s purity, St Michael’s victorious militancy, and the sanctity of great confessors.
Before 1958, the Church always understood that *lex orandi, lex credendi* (the law of prayer is the law of belief). Associating the liturgical and devotional life of a diocese with the name and signature of a manifest modernist usurper is not a neutral bureaucratic act. It is an attempt to make the eternal patrons of the Church appear as endorsers and ornaments of a revolutionary structure that would soon enthrone religious liberty, false ecumenism, and the cult of man in defiance of the Syllabus of Errors and the teaching on the Social Kingship of Christ defined and defended in *Quas Primas*.
This is not harmless piety; it is the subtle co-opting of Heaven’s friends into the public relations of the conciliar sect.
Traditional Vocabulary as a Mask for Doctrinal Subversion
Linguistically, “Salubri ducti” is crafted in a consciously pre-conciliar register: solemn Latin, invocations of celestial patrons, references to the *Sacra Rituum Congregatio*, and juridical formulas. This classical form is used to induce in the faithful a reflexive trust: “This sounds Catholic; therefore it is Catholic.”
Key elements:
– “Ad perpetuam rei memoriam” (for a perpetual remembrance): a formula traditionally marking serious papal acts; here exploited to give eschatological weight to an usurper’s intervention.
– “Certa scientia ac matura deliberatione… deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine” (with sure knowledge, mature deliberation, and from the fullness of apostolic power): phrases historically attached to genuine papal jurisdiction, now appropriated by one whose doctrinal orientation and subsequent acts betray rupture with the entire pre-1958 Magisterium.
– The decree formally attributes to itself enduring validity and declares anything contrary “irritum et inane” (null and void), a solemn self-assertion of authority.
This rhetoric is not innocent. It is the classic modernist tactic condemned by St Pius X in *Pascendi* and in the attached syllabus *Lamentabili sane exitu*: maintaining the external shell of Catholic language while infusing it with a new intention and using it to buttress an evolving, man-centred religion.
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith:
– A man who inaugurates and presides over a doctrinal revolution cannot invoke plenitudo potestatis (fullness of power) to bind the faithful without first demonstrating continuity with the deposit of faith as solemnly guarded by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII.
– The use of venerable forms to rubber-stamp non-essential acts (patron declarations) while simultaneously plotting or preparing the conciliar transformation is itself a symptom of the duplicity Pius X unmasked: outward respect for tradition as a mask for inward apostasy.
The tone is bureaucratically serene, antiseptically devotional, without the slightest hint of the apocalyptic combat pre-1958 popes recognized against Freemasonry, naturalism, socialism, and the modernist corruption of doctrine. It is the rhetoric of an administration that wants saints as emblems, not as warriors against the world’s errors.
Empty Piety without Doctrinal Combat: The Theological Vacuum
Theologically, what is most damning is not what the letter says, but what it conspicuously refuses to say.
The text:
– Praises patronage as a “wholesome” counsel aiding Christians in the trials of this life.
– Expresses the hope that “from this manifold heavenly patronage” graces may flow and Catholic life may increase in Toluca.
Yet the letter:
– Says nothing of *the necessity of the state of grace*, of penance, of the *Most Holy Sacrifice* as propitiatory, or of the danger of damnation.
– Says nothing of *the Social Kingship of Christ*, though St Michael and St Joseph are invoked precisely as defenders of the divine order against rebellious nations and corrupt powers.
– Says nothing of *modern errors*: naturalism, indifferentism, liberalism, socialism, Freemasonry—errors forcefully denounced in the Syllabus of Errors and in pre-1958 encyclicals.
– Says nothing of *the enemies inside the Church*: those Pius X calls the “most dangerous” modernists, dwelling in the very veins of the ecclesial body.
– Says nothing of the duty of pastors to defend the flock against precisely the revolutionary trends that “John XXIII” himself will endorse and bless through the calling of the council that unleashed the conciliar sect.
This silence is not incidental. It is a calculated omission. At a moment (1960) when:
– The anti-Christian forces castigated by Pius IX as the “synagogue of Satan” (the masonic networks undermining altar and throne) had already infiltrated the highest levels of churchmen.
– The doctrinal foundations of religious liberty, ecumenical relativism, and collegial democratization were being carefully prepared.
