The document issued by John XXIII on 23 October 1959, under the title Solacium ac levationem, proclaims that the Marian sanctuary of “Nuestra Señora de la Consolación” in Táriba (diocese of San Cristóbal in Venezuela) is elevated to the status of a minor basilica. In solemn Latin style it praises the local Marian devotion, highlights the alleged miracles and spiritual benefits tied to the image, and grants to this church all rights and privileges attached to minor basilicas, declaring contrary acts null and void. This short text, apparently pious and innocuous, in fact functions as a juridical and symbolic seal of the nascent conciliar revolution, subordinating Marian cult to a usurped authority and inserting it into the program of the coming neo-church.
Marian Ornament or Conciliar Trojan Horse?
The Factual Shell: A Marian Decree Masking an Illegitimate Authority
On the surface, this letter seems to be nothing more than a conventional pre-1958 style act:
– It recalls the consolation given by the Blessed Virgin to the faithful.
– It notes the popularity of the Táriba shrine as a spiritual center for the diocese.
– It speaks of an ancient image brought “by the first heralds of the Gospel,” reputed as prodigious.
– It lauds the beauty, size, and liturgical suitability of the church.
– It grants the title and privileges of a minor basilica to this sanctuary.
– It closes with the usual juridical formulae asserting perpetual validity and nullity of any contrary attempt.
From a distance, everything looks “orthodox.” But viewed in the light of integral Catholic doctrine and the hard facts about John XXIII’s role as initiator of the conciliar upheaval, this text is not a harmless devotional flourish; it is a subtle instrument in the construction of a counterfeit religious edifice.
Key factual problems:
– The act presupposes John XXIII’s legitimate papal authority; yet his later doctrinal and disciplinary program, culminating in the Second Vatican Council and its fruits, reveal precisely that profile of doctrinal deviation which classical theology (e.g. St. Robert Bellarmine, *De Romano Pontifice*; Pius IX, *Syllabus*; St. Pius X, *Pascendi* and *Lamentabili sane exitu*) marks as incompatible with the papal office.
– The decree exploits authentic Marian piety and a venerable local shrine in order to bind consciences and devotional life to an authority already directed against the social kingship of Christ and against the integral condemnation of liberalism, ecumenism, and modernism.
Thus, at the factual level, the core issue is not the shrine, but the counterfeit seal that attempts to appropriate it.
Linguistic Cloak: Traditional Latin as a Vehicle of Subversion
The rhetoric is deliberately “high Catholic,” employing the classical formulae of the Roman Curia:
– The text presents Mary as Solacium ac levationem, stressing her maternal consolation. This is true in itself, but isolated and sentimentalized Marian “consolation” can be easily bent into a horizontal, therapeutic religiosity disconnected from the hard demands of conversion, penance, and doctrinal militancy.
– It speaks of the shrine as a “sedes praecipua religionis” (principal seat of religion) in the diocese, and as a font of “salutary waters” flowing unceasingly. Yet it is completely silent about:
– the *Most Holy Sacrifice* as propitiatory;
– the objective necessity of the Catholic faith;
– the duty to reject errors condemned by the pre-conciliar Magisterium.
The praise of prodigies—“prodigialen… imaginem”—and of “eximia munera superna” is presented in vague terms, with no doctrinal specification. This indefinite tone is typical of what would become conciliar and post-conciliar manipulation of “popular piety”: keeping supernatural language, but draining it of dogmatic sharpness.
Moreover, the heavy juridical conclusion:
“…praesentes Litteras firmas, validas atque efficaces iugiter exstare ac permanere… irritumque ex nunc et inane fieri, si quidquam secus… attentari contigerit.”
appears orthodox in form, but its real function is to make resistance to this usurped authority appear as disobedience to the Church, weaponizing canonical style in service of a structure already committing itself to principles condemned by the *Syllabus* and by St. Pius X.
Linguistically, we face the classic modernist tactic unmasked in *Pascendi*: preserve formulas, alter their living context. *Verba manent, res mutantur* (the words remain, the realities are changed).
Theological Fault-Line: Marian Devotion Detached from the Kingship of Christ
From the perspective of unchanging Catholic doctrine, several theological deficits and distortions become evident.
1. Omission of the Social Kingship of Christ
Pre-1958 Magisterium, especially Pius XI in *Quas Primas*, teaches with absolute clarity:
– Peace and order for persons and nations are only possible when they publicly recognize and submit to the reign of Christ.
– The Church must combat laicism and liberalism; it cannot reconcile itself with religious indifferentism or the false autonomy of the temporal order.
In contrast, this letter:
– Exalts the shrine as a center of “consolation” without one word on the public rights of Christ the King over Venezuela, its rulers, laws, or institutions.
– Does not exhort the faithful to resist liberal, Masonic, or communist encroachments on the Church and on Christian morals—even though by 1959 the advance of secularism in Latin America and the subversive influence of anti-Catholic forces were obvious.
– Presents the sanctuary as a quasi-sacralized emotional refuge, not as a rallying point of militant Catholic faith defending the true Church and her doctrine against the world.
