Colonial Engineering of the Neo-Church: The Kaduna Experiment of John XXIII
The document issued by John XXIII, under the title “Constitutio Apostolica Lagosensis (Kadunaënsis),” externally concerns the elevation of Kaduna to a metropolitan see and the erection of a new so‑called ecclesiastical province in Northern Nigeria, detaching certain jurisdictions from Lagos and Onitsha and conferring metropolitan status and insignia on John McCarthy and his successors. It presents itself as an act of pastoral governance, aimed—so it claims—at better administering the “Christian flock” and fostering the growth of the faith in that region.
In reality, this text is an early and chilling specimen of juridical re‑engineering by the man who inaugurated the conciliar revolution, revealing the transition from the integral Catholic order to a colonial, bureaucratic, and eventually apostate framework that prepared the rise of the conciliar sect and its paramasonic structures.
From Apostolic Constitution to Revolutionary Instrument: The Person Behind the Act
Already in 1959, John XXIII, the first usurper in the post-1958 line, acts within a mentality profoundly at odds with the constant doctrine summarized authoritatively just a few years earlier by Pius XII and, doctrinally, by his predecessors, and already explicitly warned against by Pius IX and St. Pius X. The Kaduna act is not an isolated “technical” decision; it is one cog in a calculated process of transforming the visible structures of the Church into a flexible, internationalized, politically adaptable network—precisely the kind of *societas* receptive to Modernism, laicism, and paramasonic penetration condemned in the Syllabus Errorum of Pius IX and in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi of St. Pius X.
The external form imitates traditional pontifical style—Latin, solemnity, references to pastoral care. But one must expose the inner logic: a pseudo-pastoral, managerial approach that instrumentalizes diocesan structures according to geopolitical and diplomatic convenience, rather than as an organic unfolding of the supernatural mission: the defense of the true faith, the reign of Christ the King, and the exclusive rights of the one true Church.
Here, the problem is not that dioceses exist in Nigeria—a legitimate and necessary fruit of authentic missionary work—but that this act, in its time, authorship, and spirit, stands as a bridge: outwardly still clothed in Catholic legal language, inwardly already serving the future “Church of the New Advent,” which would enthrone religious liberty, ecumenism, and the cult of man.
Factual Architecture: Bureaucratic Rearrangement without Supernatural Purpose
On the factual level, the constitution:
– Detaches Kaduna, Jos, and Otukpo from their previous metropolitan jurisdictions (Lagos and Onitsha).
– Erects the new province of Kaduna, making Kaduna an archdiocese.
– Assigns Jos and Otukpo as suffragan sees.
– Confers metropolitan insignia (including the pallium, after due rite) and ceremonial privileges (carrying the cross) on the new archbishop.
– Delegates execution to Vedast Mojaisky-Perrelli, Apostolic Delegate, with powers to subdelegate and to formalize acts.
These are, in themselves, canonical mechanisms long present in the Church’s tradition. What is decisive is to confront:
– how they are justified,
– what is omitted,
– and in whose hands they are placed at the historical threshold of the conciliar apostasy.
The text speaks generically of “great hope” for the growth of the “Christian faith” in Northern Nigeria, but never:
– Confesses Christ’s exclusive Kingship over the region as a binding political and social duty, as Pius XI solemnly taught in Quas Primas (1925), where he declared that peace and order are impossible unless individuals and states recognize and submit to the reign of Christ.
– Explicitly frames the new structures as instruments to combat paganism, Islam, Protestant sects, Freemasonry, and modern errors condemned by Pius IX’s Syllabus.
– Binds the new metropolitan and suffragans to the integral condemnation of indifferentism, liberalism, syncretism, and socialism so virulently active in Africa’s decolonization era.
– Warns against secret societies and Masonic influence, despite Pius IX and Leo XIII having made clear that such sects aim precisely at subjugating Church structures to secular and occult powers.
