The text presented under the name of John XXIII, supposedly exercising the Petrine office, announces the erection of a new territorial structure in Mexico: by detaching certain parishes from the Archdiocese of Durango and certain municipalities from the Diocese of Sinaloa, it constitutes a new “Diocese of Mazatlán,” determines its boundaries, assigns its cathedral (the church of the Immaculate Conception in Mazatlán), defines its suffraganeus relationship to Durango, regulates transference of clergy and goods, and entrusts execution of these norms to the Apostolic Delegate. In other words, it is a technical act of hierarchical reorganization. And yet precisely in this apparently innocuous, bureaucratic rearrangement we see unveiled the first juridical gestures of the conciliar usurper: the appropriation of the language, forms, and prestige of the Catholic Church as the launch-pad of a new, parasitic structure that will soon overthrow doctrine, worship, and discipline from within.
The First Mask of the Conciliar Usurper: Mazatlán as a Prototype of the Neo-Church
From Catholic Ecclesiology to Territorial Engineering without Supernatural Substance
On the factual level, the constitution enumerates:
– the alleged pastoral motive: better care of souls;
– the surgical partition of historic Catholic territories;
– the erection of a new see, its cathedral, seminary obligations, consultors, financial provisions, and canonical execution clauses.
All of this mimics classical Catholic canonical form, appealing to *salus animarum* (the salvation of souls) as the supreme law. The form is externally traditional, but context and consequences compel a radically different judgment.
Key points:
– Date: 22 November 1958, first year of the usurped “pontificate” of John XXIII, only weeks after the death of Pius XII. This marks the very threshold at which the conciliar revolution begins to operate juridically through a man who will convoke Vatican II and inaugurate the program condemned consistently by the pre-1958 Magisterium.
– Content: purely structural; utterly silent about:
– the defense of the true faith against Modernism;
– the dangers of laicism, Freemasonry, Communism, and false religions;
– the duty of civil recognition of Christ the King (Pius XI, *Quas Primas*);
– the imprinting of the new diocese with strong doctrinal and liturgical safeguards.
In authentic Catholic practice, diocesan erection is never a mere bureaucratic cartography. It is ordered to intensifying the reign of Christ, strengthening orthodoxy, and defending the flock against wolves. Here, instead, we meet a smooth technocratic text that presupposes, without stating, a continuity it is about to annihilate in practice.
This silence itself is accusatory. At the dawn of the most violent doctrinal and liturgical onslaught since the Arian crisis, the new regime’s first document is dedicated to rearranging borders—an ominous symbol of what will follow: preservation of external structures while the faith inside them is evacuated.
The Linguistic Camouflage: Traditional Forms in the Service of a New Religion
The rhetoric of the constitution is outwardly pious, but precisely in that conventional piety lies its deception.
Examples (translated, emphasis added):
“We, who hold the care and governance of all the Churches, rejoice when, by dividing diocesan boundaries and establishing new circumscriptions, the hope is given that the needs of the faithful may thus be more suitably provided for.”
The vocabulary is that of classical canonical Latin; yet several symptoms of theological evacuation appear:
1. Absence of explicit Christocentrism in the sense defined by *Quas Primas*:
– No insistence that the new diocese must explicitly promote the social Kingship of Christ against secular states.
– No demand that laws, education, public life within this territory conform to Christ’s reign.
– Pius XI warns that public apostasy consists in excluding Christ’s name and law from public life; this text is content with new lines on the map.
2. Absence of militant anti-Modernist vigilance:
– After St. Pius X’s *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi* and the anti-modernist oath, any authentic successor of Peter, erecting a diocese in 1958—amid Communist infiltration, Masonic expansion, Protestant sects, and liberal governments—would recall the duty to guard Revelation, condemn errors, and protect seminary formation from new doctrines.
– Instead, we find formulaic references to a minor seminary and sending students to the Pontifical Latin American College in Rome—precisely the type of Roman environment that, within a few years, will become the incubator for the conciliar apostasy.
3. Bureaucratic-juridical tone:
– The text revels in procedural correctness, transfers of archives, canonical execution, and curial mechanics.
– This is the mask of continuity: conserving the visible legal shell, while inwardly preparing to change the faith, worship, and morals. *Lex orandi, lex credendi* (the law of prayer is the law of belief) will soon be subverted using the same juridical stylus.
Thus the language itself manifests the *strategia dissimulationis*: by adopting impeccably traditional phrasing, the soon-to-be conciliar regime purchases credibility for its structures, that will later serve to promulgate the new religion.