Given the pre-existing doctrinal armory (Pius IX’s *Syllabus of Errors*, multiple condemnations of secret societies and liberalism; Leo XIII; St. Pius X’s anti-modernist teaching), this studied silence is itself an indictment. *Qui tacet consentire videtur* (he who is silent is seen to consent): the omission prepares the ground for the later conciliar exaltation of “religious liberty” and “dialogue” condemned as pernicious before 1958.
2. Marian Piety Without Doctrinal Militant Clarity
Authentic Marian devotion in the Church, especially before 1958, is intrinsically:
– Christocentric and doctrinally sharp;
– anti-heretical and anti-modernist;
– ordered to conversion, penance, modesty, the Rosary, fidelity to the one true Church, and rejection of all error.
In this text, however:
– Mary is invoked primarily as emotional comfort: “solacium ac levationem”.
– There is no call to the faithful to defend the integral faith, reject modernist errors, or stand firm against secular powers usurping Church rights.
– There is no explicit link between this shrine and the defence of the dogmas assaulted by 19th–20th century errors condemned in *Lamentabili sane exitu* and *Pascendi*.
This is not accidental. It corresponds exactly to the modernist method: use Marian language to soothe, lull, and neutralize the faithful, while undermining the doctrinal foundations beneath their feet.
3. Usurpation of Juridical Language
The letter’s solemn claim that this elevation flows from the “plenitudo Apostolicae potestatis” (fullness of Apostolic power) must be measured against pre-1958 teaching on authority:
– A manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church or exercise jurisdiction in her (cf. the doctrine summarized by St. Robert Bellarmine and reflected in the 1917 Code, canon 188.4 on tacit resignation by public defection from the faith).
– *Cum ex Apostolatus Officio* of Paul IV indicates that if a prelate has deviated from the faith, attempted elevations are null and void.
While this 1959 text does not yet openly display the doctrinal ravages later unleashed by the conciliar program, it stands at the threshold. It is part of a continuum: the same person who signs this apparently pious decree soon convokes the council that will enthrone precisely those principles condemned by Pius IX and St. Pius X. Thus, the invocation of Apostolic plenitude serves as a mask; the language is Catholic, the trajectory is subversive.
Symptomatic Dimension: Early Symptom of the Conciliar Strategy
Seen within the broader historical and doctrinal arc, this letter is symptomatic in several ways.
1. Co-opting Authentic Devotion into the Conciliar Project
– By crowning a popular Marian shrine with the mark of Rome, the emerging conciliar regime secures emotional loyalty of the faithful precisely in those regions where resistance to liberalism and communism could have been strongest.
– Having obtained this loyalty, the same line of usurpers then uses the authority accrued through such acts to introduce:
– false ecumenism;
– religious liberty condemned in the *Syllabus*;
– democratization and desacralization of worship;
– doctrinal relativism and “pastoral” equivocations.
The decree functions as spiritual “soft power”: a preparatory move to ensure that when the revolution breaks openly, those attached to the shrine instinctively identify fidelity to Mary with fidelity to the conciliar sect.
2. Cult Without Combat: The Silence About Enemies
Integral Catholic teaching, as articulated by Pius IX in the *Syllabus* and in his warnings about Freemasonry, and by Leo XIII and St. Pius X against modernism and secret societies, insists:
– The Church must clearly name and resist the enemies of Christ: liberalism, socialism, naturalism, Masonic sects, modernism.
– Pastors must warn the faithful against destructive ideologies and pseudo-religious movements.
In this letter:
– There is not a single reference to the perils assailing the Church.
– No warning against Freemasonry, which particularly targeted Latin America.
– No reference to the necessity of submission of states to Christ the King, as emphasized in *Quas Primas*.
– No anti-modernist edge whatsoever, despite St. Pius X’s still-binding condemnation reaffirmed just a few decades earlier.
Such a vacuum is not neutral. It is precisely the laicist, “pastoral,” depoliticized religiosity favored by the Church of the New Advent, where Marian and liturgical aesthetics are tolerated or exploited as long as they do not contradict the naturalistic and ecumenical agenda.
3. Legal Absolutism in Service of a Paramasonic Structure
The closing legislative language is severe: all contrary acts are declared null, and the decree is said to remain perpetually valid. In itself, such formulas are part of the Church’s legitimate exercise of jurisdiction. But their deployment here has a double edge:
– It tempts the faithful to equate loyalty to a shrine’s canonical status with unconditional acceptance of the entire post-1958 apparatus.
– It sacralizes acts of an authority that will soon publicly diverge from the anti-modernist line, thereby instrumentalizing juridical obedience against the very doctrinal principles that ground true authority.
In other words: the decree is formally strict where it is safe for a modernist, and utterly lax where supernatural truth and the rights of Christ demand intransigence.
Contrast with Pre-1958 Magisterium: Missing Doctrinal Backbone
If we juxtapose this 1959 letter with earlier papal texts that also deal with Marian sanctuaries or ecclesiastical privileges, striking differences emerge.
