The document “Singulari studio” (1 July 1960), issued by John XXIII, proclaims the Blessed Virgin Mary of the Most Holy Rosary of Río Blanco (“de Fluvio Albo”) as the principal heavenly patroness of the Diocese of Jujuy. In solemn canonical language it recognizes an already existing local Marian devotion, confirms the title, extends the appropriate liturgical privileges, and annuls any acts contrary to this decree.

This apparently pious act, however, exemplifies how the conciliar usurper uses Marian language as a liturgical façade to legitimize a nascent paramasonic revolution that would soon overturn the visible structures of the Church and suppress the true reign of Christ the King.

---

Marian Ornament as a Mask for the Coming Devastation

At first glance, “Singulari studio” appears harmless: a brief Latin letter, no explicit doctrinal novelty, a simple confirmation of Marian patronage. Precisely here lies its most insidious character. While appearing to stand in continuity with pre-1958 practice, it is signed by the very architect of the aggiornamento that would usher in the conciliar sect. The form imitates tradition; the substance serves a usurped authority.

Key features of the text:

– John XXIII endorses and promotes the local cult of the Blessed Virgin Mary of the Most Holy Rosary of Río Blanco.
– He responds to the petition of Enrique Muhn, “bishop” of Jujuy, and of clergy and faithful, to declare this Marian title as principal heavenly patroness of the diocese.
– He invokes the plenitude of “Apostolic” power to erect this patronage with all liturgical rights and privileges.
– He declares null any act contrary to this decree.

All of this is framed as an act of Marian piety and pastoral solicitude. Yet this gesture is issued by the same usurper who convoked the council that enthroned religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegial disfigurement in defiance of the perennial magisterium solemnly reaffirmed by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII. Thus the document functions as a devotional anesthetic: a quiet narcotic preparing souls to trust a regime that would soon violate precisely those principles that authentic Marian devotion defends.

Pious Vocabulary in the Service of Usurped Authority

From the outset, the letter is framed in classical curial Latin, mimicking authentic papal acts:

“Ad perpetuam rei memoriam.” (“For a perpetual remembrance of the matter.”)

It praises the faithful of Jujuy for their “singular zeal” in honouring the Blessed Virgin Mary of the Most Holy Rosary; it mentions the sanctuary where the people “in crowds” invoke the Mother of God; it stresses the desire to “augment” a “proven” devotion and to draw “greater spiritual fruits,” accepting the petition of “Venerable Brother” Enrique Muhn.

The theological trap lies not in an overt heresy within the lines, but in the tacit, unchallenged assumption that John XXIII holds and exercises the authority he claims:

– He appeals to “certa scientia ac matura deliberatione nostra, deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine” (“our certain knowledge, mature deliberation, and by the fullness of Apostolic power”).
– He lays down that these letters are to be “firmas, validas atque efficaces iugiter exstare ac permanere” (“firm, valid and effective, always to stand and endure”).

Here a central dogmatic principle is inverted: potestas non creat veritatem, sed veritas creat potestatem (“power does not create truth, but truth gives legitimacy to power”). The visible continuity of style is exploited to camouflage a rupture of substance: a manifestly modernist-friendly usurper adopting the vesture of papal language in order to secure devotional consent.

According to the perennial doctrine summarized in the sources provided:

– A manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church nor hold jurisdiction: *“A manifest heretic is not a Christian… therefore a manifest heretic cannot be Pope”* (Bellarmine, as cited in Defense of Sedevacantism).
– Public defection from the faith vacates ecclesiastical office *ipso facto* (1917 Code, can. 188.4).
– The election or promotion of one who has deviated from the faith is null, void, and without effect (Paul IV, *Cum ex Apostolatus Officio*).

Seen in this light, the solemn formulae of “Singulari studio” become juridically empty and spiritually dangerous: a paramasonic structure arrogating the Marian mantle of authority to crown its own local cults while preparing the demolition of Catholic dogma in council halls.

Naturalization of Marian Devotion and the Silent Eclipse of Christ the King

Even where the content is apparently orthodox, the omissions are thunderous.