Theological Inversion: Authority Claimed, Faith Betrayed
The text presupposes that John XXIII legitimately “obtains the care and government of all the Churches.” From the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine, this claim disintegrates under the very principles affirmed by pre-1958 theologians and law.
Key doctrinal criteria (paraphrased from the supplied sources and classical theology):
– *Cum ex Apostolatus Officio* (Paul IV) teaches that the elevation of one who has deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into heresy is null and void.
– The theological tradition summarized (e.g. in Bellarmine, approved canonists, and reflected in 1917 CIC can. 188.4) affirms that a manifest heretic cannot hold jurisdiction in the Church. *A manifest heretic is not a member, therefore he cannot be head.*
– Public adherence to condemned principles (religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism indifferentist in nature, cult of man, etc.) is incompatible with membership in the Church as defined by Pius IX’s *Syllabus*, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII.
John XXIII:
– will convoke the council that enshrines religious liberty, false ecumenism, and the reconciliation with “modern civilization” explicitly condemned in the *Syllabus* propositions 15–18, 55, 77–80;
– will inaugurate the very “hermeneutic of evolution” of doctrine anathematized by St. Pius X in *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*.
Therefore, the constitution’s central presupposition—his supreme authority—is precisely what is theologically in doubt and, given the subsequent doctrine, morally impossible. The document, read in the light of later acts, manifests an early exercise of power by one who will prove doctrinally incompatible with the Papal office as defined by pre-1958 magisterium. The contradiction is not in Catholic teaching; it is in the conciliar usurpers who attempt to exploit Catholic legal forms while dismantling Catholic dogma.
Hence we face a grave theological consequence:
– If the one promulgating this act is not a true Roman Pontiff, then:
– the “diocese” created is not inserted into the juridical order of the Catholic Church, but into that paramasonic, conciliar structure that will occupy the same buildings and titles while preaching a different religion;
– the sacraments and orders conferred exclusively within that new structure, according to adulterated rites, lack Catholic authority and, in many cases, validity.
The constitution unwittingly records the moment a region of Mexico is re-routed from the historic, suffering Church toward what will become the Church of the New Advent.
The Seminary and the Formation of Wolves: Silent Preparation for Vatican II
One of the most revealing lines concerns priestly formation:
“A seminary, at least minor, is to be erected according to law; from it suitable students are to be sent to the City [Rome], to the Pontifical Latin American Pius College, to be instructed in philosophical and theological disciplines.”
Read in the light of true pre-1958 doctrine:
– St. Pius X warns in *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi* that Modernists penetrate seminaries, universities, and biblical institutes, spreading:
– denial of inerrancy of Scripture;
– evolution of dogma;
– reduction of Revelation to experience;
– falsification of Christology and sacraments.
By 1958, these tendencies were not hypothetical. They were a concrete, ongoing infiltration. A true Pastor, conscious of this, would:
– fiercely reiterate the anti-Modernist oath;
– bind the new bishop to the integral doctrine of Trent, Vatican I, and the anti-liberal encyclicals;
– explicitly forbid any tolerance of condemned propositions.
Instead, this constitution directs young clerics toward Roman institutions that, within a few years, will celebrate the very theses condemned by St. Pius X and Pius XII. The text gives no doctrinal safeguards, only bureaucratic routing. The new diocese is designed as a conduit: to re-educate clergy in the conciliar ideology that is about to be promulgated.
Thus the seminary clause is not benign; it is programmatic. It reflects the shift from:
– *Seminarium fidei* (seedbed of the faith)
to
– a formation centre of aggiornamento, religious liberty, and ecumenical syncretism, all under the veneer of canonical normality.
Manipulation of Jurisdiction: The Territorialization of Apostasy
The constitution meticulously regulates:
– assignment of clergy by territorial attachment;
– transfer of diocesan archives;
– division of goods per can. 1500 of the 1917 Code.
On its face, this is normal canonical praxis. But, in the conciliar context, these mechanisms serve another purpose:
1. Centralization under a new chain of command:
– By integrating clergy and laity of designated territories into the newly created see, the usurper regime captures entire populations within an emerging hierarchy that will accept Vatican II, the new “Mass,” ecumenism, and religious liberty as binding.
– The laity, thinking they remain in the same Catholic Church, are in fact subordinated to pastors who will soon preach a different religion while holding the same titles.
2. Re-purposing ecclesiastical goods:
– Church property, accumulated for the promotion of the integral Catholic faith and the Most Holy Sacrifice, is reassigned to a nascent structure that will, in a few years, use churches for the neo-rite, for interreligious spectacles, for catechesis contrary to the *Syllabus* and *Quas Primas*.
