The Latin text issued under the name of John XXIII on 27 November 1959 declares that the local Marian devotion to Our Lady “de la Cabeza” in the Spanish diocese of Jaén, long practiced at the mountaintop sanctuary and associated with a medieval image and popular pilgrimages, is elevated so that Mary under this title, together with St Euphrasius, is confirmed and constituted as principal heavenly patroness of the entire diocese, with corresponding liturgical honors and privileges; it rehearses the history of the image, its coronation, the loss of the crown during the Spanish Civil War, and the plan to replace it with a richer diadem, and then solemnly legislates this patronal status with the typical juridical formulas.
Marian Piety Co-opted to Seal the Coming Usurpation
The document appears, at first glance, to be a harmless act of Marian patronage. In reality, read in its historical and theological context, it illustrates how the emerging conciliar sect instrumentalized authentic popular devotion in order to normalize an authority already drifting toward apostasy. This short text, precisely by what it says and what it conspicuously omits, exposes the method by which the revolution prepared its enthronement over the visible structures of the Church.
Historical and Juridical Context: Legitimate Formulas in the Mouth of an Intruder
On the factual level, several points are straightforward:
– The text cites an earlier concession under Saint Pius X, who allowed the title of patroness for the city of Andújar/Illiturgis and authorized a local solemnity.
– It notes the traditional pilgrimage to the mountain shrine where an ancient image of the Blessed Virgin is venerated.
– It recounts that the image, said to have been found in 1227 after the reconquest, was crowned, that its crown was stolen or profaned during the Spanish Civil War, and that the faithful now prepared a richer crown.
– It records the request of Bishop Félix Romero Menjíbar that Mary “de la Cabeza” be declared principal patroness of the whole diocese together with St Euphrasius.
– It responds positively, using classical curial language: *certa scientia*, *matura deliberatione*, *plenitudo potestatis*, confirming and constituting this patronage, granting liturgical privileges, annulling contrary dispositions.
On the surface, nothing is explicitly heretical. Yet Catholic doctrine obliges us to consider not only isolated sentences, but the moral person who speaks them and the larger design.
By 1959, Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII) had already manifested the program that would culminate in the so‑called Vatican II: aggiornamento, “opening to the world,” benevolent silence regarding condemned liberal and masonic forces, and the systematic relativization of the anti-liberal, anti-modernist magisterium of his predecessors. The same man who in this letter parades the ancient style of pontifical authority would, in a few years, inaugurate the conciliar revolution that tramples exactly that authority and doctrine.
A key principle of integral Catholic theology, flowing from St Robert Bellarmine and the approved authors summarized in the provided Defense of Sedevacantism file, is that a manifest heretic cannot hold pontifical office, since *non potest esse caput qui non est membrum* (he cannot be the head who is not a member). When the moral and doctrinal profile of Roncalli is measured against the pre-1958 magisterium (Pius IX’s Syllabus, Leo XIII, St Pius X’s Lamentabili and Pascendi, Pius XI’s Quas Primas, Pius XII), his alignment with condemned liberal, ecumenical, and modernist tendencies becomes evident. An act such as this letter, while formally imitating authentic papal style, therefore functions as a juridical mask for an authority already deviating from the Faith.
Thus, what would in a Catholic context be a legitimate exercise of Marian patronage, becomes, in the hands of the coming usurper, part of the apparatus by which the conciliar sect cloaks itself with traditional forms in order to gain the trust of the faithful.
Instrumentalizing Marian Devotion While Silencing Mary’s True Glories
Consider how the text speaks of Our Lady:
It praises:
“studium et cultus Beatae Mariae Virgimis, quae ‘de la Cabeza’ Hispanico appellatur sermone, a multo iam tempore animos tenent…”
(“The devotion and veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, called in Spanish ‘de la Cabeza,’ have for a long time captivated the hearts…”)
It enumerates pilgrimages, confraternities, votive offerings, alleged favors. It authorizes a new crown to repair the loss of the previous diadem.