Instead, the act offers a purely administrative narrative: geographical division, jurisdictional translation, and decorative privileges—without a single word on:
– the Most Holy Sacrifice as propitiatory at the heart of diocesan life,
– the necessity of catechesis in the pre-conciliar doctrine,
– the supernatural end: salvation from sin and eternal damnation.
This calculated silence is not neutral. It is symptomatic.
Sanitized Language as Symptom of Theological Evacuation
The constitution’s rhetoric displays:
– A bureaucratic, almost technocratic tone:
“…omni ope contendimus ut catholicae rei gubernationi atque administrationi per terrarum orbem, qua aptiore potest ratione, consulamus”
“We strive with all our might to provide, in the most suitable way, for the governance and administration of Catholic affairs throughout the world.”
The faith is reduced to “administration of Catholic affairs,” a managerial concept, devoid of explicit reference to *salus animarum* (the salvation of souls) as the supreme law.
– An appeal to generic “growth of the Christian faith”:
“magnam enim spem esse ibidem terrarum christianam fidem valde augeri posse”
“for there is great hope that in those lands the Christian faith can greatly increase.”
No mention that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, no assertion that Protestantism or Islam are false religions (Syllabus, propositions 16–18 condemned). Instead, an elastic vocabulary compatible with the later ecumenical jargon where “Christian presence” and “dialogue” replace conversion and doctrinal exclusivity.
– A self-assured assertion of juridical authority, while simultaneously—if read historically—preparing to betray that very authority at Vatican II by exalting religious liberty and collegiality against the defined teaching of the Church.
Thus, the language is double: formally traditional, materially hollowed out, paving the way for the *lex orandi, lex credendi* to be corrupted. St. Pius X condemned this method: maintaining words while shifting their meaning, gradually dragging structures into Modernism. The Kaduna decree, by its silences and managerial phrasing, belongs to this preparatory phase.
Theological Dissection: Content and Omissions against Pre-1958 Doctrine
From the perspective of unchanging Catholic teaching prior to 1958, several aspects must be unmasked.
1. Absence of the Kingship of Christ and Social Subjection
Pius XI in Quas Primas teaches that:
– civil authorities and nations must publicly recognize, honor, and obey Christ the King;
– peace and order depend on this submission.
The Kaduna constitution:
– says nothing about the duty of Northern Nigeria, its rulers, and its peoples to submit to Christ’s law;
– entirely omits the public, social claims of the Church over legislation, education, and public morals, contrary to the anti-liberal doctrine reaffirmed by Pius IX (Syllabus, 55, condemning the separation of Church and state).
This silence is particularly grave in a context where Islam, tribal cults, and Protestant missions compete for souls, and anti-colonial political movements—often socialist or Masonic—infiltrate emerging states. One would expect a truly Catholic act to:
– explicitly demand protection of the true religion,
– condemn laicism and false religions,
– arm the new province doctrinally against indifferentism.
Instead, the juridical move is detached from doctrinal militancy: an early sign of the coming conciliar betrayal, where the “neo-church” would bless religious liberty and interreligious “dialogue,” precisely what prior popes had anathematized.
2. No Condemnation of Secret Societies and Revolutionary Forces
Pius IX and Leo XIII repeatedly identified Masonic and similar sects as the principal visible instruments of the “synagogue of Satan” warring against the Church. In African and colonial contexts, these forces worked to detach the Church from confessional states, weaken Catholic identity, and replace supernatural aims with humanitarian development.
The document:
– entrusts key implementation to diplomatic and administrative agents without a single doctrinal safeguard against these sects;
– behaves as if structural expansion, by itself, guarantees fidelity—naive at best, complicit at worst.
Given that Modernism, according to St. Pius X, is the “synthesis of all heresies,” one cannot excuse such omissions as accidental. The same usurper who would soon convoke the council that enthroned religious liberty here already treats ecclesiastical expansion as a neutral “good,” independent of clear doctrinal fortification against condemned systems.
3. Juridical Authority Emptied of Confessional Content
The text solemnly declares:
“Has vero Litteras nunc et in posterum efficaces esse et fore volumus… Quapropter si quis, quavis praeditus auctoritate… contra egerit ac Nos ediximus, id prorsus irritum atque inane haberi iubemus.”