The letter speaks of:

– “augmenting” cult.
– “spiritual fruits.”
– “heavenly Patroness” for a territory.

But it is a purely administrative proclamation. There is:

– No mention of the necessity of the *state of grace* for true devotion.
– No mention of the *Most Holy Sacrifice* as the heart of Marian life.
– No call to penance, conversion from sin, or rejection of modern errors.
– Above all, no explicit link between Marian patronage and the duty of public submission of individuals and nations to the social Kingship of Christ.

Authentic pre-1958 magisterium, as in Pius XI’s *Quas Primas*, sees all authentic Marian piety as ordered to, and protective of, the universal, public reign of Christ:

– Peace and order are possible only in the Kingdom of Christ; nations must publicly acknowledge His rights.
– The Church is a perfect society, with full freedom and independence from the state, bound to shape public life according to divine law.

Yet this 1960 act of John XXIII:

– Grants a Marian title to a diocese, but is utterly silent about the anti-Christian secularism condemned in the Syllabus of Errors.
– Does not remind rulers or faithful of the condemnations of indifferentism, liberalism, Freemasonry, or the false thesis of separation of Church and State (Syllabus, errors 15–18, 55, 77–80).
– Ignores the modernist plague already denounced by St. Pius X in *Pascendi* and solemnly reaffirmed in *Lamentabili sane exitu*.

This silence is not neutral. In 1960 the world had already seen militant secularism, masonic penetration, communist persecution, and doctrinal subversion. An authentic successor of Pius X and Pius XI, writing in that context, would use every act—especially Marian decrees—to recall the faithful to the integral faith, to the rejection of condemned errors, and to the social Kingship of Christ.

Instead, this letter exemplifies a new method: decorative sacral language devoid of combative doctrinal content, compatible with an impending program of coexistence with liberalism and religious pluralism. It is an early symptom of the transition from the Church Militant to the “dialogue club,” replacing militant Marian militancy with gentle regional sentimentality.

The Linguistic Simulation of Tradition

The rhetoric of “Singulari studio” is deliberately traditional:

– Appeals to *“perpetuam rei memoriam”*.
– Formal canonical clauses annulling contrary acts.
– Reference to the Sacred Congregation of Rites.
– Invocation of the Fisherman’s Ring.

But certain features, in context, manifest a juridical and theological simulation:

1. The usurper’s self-asserted “plenitudo potestatis”

John XXIII speaks as if possessing the same *plenitudo potestatis* as Pius IX or St. Pius X. Yet by his words and deeds—ecumenical gestures toward heretics, relativizing condemnations, preparing a council to “update” doctrine—he aligns with precisely those tendencies anathematized in the Syllabus and *Lamentabili*:

– The idea that the Church must reconcile itself with modern liberal civilization (Syllabus, 80).
– The practical relativization of the principle that the Catholic Church is the only true Church (Syllabus, 21; *Quas Primas*).
– The seeds of democratized magisterium and doctrinal evolution condemned by St. Pius X.

A manifestly modernist trajectory cannot be reconciled with authentic papal authority. Thus, this solemn Marian proclamation is parasitic: it clings to Catholic forms while draining them of the militancy against error that once animated them.

2. Emotive Marianism without doctrinal combat

The text exalts the “singular devotion” of the local faithful and the beauty of the sanctuary but never:

– Reminds them of grave dangers of indifferentism and syncretism.
– Condemns anti-Christian sects and masonic forces named by Pius IX as the “synagogue of Satan.”
– Urges adherence to the Syllabus or to earlier condemnations of liberal regimes persecuting the Church.

This is a controlled, innocuous Marianism: safe, aesthetic, regional—perfectly compatible with a conciliar project that will later instrumentalize the Mother of God as a sentimental icon for interreligious coexistence. It is the opposite of the Marian stance of St. Pius X, who brandished Our Lady as terror of heresies, not as a decorative patroness for a Church capitulating to the world.

