The text under consideration is a brief Latin decree in which John XXIII, invoking apostolic authority, proclaims the Blessed Virgin Mary under the title “of the Most Holy Rosary of Río Blanco” as principal heavenly patroness of the conciliar diocese of Jujuy, confirming to this cult all the usual liturgical rights of diocesan patrons and nullifying any contrary dispositions.
Liturgical Marian Devotion as a Veil for the Conciliar Usurpation
At first glance, this document appears harmless: a simple recognition of an existing Marian devotion and its elevation to diocesan patronage. However, read in the full light of *immutabilis doctrina* (unchangeable doctrine) and the historical reality of 1960, it is precisely this seemingly pious, minimalist gesture that reveals the method of the conciliar revolution: hiding the demolition of the Church behind a thin, sentimental Marian varnish, while the foundations of faith, worship, and authority are being subverted.
The name on this act is John XXIII, the first usurper in the post-1958 line occupying Rome. Consequently, this letter must be examined not as an act of the Catholic papacy, but as a juridically null initiative of a man who had already placed himself on the path of the very errors solemnly condemned by the pre-1958 Magisterium. The sweet tone of Marian patronage serves as cover for a deeper betrayal.
Factual Surface: A Seemingly Traditional Gesture without Substance
Factual content, stripped of rhetoric:
– It states that the faithful of Jujuy honour the Blessed Virgin Mary under the title “a Sacratissimo Rosario de Fluvio Albo.”
– It notes a sanctuary at Río Blanco frequented by the faithful.
– It reports that Enrique Muhn, “bishop” of Jujuy, with the clergy and people, requested official recognition of this title as principal patroness.
– John XXIII, “desiring to increase this praiseworthy devotion,” decrees Mary under that title as principal heavenly patroness of the entire diocese, granting the usual liturgical rights and privileges.
– It invokes the classic formulae of “certa scientia,” “matura deliberatio,” the fullness of “apostolic” power, and declares all contrary dispositions null.
On the surface, nothing here openly denies a dogma or praises an error. This is exactly the problem. In 1960:
– The aggiornamento project preparing Vatican II was already underway under John XXIII.
– The entire apparatus was being reoriented toward religious liberty, ecumenism, and the cult of man—positions explicitly condemned by Pius IX’s Syllabus Errorum and by the constant Magisterium.
– The real Catholic response to modern apostasy—namely, public reaffirmation of the social kingship of Christ (Pius XI, Quas Primas), condemnation of liberalism, Modernism, and Freemasonry (Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X)—was being practically silenced.
Against this background, a liturgical gesture about a local Marian patronage functions as a cosmetic operation: it simulates continuity in externals while the doctrinal core is being evacuated. From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, such acts are devoid of binding force and are spiritually ambiguous, because they attach Catholic forms to a parallel, non-Catholic authority.
Rhetorical Cloak: Traditional Latin Formulae as Instruments of Deception
The language of the letter deliberately mimics pre-1958 papal style:
– The opening “Ad perpetuam rei memoriam” echoes authentic pontifical acts.
– It speaks of “singular zeal” of the faithful, “Alma Dei Parens,” “Beatissima Virgo Maria,” pilgrimage, spiritual fruits, “sacrarium,” and formulæ of perpetual validity.
– It uses classical juridical clausulae: decrees to remain “firm, valid, and effective,” and declares any contrary attempts “irritum et inane” (null and void).
This is not innocent. It is the method of the conciliar sect from its inception: preserve external linguistic vestments while in practice dissolving the very doctrinal content those forms once protected.
Two points stand out on the linguistic level:
1. Absolute focus on horizontal devotional sentiment:
– The text emphasises the “singular devotion” of the people and their affective Marian piety.
– There is no mention of:
– the necessity of remaining in the one true Church,
– the obligation to profess the integral Catholic faith intact,
– the Most Holy Sacrifice as the heart of Marian and diocesan life,
– the reign of Christ the King over civil society.
– Silence about these realities in an official act is not neutral. It habituates the faithful to a Catholicism of feelings and local customs detached from doctrine and from the universal claims of the Kingship of Christ.
2. Inflation of usurped authority:
– John XXIII speaks “de Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine,” yet his regime was already orienting itself toward positions irreconcilable with prior condemnations.
– Authentic apostolic fullness cannot coexist with the programmatic undermining of the very doctrinal condemnations that define the Church over against the world. Non potest idem simul et idem non esse (the same thing cannot both be and not be at the same time).