All this is, in itself, consonant with Catholic Marian piety. The problem lies in the subtext and omissions:
– There is no single word about the Immaculate Conception as defined by Pius IX, no explicit recall of Mary’s role in crushing heresies.
– There is no word about her mediation of all graces, her Queenship as the doctrinal foundation for public social reign of Christ, so powerfully asserted by Pius XII in *Ad Caeli Reginam* and by Pius XI in *Quas Primas*, where he teaches that peace and order depend on the public submission of nations to Christ the King.
– There is no admonition to the Spanish faithful, emerging from civil war and assaulted by secularism, to recognize that civil laws and governments must be subject to the reign of Christ and His Church, as the Syllabus of Errors demands against liberal indifferentism.
Instead, the document reduces Our Lady’s role almost exclusively to a local, affective patronage and to the reception of temporal favors. The triumph of Mary is confined to ethnographic devotion and ceremonial coronations, precisely when the enemies condemned by Pius IX and St Pius X are regrouping to infiltrate and subvert the visible hierarchy.
This silence is theological speech. At a moment when Marian doctrine should be wielded as a sword against liberalism and secret societies—those “sectae” denounced in the Syllabus as the “synagogue of Satan”—Roncalli’s text transforms the Mother of God into a decorative emblem that bestows legitimacy on structures soon to be hijacked by those very forces.
Linguistic Cosmetics: Traditional Forms as a Cloak for Emerging Modernism
The language is intentionally archaic and solemn, full of juridical precision:
“Nos ex Sacrae Rituum Congregationis consulto, certa scientia ac matura deliberatione Nostra deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine…”
(“We, in accordance with the advice of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, with sure knowledge and mature deliberation of Ours and by the fullness of Apostolic power…”)
This is the same lexicon by which true popes defined dogmas and condemned errors. Here, however:
– It is expended not to reaffirm the Syllabus of Errors against liberal democracy taking hold in Spain;
– Not to recall the absolute condemnation of modernism in Lamentabili and Pascendi;
– Not to warn against socialism, communism, and freemasonry that Pius IX and Leo XIII saw at the root of persecution;
– But to declare a diocesan patronage that, while legitimate in itself, is theologically marginal in comparison with the crises of the time.
The disproportion between form and object is revealing. We encounter a kind of liturgical-legal theatre: the full arsenal of papal juridical formulae mobilized for a ceremonial act, while the same actor will soon treat as “pastoral” and “open questions” the very dogmatic boundaries established by his predecessors. This is a hallmark of the coming conciliar strategy: preserve external dignity when dealing with safe, sentimental topics; evacuate dogmatic vigor where the Faith collides with the world.
The rhetoric about “augmenting honor” of the Virgin, about her “uberty” of graces, appears devout. But when placed alongside the looming agenda of aggiornamento, it morphs into an anesthetic: Marian piety is encouraged in depoliticized, spiritualized, apolitical forms, so that the faithful are lulled while the public kingship of Christ is quietly surrendered.
Theological Omissions: Neutralizing the Militant Church
Measured against pre-1958 doctrine, the omissions are decisive.
1. The Syllabus of Errors (Pius IX) and Quas Primas (Pius XI)
Pius XI teaches that “peace will not come” until individuals and states recognize and submit to the reign of Christ; he explicitly condemns laicism and the exclusion of Christ from public law. Pius IX, in the Syllabus, condemns the proposition that the Church should be separated from the State (prop. 55), and the idea that religious indifferentism and liberty of all cults are beneficial (props. 15–18, 77–80).
This letter is addressed to a Spanish diocese in a nation that had just endured the bloodshed of anti-Catholic revolution and masonic, socialist militancy. A truly Catholic act would:
– Recall that the persecutions, profanations, and theft of sacred ornaments (including the stolen crown) were fruits of the anti-Christian ideologies condemned in the Syllabus.