3. Hyper-legalism masking substantive rupture

By declaring any contrary act “irritum et inane” (null and void), John XXIII employs the classical judicial forms that formerly defended dogma and discipline. But this same legal idiom is now pressed into service to consolidate the authority of the very revolution that will:

– Undermine the immutability of doctrine through pastoral ambiguities.
– Dilute the unique salvific role of the Church via ecumenism.
– Elevate religious liberty against the Syllabus.
– Reduce the public claims of Christ the King to a private devotion.

Hence the bitter irony: a strong nullifying clause to enforce a devotional decree, while the same regime prepares to override or relativize solemn, binding condemnations issued by true popes. Lex in ore, perfidia in corde (“law on the lips, perfidy in the heart”).

Theological Incoherence: Marian Patronage under an Apostate Paradigm

From the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine, several contradictions become evident.

1. Marian Patronage presupposes Catholic Faith, which the conciliar regime dissolves

True Marian patronage is bound to:

– The integrity of the faith.
– Submission to the Roman Pontiff as guardian of dogma.
– The sacramental life centered on the true Most Holy Sacrifice.
– The rejection of heresy and modernist novelties.

Yet the line beginning with John XXIII:

– Politically and doctrinally prepares (and his successors openly implement) doctrines contrary to:
– The Syllabus (on religious liberty and indifferentism).
– *Quas Primas* (on the public kingship of Christ).
– *Pascendi* and *Lamentabili* (on Modernism and evolution of dogma).
– Embraces ecumenism that treats schismatic and heretical sects as “sister churches.”
– Accepts the secularist myth of neutral public order divorced from Christ the King.

To place Marian patronage under this framework is to enlist the holy name of the Mother of God in service of an ecclesial project she would abhor: the relativization of her Son’s unique Kingship and the practical desertion of the duty to convert nations.

Thus a fundamental dissonance emerges: a pseudo-papal Marian decree existing within and for a system that systematically betrays Marian and Catholic principles.

2. Silence about the enemies denounced by the pre-conciliar Popes

The Syllabus of Pius IX, explicitly recalling the assaults of secret societies and masonic sects, unmasks the program that sought to dismantle the temporal power of the Church and subject her to liberal states. St. Pius X unmasks Modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies.”

A genuine successor in 1960, aware of the intensifying masonic and communist assault, would connect Marian patronage with:

– The protection of the faithful against modernist theology.
– The defense of Catholic education against secular usurpation (Syllabus, 45–48).
– The resistance to liberal regimes and condemned errors.

Instead, “Singulari studio” glides past this entire battlefield. Not one word:

– Against modernism.
– Against socialism and communism.
– Against liberal secularism.
– Against false ecumenism.

This is not accidental; it is programmatic. It cultivates a depoliticized, de-dogmatized Marian fervour, which leaves intact the advance of the very forces the pre-1958 Magisterium denounced.

Symptom of the Conciliar Revolution: Controlled Devotion, Systemic Apostasy

On the symptomatic level, “Singulari studio” illustrates several structural features characteristic of the conciliar sect.

1. Use of Marian and liturgical acts to pacify resistance

By multiplying seemingly traditional gestures (Marian patronages, confirmations of shrines, devotional feasts), the usurping regime:

– Reassures unsuspecting Catholics.
– Creates an appearance of continuity.
– Disarms vigilance against doctrinal shifts.

Meanwhile, the same authority:

– Prepares and then promulgates a council that enshrines condemned errors in “pastoral” language.
– Later fabricates a new rite that attacks the theology of propitiatory sacrifice.
– Engages in public displays of religious relativism.

The pattern is coherent: devotional orthopraxy as camouflage for doctrinal subversion. “Singulari studio” is a textbook instance of this method.

2. Integration of local Marian cults into a universal neo-church

By formally incorporating the Río Blanco devotion as principal patroness of a diocese under the authority of John XXIII, the text:

– Links genuine popular piety to an adulterated center.
– Risks enslaving the faithful’s Marian love to obedience toward an anti-magisterium.
– Transforms Marian devotion into a tool of the “Church of the New Advent,” rather than a bulwark against it.

In the integral Catholic order, Marian sanctuaries are outposts of doctrinal intransigence. Within the conciliar framework, they become sentimental ornaments within a pluralist, ecumenical, anthropocentric religion.