Thus, the language serves to confer a fictitious Catholic legitimacy upon an authority that, by embracing condemned principles, has morally forfeited the claim to represent the Church of Christ.
Theological Dislocation: Marian Patronage without the Reign of Christ the King
From the integral Catholic standpoint, every authentic Marian act is inseparably Christocentric and ecclesial in the strict sense:
– Mary is honoured as Mother of God, destroyer of all heresies, inseparable from the Cross and the Sacrifice of the altar.
– Her authentic cult leads infallibly:
– to the confession of the Catholic faith in its entirety,
– to obedience to the perennial Magisterium,
– to recognition of Christ’s social Kingship.
Compare this with the presentation in the letter:
– Mary is proclaimed patroness of a diocese embedded in a rapidly secularising state and in a world increasingly dominated by condemned errors (liberalism, laicism, socialism, masonic influence).
– Not a single word:
– that the State and society must submit to the law of Christ and the authority of the true Church (Pius XI, Quas Primas),
– that false religions, indifferentism, and naturalism are mortal spiritual poisons (Pius IX, Syllabus),
– that Freemasonry is the sworn enemy of the Church (Leo XIII, multiple encyclicals; Pius IX explicitly connects the “synagogue of Satan” to the sects assaulting the Church, see the file text).
Instead, the letter presents Marian patronage as a closed devotional circle: pious crowds, local sanctuary, liturgical honours. This is theologically insufficient and dangerous, because:
– It instrumentalizes Mary as a regional emblem safe for the secular order, detached from the militant and doctrinal dimension of her role.
– It inures the faithful to a Marianism that coexists peacefully with public apostasy, ecumenism, and the denial of Christ’s royal rights over nations.
Authentic pre-1958 Magisterium does the opposite:
– Pius XI in Quas Primas teaches unequivocally that peace and order are impossible unless Christ reigns socially, and the nations recognise His law.
– Pius IX in the Syllabus condemns as error the separation of Church and State (prop. 55), religious indifferentism (15–18), the subordination of the Church to civil power (19–27).
– St. Pius X in Pascendi and in the condemnation Lamentabili sane exitu denounces precisely the relativisation of dogma, historicism, and the naturalisation of the faith that the conciliar project would soon adopt.
Measured against this standard, a “papal” act that formally honours Our Lady while structurally ignoring the battle lines drawn by the prior Magisterium is not Catholic renewal; it is a sedative.
Symptom of the Conciliar System: Pious Forms Serving a New Religion
This letter is a textbook specimen of how the conciliar sect operates:
1. Continuity of externals:
– Latin, Marian devotion, diocesan patronage, formulas of perpetual validity.
– These are calculated to reassure the faithful: nothing has changed; Rome remains Marian.
2. Mutation of substance:
– The real magisterial energy of John XXIII’s regime is directed not toward reaffirming the Syllabus, Quanta Cura, Pascendi, Quas Primas, but toward convening and steering a council that will embrace:
– religious liberty in the liberal sense,
– false ecumenism,
– collegiality and the democraticisation of Church structures,
– a practical recognition of non-Catholic religions.
– All of these were explicitly anathematized or condemned in their principles by the pre-1958 Magisterium.
3. Deployment of Marian acts as cover:
– By granting patronage titles and encouraging devotions, the usurper provides “Catholic optics” while simultaneously preparing to overturn Catholic doctrine in practice.
– Devotion is detached from dogma, turning Mary into a spiritual mascot rather than the terror of demons and bulwark of doctrinal integrity.
The file “False Fatima Apparitions” already presents how pseudo-Marian operations can be exploited as psychological and symbolic instruments within wider manipulations. While this particular letter treats a local devotion, the structure is similar: employ Marian language as a shield while redirecting the faithful away from the central threat—modernist apostasy within pseudo-Catholic structures.
The Void of Supernatural Seriousness: Omissions that Condemn
The gravity of this text lies less in what it says than in what it systematically does not say.
In authentic Catholic teaching, especially in times of crisis, one expects Marian acts to be explicitly framed within:
– the call to conversion from sin,
– insistence on the state of grace, confession, penance,
– fidelity to the one true Church outside of which there is no salvation,
– warning against heresy, schism, naturalism, Freemasonry,
– affirmation of the unique salvific mediation of Christ and His Church.
None of this appears. Instead, we find:
– no call to repentance,
– no doctrinal admonition,
– no assertion of the objective necessity of the Catholic faith,
– no reference to the Most Holy Sacrifice as centre of life of the diocesan Church,
– no proclamation of Christ’s rights over civil society.