– Exhort civil authorities to rebuild an explicitly Catholic polity, recognizing Christ as King and Mary as Queen not merely of a shrine but of the nation, in line with Quas Primas and Ad Caeli Reginam.
– Denounce the same liberal forces which, under different masks, continued to undermine the Church.
Instead, the theft of the crown is mentioned only as a sentimental loss, not as a sacrilegious sign of organized hatred of Christ’s Kingdom. The replacement of the diadem is hailed; the eradication of the ideological poison that caused its profanation is left unmentioned.
Silence here is complicity. By avoiding the magisterial language of condemnation, Roncalli’s text contributes to the normalization of the liberal State that Pius IX stigmatized as a usurpation of divine rights.
2. Lamentabili and Pascendi (St Pius X) and the Modernist Menace
St Pius X decisively condemned the myth that dogma evolves with historical consciousness, the relativization of Scripture, the democratization of doctrine. He branded modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies” and imposed firm disciplinary measures.
The letter of 1959:
– Does not recall, even briefly, that true Marian devotion must be inseparable from fidelity to the full, immutable doctrine concerning Christ, the Church, the sacraments, and the papacy.
– Does not warn that pseudo-Marian devotions or sentimental cults can be used by enemies to replace doctrinal militancy with emotionalism.
Instead, it reduces the criterion of authenticity to the mere age and constancy of the cult and to the alleged favors granted—criteria which, if isolated from doctrinal discernment, can serve to shield a nascent neo-church that will promote sentimental “Marian” language while betraying the Faith.
Integral Catholic theology insists: *sentiment without dogma is a lie; devotion without submission to orthodox doctrine is superstition.* The letter, by its omissions, nurtures precisely this separation.
A Symptom of the Coming Conciliar Sect: Piety Without Confession of Kingship
On the symptomatic level, this document exemplifies four strategies of the structures that would soon occupy the Vatican.
1. Sacralizing Localism to Distract from Universal Betrayal
Instead of thundering against global errors, Roncalli focuses on a local patronage. Such acts, multiplied, create the illusion of vigorous Catholic life while the central authority prepares a council that will enshrine “religious liberty,” ecumenism with heretics and schismatics, and dialogue with false religions—propositions explicitly condemned by the pre‑1958 magisterium.
This is how revolutions operate: conserve the picturesque peripheries to mask the demolition of the foundations.
2. Exploiting Marian Language to Camouflage the Retreat from Christ’s Social Reign
Authentic popes—Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII—present Mary as inseparable from the victorious Kingship of Christ over nations, laws, schools, and societies. She is the terror of demons, the destroyer of heresies, the Queen whose rights extend into public order.
In this letter, Mary is invoked primarily as:
– Benefactress of pilgrims,
– Recipient of crowns,
– Local protectress.
What is missing is precisely what Quas Primas and Ad Caeli Reginam stress: that the denial of Christ’s rights in politics, education, and law is a mortal sin against His Kingship; that Mary, as Queen, must be publicly acknowledged in the same sphere.
Thus Marian devotion is privatized and folklorized. A “safe” Marianism becomes the anesthetic with which the conciliar sect will later push idolatrous spectacles and ecumenical syncretism, while appealing to an emotional Marian vocabulary emptied of doctrinal edge.
3. Juridical Formalism in Service of an Illegitimate Agenda
The heavy emphasis on canonic formulas, on “contrariis quibusvis nihil obstantibus,” on the absolute validity of the declaration, would be laudable from a true pontiff. From the mouth of a man who inaugurates the loosening of discipline, liturgical devastation, and doctrinal vagueness, it becomes cynical.
The text’s insistence that anything contrary attempted “by anyone, with any authority, knowingly or unknowingly” is null, highlights the contradiction: the same claimed authority that here tolerates no contradiction in a minor liturgical matter will soon authorize a council that systematically undermines the non-negotiable teachings of previous popes on Church-State relations, ecumenism, and the uniqueness of the Catholic Church.