3. Absolute juridical language used selectively

The decree fiercely declares null and void any act contrary to the new patronage. Yet:

– The same usurping line refuses to recognize the binding nullity of their own novelties against prior solemn doctrine.
– They act as if the Syllabus and anti-modernist condemnations are “historical” and can be bypassed.
– They treat as revisable precisely those doctrines that true popes fortified by language as strong or stronger than that used here.

This inversion reveals a principle: in the neo-church, juridical absolutism is reserved for consolidating their own structures; doctrinal absolutism is relativized or dissolved. “Singulari studio” exemplifies the former: rigor for institutional gestures, laxity or betrayal for dogmatic continuity.

Contrast with the Integral Magisterium: Why This Decree Cannot Be Taken at Face Value

Measured against the unchanging doctrine prior to 1958, several conclusions follow.

1. Ecclesia Christi est societas perfecta (the Church of Christ is a perfect society)

Pre-1958 magisterium insists:

– The Church possesses full authority in matters of faith and morals and must judge and condemn modern errors.
– The Pope is bound to guard, not innovate, doctrine.

Any document claiming papal authority must be assessed by:

– Its harmony with prior teaching.
– The orthodoxy of its author’s public doctrine and actions.

John XXIII’s overall program—launching a council framed as aggiornamento, opening to liberal democracies, softening condemnation of errors—cannot be reconciled with the posture of Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII as expressed in the Syllabus, *Pascendi*, *Quas Primas*, and anti-modernist legislation. Therefore his self-attributed “plenitude of Apostolic power” in “Singulari studio” is the assertion of an intruder, not the exercise of Peter.

2. Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief)

While this letter concerns liturgical patronage, its deeper effect is to subject the lex orandi of a local Church to the authority of one who is, in doctrine, aligned with the condemned tendencies of Modernism and liberalism. As the same line later offers a fabricated rite and poisons the liturgy with anthropocentrism, we see how such Marian decrees pave the way:

– They render the faithful docile to the same “authority” when it later attacks the liturgy itself.
– They train Catholics to equate attachment to local Marian sanctuaries with obedience to a conciliar anti-magisterium.

3. Non est pax impiis (“there is no peace for the wicked”)

Marian patronage cannot be invoked to sanctify a project that systematically undermines the rights of God and the Kingship of Christ. To use the Mother of God as a decorative seal on a nascent revolution is a grave profanation, even when the text itself avoids explicit heresy. The evil lies in:

– The usurped authority.
– The deliberate omission of doctrinal militancy.
– The instrumentalization of devotion.

Conclusion: Unmasking the Marian Façade of the Neo-Church

“Singulari studio” is short, polished, and apparently devout. It celebrates the Blessed Virgin Mary of the Most Holy Rosary of Río Blanco and confers upon her the title of principal heavenly patroness of the Diocese of Jujuy. But:

– It proceeds from a manifestly modernist usurper whose line contradicts the integral magisterium.
– It deploys traditional forms to anchor Catholic sensibilities to a conciliar sect that soon enthrones liberalism, false ecumenism, and the cult of man.
– It is rigorously legalistic where it consolidates its own liturgical decrees, but ominously silent where the pre-1958 papal magisterium thundered against modern errors.
– It transforms Marian piety into a harmless regional embellishment, detached from the militant defense of dogma and the social Kingship of Christ.

Therefore, from the perspective of unchanging Catholic doctrine:

– The Marian devotion of the faithful remains in itself good and noble.
– But its co-optation by the conciliar structure through acts such as this is theologically and spiritually toxic.
– No Catholic can read “Singulari studio” with naïve confidence. It must be recognized as an operation that cloaks systemic apostasy with a borrowed Marian mantle, a liturgical ornament hung upon the façade of the abomination of desolation.

---

Source:
Singulari studio, Litterae Apostolicae Beata Maria Virgo a Sacratissimo Rosario de Fluvio Albo praecipua Patrona caelestis dioecesis Jujuyensis constituitur, d. 1 m. Iulii a. 1960, Ioannes PP. XXIII   (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025