A truly Catholic Roman Pontiff, confirming St Michael as patron of a diocese, would have seized the opportunity to:
– Call the faithful to militant rejection of liberal errors (cf. Syllabus 15–18, 55, 77–80).
– Exhort to the restoration of Christ’s public reign (*Quas Primas*: peace is only possible in the Kingdom of Christ).
– Warn against modernist exegesis and the evolution of dogma already anathematized by *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*.
– Condemn the infiltration of secret societies and naturalistic ideologies into political and ecclesial life.
Instead, we have a sterile, “safe” devotional decree: saints are evoked without their mission as doctrinal warriors, and their patronage is conscripted to support a structure that will shortly enthrone the very errors they oppose.
This is consummate modernist praxis: sentimental piety without supernatural clarity, invocation of saints without confessing the integral faith, heavenly names annexed to an earthly revolution.
Co-opting St Michael and St Joseph for the Conciliar Agenda
The choice of patrons is, in itself, impeccable. But under the sign of an antipope, it becomes deeply ambivalent, even perverse.
– St Michael is the prince of the heavenly host, the one who cries “Quis ut Deus” (“Who is like unto God”) and casts down Lucifer and his angels. Pre-1958 popes explicitly identified the masonic, liberal, and socialist attacks on the Church as instigated by precisely those demonic powers.
– St Joseph, universal patron of the Church, is the model of silence, obedience, custody of the Redeemer, and protector of purity and the divine order.
Yet in “Salubri ducti”:
– There is no appeal to St Michael’s militant defence of the Church against her internal betrayers and external conspirators.
– There is no commissioning of St Joseph as protector of the Church’s doctrinal integrity against the evolutionist, democratizing, protestantizing trends already gestating in the conciliar project.
– Instead, their names are drafted into a legal formula issued by the very regime that will open the doors to interreligious syncretism, the dethronement of Christ the King from public life, and the acceptance of condemned principles of liberalism.
This is an attempt to weaponize the trust of the faithful: if St Michael and St Joseph are named by this “pope,” then resisting his later conciliar program will feel to many like resisting the patrons themselves. The saints are used as hostages to legitimize institutional apostasy.
Pre-1958 doctrine, however, refuses such manipulation. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation) has always implied that saints cannot be legitimately invoked to endorse a structure that systematically contradicts defined dogma. St Michael’s loyalty is to Christ the King and His unchanging doctrine, not to the “Church of the New Advent.” St Joseph’s guardianship is over the true Mystical Body, not a paramasonic parody.
The Legal Formulas as Claim of Jurisdiction by a Manifest Revolutionary
On the juridical level, the letter uses the strongest canonical language:
– It asserts *certain knowledge*, *mature deliberation*, and *plenitude of apostolic power*.
– It declares the decree *perpetually* firm, valid, and effective.
– It proclaims all contrary acts *null and void* from that moment.
But a fundamental Catholic principle—reaffirmed by the theologians cited in the Defense of Sedevacantism document—is that a manifest heretic or one who inaugurates a new religion cannot possess papal jurisdiction. St Robert Bellarmine’s theological axiom, paraphrased accurately, is explicit: a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church and therefore cannot be its head. Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code articulates that public defection from the faith vacates ecclesiastical office by the very fact.
While the present letter does not itself enunciate an explicit heresy in its text, it must be read:
– In the context of its author’s role in convening and encouraging a council that would enthrone propositions condemned by Pius IX and St Pius X.
– Within the trajectory of the “conciliar sect,” which systematically contradicts prior Magisterium on religious liberty, ecumenism, the nature of the Church, and the Social Kingship of Christ.
Thus, this act is a juridical performance: a seizure of papal language and forms to establish normality and continuity. It attempts to say: “See, nothing has changed. We confirm patrons, we use Latin, we cite the Congregation of Rites.” But this very use is deceptive when the same authority is preparing to violate the Syllabus and neutralize *Quas Primas* in practice.
Fraus latet in generalibus (fraud lurks in generalities): a short, apparently innocuous decree is part of a larger strategy to maintain the façade of tradition while the foundations are being removed.
Symptom of the Conciliar Sect’s Method: Sanctity Without Conversion of Nations
Viewed symptomatically, “Salubri ducti” reveals key traits of the conciliar revolution:
1. Naturalistic, horizontal focus concealed under spiritual language.
– The decree speaks of “heavenly patronage” so that “Catholic affairs may grow there with new advances.” Yet nowhere is there mention that states, laws, and public institutions must submit to Christ the King, as Pius XI demands.