This silence is not a mere “genre limitation.” In the context of 1960, when the enemies condemned by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Pius XI had deeply penetrated political structures and ecclesiastical circles, such anodyne piety is itself a betrayal. Silet ubi loqui oportet, consentire videtur (he who is silent where he ought to speak seems to consent).
Illegitimacy of Authority: When a Usurper Invokes “Apostolic Power”
A central issue must be addressed directly: can a man who publicly inaugurates and promotes principles condemned as heretical or proximate to heresy claim the prerogatives of Apostolic authority?
Pre-1958 doctrine provides the necessary criteria:
– St. Robert Bellarmine, as recalled in the “Defense of Sedevacantism” file, affirms that a manifest heretic ceases ipso facto to be Pope; he cannot be head of the Church because he is no longer a member.
– Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code: the public defection from the Catholic faith causes an office to fall vacant by tacit resignation, ipso facto, without any declaration, when the defection is manifest.
– The constant teaching summarized by theologians: one who openly embraces condemned doctrines, or systematically works to enthrone them, separates himself from the Church’s visible unity.
John XXIII’s program prepares precisely those positions the prior Magisterium had fought:
– He rehabilitated and advanced theologians and currents previously censured for Modernism or its derivatives.
– He explicitly signalled a “new orientation,” softening and historicising solemn condemnations that, according to Catholic doctrine, admitted no reversal.
– He convoked a council not to reaffirm and apply the anti-liberal condemnations, but to reconcile with the very ideas condemned by Pius IX and his successors.
Therefore, when such a man signs:
“certa scientia ac matura deliberatione Nostra, deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine…”
this is, objectively, an abuse of formula; the internal self-ascription does not create what is absent in reality. From the standpoint of integral Catholic theology, his acts have:
– no binding force;
– no guarantee of supernatural authority;
– at best, the character of materially imitating Catholic actions while formally proceeding from a null or usurped jurisdiction.
Consequently, even a seemingly orthodox decree of Marian patronage must be recognised as part of the façade of a parallel structure—what can rightly be called the conciliar sect or Church of the New Advent. To adhere uncritically to such acts is to be slowly habituated to accept as Catholic an authority that systematically undermines the faith.
Devotional Paralysis: Marianism without Militant Catholicity
By reducing an episcopal request and a Roman response to the registration of a local patroness, this document contributes to a broader phenomenon:
– The faithful are encouraged to continue processions, shrines, local feasts.
– Meanwhile, they are not armed intellectually or doctrinally against:
– indifferentism,
– socialism and communism,
– Freemasonry and revolutionary sects,
– the creeping naturalism that denies Christ’s kingship over public life.
Contrast this with the pre-1958 papal teaching (as seen in the Syllabus excerpt):
– The Popes did not hesitate to name enemies, doctrines, and sects.
– They insisted that civil laws and constitutions must be subject to divine and natural law.
– They condemned the separation of Church and State, the monopoly of the State over education, relativized “freedom of cults,” and liberal press dogmas.
In the light of these, the studied mildness of this 1960 text is itself damning. It suggests a redefinition of the papal role from guardian and avenger of divine rights to ceremonial confirmer of regional devotions. The sword of Peter is replaced by a ribbon-cutting at a Marian sanctuary.
Conclusion: Pious Words in the Service of an Alien Project
This letter offers a paradigm of the conciliar method:
– It uses orthodox vocabulary, Marian piety, and traditional canonical formulae.
– It entirely omits the militant, doctrinal, anti-liberal, anti-modernist clarity of the pre-1958 Magisterium.
– It presents the usurper as exercising full apostolic authority while his regime prepares to enthrone principles explicitly condemned as errors and, in some cases, heresies.
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, the verdict is clear:
– The act, being issued by one who launched the conciliar revolution, is devoid of legitimate papal authority.
– Its Marian content, while not materially heretical, is co-opted into a strategy that dulls the sensus fidei, substitutes sentiment for doctrine, and masks the rise of a paramasonic neo-church.
– The omission of any reference to Christ’s social kingship, to the condemnations of liberalism and modernism, and to the sacramental and dogmatic conditions of true devotion exposes its inner emptiness.
True honour to the Blessed Virgin Mary requires an explicit and uncompromising return to the full, pre-1958 Catholic doctrine: to the condemnation of the errors now enthroned in the conciliar sect, to the affirmation of Christ the King in public and private life, and to the recognition that no pious language, no local patronage, can legitimise a usurped authority or transmute an apostate structure into the Church of Christ.
Source:
Singulari studio (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025