“We will and decree that these Letters be effective now and in the future… If anyone, of whatever authority, acts against what We have ordered, we command that it be held utterly null and void.”
Here, categorical juridical language is used to enforce:
– a geopolitical redistribution,
– titles,
– privileges.
But the same line of usurpers—which begins with John XXIII—systematically refuses to exercise this absolute language to:
– condemn modernist theologians,
– excommunicate propagators of heresy,
– uphold the prior anathemas against liberalism, socialism, indifferentism, rationalism.
This contrast exposes the operative inversion:
– Strong, categorical authority for bureaucratic manipulation.
– Weak, relativized or silenced authority regarding dogma and morals.
Thus, authority is not exercised as a guardian of *depositum fidei*, but as an instrument of restructuring—preparing a network more easily steered toward the later doctrinal aberrations of the conciliar sect.
4. Absence of Any Reference to the Pre-Existing Magisterial Condemnations
A truly Catholic apostolic constitution concerning a new province in a religiously contested mission territory, issued after:
– Pius IX’s Syllabus (1864),
– Leo XIII’s anti-Masonic and social encyclicals,
– St. Pius X’s Lamentabili and Pascendi (1907),
– Pius XI’s Quas Primas (1925),
– Pius XII’s clear doctrinal positions,
would naturally:
– reaffirm that the new province must uphold these doctrinal lines;
– explicitly bind local hierarchy to combat the condemned errors;
Instead, the Kaduna act floats in a vacuum, as if the pre-existing doctrinal arsenal did not exist or did not matter. That omission is itself an implicit relativization of prior teaching, the very attitude condemned by St. Pius X, who insisted that doctrine is immutable and that minimizing previous condemnations is part of the modernist method.
Symptomatic Level: Kaduna as Prototype of the Conciliar Machinery
The Kaduna constitution is emblematic of four deeper tendencies that would fully blossom with the Vatican II revolution and the subsequent “popes” up to Leo XIV:
1. Territorial Expansion without Doctrinal Depth
The conciliar sect prides itself on “growth” in Africa and other regions while:
– watering down doctrine,
– tolerating syncretism,
– cooperating with false religions.
This document already celebrates structural expansion without articulating the necessary integral Catholic content. The logic is: as long as *structures* multiply, the faith is assumed secure. In reality, such neutral structures were later seamlessly repurposed for ecumenism and religious relativism. The omission of strong doctrinal markers in 1959 made that repurposing effortless.
2. Diplomatic-Missionary Fusion
By giving ceding implementation powers to an Apostolic Delegate—functioning at once as ecclesiastical diplomat and “organizer”—the act reflects a shift:
– from apostolic preaching and supernatural formation,
– to Vatican bureaucracy intertwined with geopolitical considerations.
When that bureaucracy falls into the hands of modernists, as after 1958, missionary structures become vehicles of the new religion: human rights ideology, interreligious dialogue, development projects devoid of the primacy of grace and truth.
3. Centralization that Prepares Collegial Revolution
Ironically, while the text asserts strong “papal” authority to alter jurisdictions, the same usurper will shortly convoke a council to dilute papal monarchy into “collegiality” and elevate episcopal conferences—mechanisms perfectly suited to spread heterodoxy while diffusing responsibility.
The Kaduna model—restructuring provinces for “better administration”—prefigures the mentality in which:
– governance is technical,
– doctrine is flexible,
– structures are endlessly adjustable to “pastoral needs.”
This is the matrix of the Church of the New Advent.
4. Liturgical and Sacramental Neutrality as Precondition for Future Profanation
The constitution:
– never mentions the Most Holy Sacrifice as the heart of the new province,
– never safeguards the Roman rite and sacramental theology against experimentalism.
Within a decade, the conciliar sect would:
– fabricate a new rite,
– reduce the Sacrifice to an assembly-meal,
– turn “Communion” into a conveyor-belt of sacrilege and, in practice, idolatry.