This is not innocent inconsistency; it reveals the essence of post-1958 structures: strict when consolidating their own visibility, lax or revolutionary when guarding God’s rights.
4. Silence on the Conditions of True Devotion As a Tool of Subversion
Authentic Marian patronage presupposes:
– A clergy teaching and guarding integral doctrine;
– The Most Holy Sacrifice offered with Catholic faith and rite;
– A people instructed that salvation comes only through the one true Church, as Pius IX and the Syllabus insist.
The letter never recalls that true Marian devotion cannot co-exist with liberalism, naturalism, or modernism. It does not remind pastors that they will be judged for tolerating these errors. This silence paves the way for a “Marian” religiosity compatible with:
– The later cult of religious liberty,
– False ecumenism,
– Humanistic “dignity of man” ideology,
– The abdication of Christ’s social Kingship.
Thus we witness the beginnings of that paramasonic structure which, draped in traditional acts like this letter, will shortly enthrone the abomination of desolation in the sanctuary by replacing Catholic doctrine with the cult of man.
Supremacy of Divine Law over Human Sentimentalism
The integral Catholic perspective demands that even in matters of local patronage, one must recall: *lex divina praeeminet omni consuetudini humanae* (divine law has pre-eminence over every human custom). Marian coronations, pilgrimages, images—all are good only if they foster obedience to Christ’s law and submission to the one true Church.
The text, however:
– Commends external acts without reminding that those who persecuted the Church in Spain incarnated errors condemned dogmatically.
– Treats the crown’s theft as a profanation devoid of doctrinal diagnosis, as if it were not the predictable result of the anti-Catholic liberalism stigmatized in the Syllabus and denounced as masonic conspiracy by Pius IX.
– Fails to insist that civil authorities and people of Jaén must formally and publicly restore Christ’s rights in law, education, and public morals, under Mary’s patronage, as Pius XI and Pius XII demanded.
The language of this letter thus subtly subordinates divine law to the emotional satisfaction of local devotion. It is a short step from this to the conciliar exaltation of “human rights” above the rights of God, and of “dialogue” above the duty to convert nations.
Conclusion: Piety Without Truth as a Preparatory Poison
When weighed against the pre‑1958 magisterium (Quas Primas, the Syllabus, Lamentabili, Pascendi, the condemnations of secret societies, the doctrine on the papacy and heresy provided in the Defense of Sedevacantism), this act of John XXIII is not a simple neutral favor to a local shrine. It is a case study in how the future neo-church:
– Retains traditional vestments of language and ceremony,
– Encourages affective Marian practices,
– Meticulously legislates minor cultic matters,
while:
– Refusing to speak the hard dogmatic truths about modern errors;
– Refusing to reaffirm the obligation of states to submit to Christ the King;
– Refusing to wield Mary’s Queenship against the enemies of the Faith;
– Preparing the faithful to equate Catholicity with external folklore rather than with doctrinal militancy and submission to immutable teaching.
The spiritual bankruptcy lies precisely here: Marian devotion is not denied; it is hollowed out and repurposed. A patronal decree that should have been an opportunity to rally clergy and faithful of Jaén under the banner of Christ the King against liberalism becomes instead another brick in the facade behind which the conciliar revolution will stage its betrayal. Where true popes used Marian acts to fortify the fortress of dogma, the coming usurpers use them to decorate the walls of a structure they intend to gut from within.
In such a context, authentic Catholics must venerate the Blessed Virgin with greater fervor—precisely by rejecting the modernist, sentimental manipulation of her name, returning to the integral doctrine of her Son’s Kingship, His one true Church, and the immutable magisterium that the conciliar sect has dared to ignore.
Source:
Studium et cultus, Litterae Apostolicae, Beata Maria V., « De La Cabeza » Vulgo Appellata, Praecipua apud Deum Patrona una cum S. Euphrasio, Ep. et Conf., universae dioecesis Giennensis constituitur, … (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025