1. Earlier Popes: Mary as Banner of Battle Against Error
Pre-1958 Roman Pontiffs, when exalting Marian shrines or devotions, consistently:
– linked them explicitly to:
– defence of orthodoxy against specific heresies;
– preservation of moral decency and family order;
– resistance to Masonic and revolutionary assaults;
– called rulers and peoples to public acts of consecration to the Sacred Heart and to Christ the King, binding social and political life to divine law.
This robust integration is consonant with the principles reaffirmed in the *Syllabus of Errors* and in *Quas Primas*: *Christus regnat, ergo Maria militat* — Christ reigns, therefore Mary fights for His reign in souls and societies.
2. John XXIII’s Text: Devotion Without Definition
In Solacium ac levationem we find:
– No mention of the exclusive truth of the Catholic faith against Protestantism or other sects.
– No assertion that outside the Church there is no salvation rightly understood (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus).
– No warning that the sanctuary’s privileges presuppose adherence to integral doctrine and the sacramental order as traditionally understood.
This silence is doctrinally eloquent. It aligns with:
– the future conciliar exaltation of “religious liberty” and “dialogue;”
– the practical abandonment of the imperative of conversion of nations and individuals to the one true Church;
– the preparation of a Marian vocabulary compatible with a syncretic, sentimental neo-church.
Instrumentalization of the Faithful: Piety Turned Against Truth
One of the gravest aspects of this document lies not in what it commands, but in how it exploits the innocent.
1. Exploiting Simple Faith
The faithful of Táriba are praised for their devotion to “Nuestra Señora de la Consolación.” Many, no doubt, approach the shrine with genuine faith and love of Our Lady. Instead of arming them:
– with clear teaching against liberalism, naturalism, and moral corruption,
– with forthright summons to defend the rights of Christ and His Church in public life,
– with anti-modernist vigilance,
the decree offers only institutional flattery and a legal label. The faithful are left unprotected against the soon-unleashed conciliar dissolution, yet conditioned to obey whatever emanates from the same signature.
2. Marian Icon and the Coming Neo-Church
By incorporating the image and sanctuary into its official network of basilicas, the paramasonic structure occupying the Vatican accomplishes:
– a consolidation of affective loyalty;
– a subtle message: fidelity to Mary = fidelity to John XXIII and his successors;
– groundwork for future manipulations where Marian language will be used to bless ecumenical, naturalistic, or syncretic initiatives.
In this sense, the letter is an early exercise in the propaganda technique later perfected: preserve popular symbols, invert their doctrinal axis.
The Supernatural Silence: Absence of Eschatological and Sacramental Gravity
The most devastating indictment of this text is what it does not say.
In an age already marked by:
– the spread of atheism, communism, and materialism;
– the moral corruption of public life;
– the penetration of modernism within seminaries and faculties;
a truly Catholic act elevating a major Marian sanctuary should:
– recall the reality of sin, judgment, hell, and the need for penance;
– intensify preaching on the necessity of the state of grace and worthy reception of the sacraments;
– place the Most Holy Sacrifice at the center, highlighting its propitiatory nature;
– strengthen the faithful against seductive errors, using the very authority and solemnity of such a decree to rally them.
Instead, this letter:
– never mentions final judgment, hell, or the supernatural stakes of salvation;
– speaks of “spiritual benefit” only in generic terms;
– situates the shrine as a consoling fountain, but without the bracing call to conversion that characterizes authentic Marian interventions aligned with traditional doctrine;
– leaves untouched the threat of internal apostasy which St. Pius X had described as the worst enemy arising from within.
This silence is not mere oversight; it is a methodological choice consistent with the conciliar sect’s later obsession with earthly consolation, human dignity abstracted from Christ’s kingship, and an anemic, therapeutic religion.
Conclusion: A Minor Basilica in the Architecture of the Abomination
Solacium ac levationem does not, in its letter, proclaim explicit doctrinal errors. Its danger is more insidious:
– It assumes and reinforces the legitimacy of John XXIII, the very figure who will inaugurate the conciliar dismantling of the integral Catholic order condemned by Pius IX and St. Pius X.
– It instrumentalizes genuine Marian devotion to attach consciences to this emerging paramasonic structure.
– It exhibits the characteristic modernist strategy: maintain traditional formulas (Latin, Marian piety, canonical solemnity), while evacuating them of the militant doctrinal and social content inseparable from the pre-1958 Magisterium.
– It offers consolation without combat, privilege without proclamation of the rights of Christ the King, sentiment without supernatural gravity.
Therefore, from the vantage point of immutable Catholic doctrine:
– The Marian shrine at Táriba, insofar as it has been a place of sincere faith, belongs to the heritage of the true Church.
– The 1959 “elevation” signed by John XXIII, however, must be read as an act of the conciliar revolution’s early phase: a juridical and symbolic move within the construction of the neo-church, not a guarantee of divine favor.
– True fidelity to the Blessed Virgin requires disentangling her authentic cult from the usurped authority that has prostituted Catholic language to liberalism, ecumenism, and the cult of man, and returning wholly to the integral doctrine proclaimed infallibly and consistently before 1958, where Mary is honored as Queen precisely because her Son must reign—publicly, socially, and eternally—as King.
Source:
Solacium ac levantionem (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025