Had this act been truly Catholic, it would have:
– bound the province unambiguously to the traditional Roman liturgy and doctrine,
– explicitly prohibited innovations.
Its silence is therefore not neutral. It reflects the same willingness to leave the doors open to “renewal” that would lead to the abomination of desolation in the sanctuary.
Language of Authority without the Spirit of the Church: A Legal Shell
The document concludes with characteristic legal finality:
“Quae Nostra decreta in universum si quis vel spreverit vel quoquo modo detrectaverit, sciat se poenas esse subiturum iis iure statutas, qui Summorum Pontificum iussa non fecerint.”
“Whoever should despise or in any way reject these Our decrees, let him know that he will incur the penalties established in law for those who do not carry out the orders of the Supreme Pontiffs.”
The irony is stark when viewed in light of pre-1958 doctrine:
– Authentic Popes employed such language to defend dogma, liturgy, and discipline against heresy and revolution.
– Here, a usurper—who will open the gates to Modernism—invokes the same sanctions, not to defend the faith, but to enforce an administrative measure which, in its spirit and omissions, helps prepare the ground for the neo-church.
Lex iniusta non est lex (an unjust law is no law at all) applies a fortiori when the supposed lawgiver publicly uses his position to favor doctrines and policies previously condemned. The Kaduna constitution, while not heretical in its explicit terms, manifests the operating mentality of that usurped authority: the faith is background noise; governance is foreground; and silence serves revolution.
Integral Catholic Response: What a Truly Catholic Act Would Have Proclaimed
Contrasting this constitution with perennial doctrine shows what is missing—and thereby reveals its ideological bankruptcy.
A genuinely Catholic erection of a province in Northern Nigeria, faithful to Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII, would have:
– Proclaimed explicitly:
– that only in the Catholic Church founded by Christ is there salvation;
– that false religions—Islam, pagan cults, Protestant sects—are to be opposed, not dignified;
– that Catholic rulers (where existing) and public authorities are bound to favor the true religion and reject religious indifferentism.
– Armed the new metropolitan:
– to combat Modernism, as condemned in Lamentabili and Pascendi;
– to excommunicate propagators of heresy and members of secret societies;
– to protect the Most Holy Sacrifice in the traditional Roman rite against experiment.
– Ordered:
– that Catholic education, catechesis, and preaching conform strictly to pre-existing magisterial teaching;
– that no accommodation be made to syncretistic customs or naturalistic ideologies.
– Linked the entire act:
– to the public and social Kingship of Christ;
– to the duty of bringing not only individuals, but families, tribes, and nations under His sweet and saving dominion, as Pius XI insisted: peace is only possible in the kingdom of Christ.
None of this is present. The Kaduna constitution thus stands as a sterile legal shell: impeccably phrased, supernaturally empty, historically instrumentalized by the conciliar revolution that followed.
Conclusion: Kaduna 1959 as a Warning Sign, Not a Model
When read through the lens of the unchanging Catholic Magisterium prior to 1958, the “Constitutio Apostolica Lagosensis (Kadunaënsis)” reveals itself as:
– a gesture of organizational engineering detached from doctrinal militancy;
– a text whose tone, omissions, and context align with the emerging conciliar mentality: administrative optimism, doctrinal reticence, openness to future innovations;
– an early demonstration of how the usurped authority would retain the external trappings of papal power while subverting its purpose.
The greatest indictment of this act is not in what it says, but in what it studiously refuses to say:
– no proclamation of Christ’s sovereign rights,
– no denunciation of error,
– no binding to the anti-modernist bulwark solemnly erected by prior popes.
Thus, it becomes a small, precise stone in the foundation of the later abomination of desolation: a province structurally Catholic, spiritually disarmed, easily absorbed into the paramasonic neo-church that would soon occupy the Vatican and export its new, humanistic gospel across the same missionary territories once won by blood and sacrifice to the true faith.
Source:
Lagosensis (Kadunaënsis) (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025