– The underlying assumption aligns with condemned liberalism: religion as one sector of private or diocesan life, not as the sovereign principle that binds rulers and nations to God’s law.
2. Devotion decoupled from dogma.
– Saints are honored, but their doctrinal and disciplinary severity is removed.
– St John Vianney, who thundered against indifferentism and the neglect of the Sunday obligation, is reduced to a decorative secondary patron in a system that will later trivialize the priesthood and the confessional.
3. Use of patronage to integrate dioceses into the neo-church’s self-understanding.
– By having Toluca’s patron saints “confirmed” explicitly under the authority of John XXIII, the diocese is stamped as belonging to the new orientation.
– The populace is psychologically trained to see every Catholic symbol as organically linked with the conciliar leadership; any future resistance to that leadership can then be framed as resistance to the saints and to “the Church.”
4. Omission of militant anti-modernist posture.
– No echo of *Lamentabili*’s condemnation of the evolution of dogma.
– No reiteration of the Syllabus’s rejection of religious indifferentism and liberalism.
– No link with Pius XI’s insistence that public life must honor Christ the King.
– This silence in 1960 is itself an indictment: they are already acting as if the previously condemned principles will soon be “rehabilitated.”
In sum, this text is a small tile in the mosaic of the “Church of the New Advent”: traditional in form, modernist in strategy, ordered to consolidating the authority of an antichristian reorientation under the borrowed garments of Catholic sanctity.
The Betrayal of St Michael’s Combat and St Joseph’s Guardianship
If read with Catholic eyes formed by the pre-1958 Magisterium, the contrast is stark:
– Pius IX unmasks the masonic sects and liberal states as instruments of the “synagogue of Satan,” openly confronting the enemies who conspire to destroy the Church.
– St Pius X, in *Pascendi* and the condemnations gathered in *Lamentabili*, denounces modernists inside the Church who, under cover of scholarship and pastoral concern, seek to dissolve dogma, Revelation, and the supernatural character of the Church.
– Pius XI in *Quas Primas* reminds that unless individuals and states recognize and submit to the Kingdom of Christ, true peace and order are impossible; he explicitly condemns laicism and secularism.
“Salubri ducti” invokes St Michael—heavenly warrior against Satan—and St Joseph—guardian of the universal Church—without any such clarity or battle-cry. Under the sign of a usurper:
– St Michael’s sword is sheathed in the text, precisely when the conciliar revolution is about to unleash a doctrinal disarmament.
– St Joseph’s guardianship is claimed by those who will expose the flock to wolves in shepherds’ clothing.
This is a grotesque inversion: the protectors of the Holy Family and the Militant Church are ceremonially subordinated to the political and theological agenda of those preparing to turn the visible structures into a “paramasonic structure” where religious liberty, ecumenism, and anthropocentric liturgy reign.
Conclusion: Pious Facades Cannot Sanctify Structural Apostasy
The letter “Salubri ducti” is brief, polished, and apparently orthodox in its immediate content. Yet:
– It presupposes the legitimacy of the post-1958 line whose doctrinal and practical program stands in essential opposition to the unchanging Catholic theology defined before 1958.
– It uses beloved saints as symbolic guarantees of continuity, while their names are silently annexed to an enterprise that will, in practice, reject the Syllabus, downplay *Quas Primas*, neutralize anti-modernist condemnations, and enthrone a man-centred religion.
– It exemplifies the modernist tactic unmasked by St Pius X: retaining formulas, altering meaning, and exploiting devotional reflexes of the faithful to mask revolution.
Authentic devotion to St Joseph, St Michael, St Francis, St John Vianney, and St Isidore requires precisely the opposite of what this text, in context, serves: it requires an uncompromising return to the integral Catholic faith, rejection of the “conciliar sect,” and renewed confession that Christ is King not only of hearts, but of societies, laws, and public life, as taught infallibly before 1958.
No amount of pious phraseology or patronage decrees can confer true apostolic authority upon a structure that systematically undermines the faith once delivered to the saints. The saints do not belong to the neo-church. They remain witnesses against it.
Source:
Salubri ducti (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025