– The constitution’s insistence on canonical correctness only masks the moral horror: goods donated for the true faith are being placed under administrators who will betray that faith.
3. Immunization of the operation:
– The decree anathematizes any resistance:
“If anyone, of whatever authority, acts against what We have ordained, let it be considered wholly null and void.”
– This is juridical absolutism mobilized to protect the initial maneuvers of a regime which, soon after, will contradict the infallibly confirmed doctrine of its predecessors, especially on religious liberty and the relationship between Church and State.
– By invoking the supreme power of the Papacy in a context of doctrinal rupture, the occupants of the Vatican weaponize papal form against papal substance.
The pattern is clear: the same legal categories once used to defend orthodoxy are now reharnessed to secure the infrastructure of apostasy.
Silence on Christ the King and the Social Order: A Concrete Rejection of Quas Primas
Pius XI, in *Quas Primas* (1925), teaches in unmistakable terms that:
– true peace and order among nations are impossible until they recognize and submit to the public reign of Christ the King;
– the Church must tirelessly proclaim Christ’s rights over individuals, families, and states;
– secularism and laicism are a “plague” that the Church must condemn and resist;
– Catholics must fight under the banner of Christ the King, not neutral slogans of “dialogue” or “modern civilization.”
A document erecting a new diocese in 1958, faithful to *Quas Primas*, would:
– remind civil rulers that this new ecclesiastical circumscription claims freedom and independence from the state by divine right;
– insist that civil law and education align with the natural and divine law;
– bind the new bishop explicitly to promote the social Kingship of Christ against Masonic and secular pressures dominating Latin America.
Instead, we find:
– total silence about the duties of the Mexican state toward the Church;
– no reference to combating Masonic or anti-Catholic forces explicitly denounced by Pius IX in the *Syllabus* and subsequent encyclicals;
– quiet acquiescence in a de facto separationist, laicist environment.
This silence is not neutral. It is a de facto abandonment of the doctrinal line that Pius XI and Pius IX present as non-negotiable. That abandonment will shortly be formalized by the conciliar sect under the banners of religious liberty and “openness to the modern world”: exactly the errors condemned as destructive of Christian society.
The Mazatlán constitution, by omitting any assertion of Christ’s public rights, prefigures this shift. It marks a Church on the verge of surrender: content to exist as a spiritualized NGO whose diocesan map may be updated, while the kingship of Christ is exiled from law and culture.
From Anti-Modernist Oath to Conciliar Subversion: The Symptomatology of Apostasy
When measured against the integral pre-1958 magisterium (Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII), this constitution is “orthodox” only superficially. The deepest indictment lies in what it prepares and what it refuses to say.
Several symptomatic points:
1. No reference to the Anti-Modernist Oath:
– In 1958, still in force; yet no exhortation that the new bishop and clergy be exemplars in defending the faith against condemned errors.
2. No warning against liberalism and false “human rights” ideology:
– Pius IX explicitly condemns the notion that the state is source of rights (Syllabus 39), that the Church must be separated from the state (55), that religious liberty and pluralism are harmless (77–79).
– Yet this constitution assumes a purely intra-ecclesial perspective, as if the Church’s public claims were no longer urgent.
3. No insistence on immutable dogma:
– St. Pius X in *Lamentabili* condemns the idea that dogma evolves according to historical consciousness.
– One of the central crimes of the conciliar sect will be precisely the practical adoption of dogmatic evolutionism.
– The new diocese is established with a carefully “neutral” tone compatible with that future evolution; no strong reaffirmation of unchanging doctrine is made.
4. Use of hierarchical authority to consolidate a future anti-church:
– The structures created in 1958 are those through which, after 1962–1965, the new “Mass,” false ecumenism, interreligious prayer, and new catechisms will be imposed.
– The same diocesan title, the same “cathedral,” the same see of Mazatlán will, in practice, become operational cells of the neo-church, celebrating rites and preaching doctrines that cannot be reconciled with Catholic teaching.
Thus this constitution is not an isolated canonical curiosity; it is a node in the network of continuity-of-form/rupture-of-substance that defines post-1958 post-conciliarism.
False Obedience and the Abuse of Papal Forms
The closing threats of the constitution are particularly revealing:
“Whoever should disregard or oppose these decrees shall incur the penalties established in law for those who do not obey the commands of the Supreme Pontiffs.”
Here we see an attempt to shield the new arrangement with the full moral weight of obedience to Peter.
But Catholic doctrine is crystal clear:
– *Oboedientia non est in malis* (there is no obedience in evil).
– Authority in the Church is given *ad aedificationem, non ad destructionem* (for building up, not destroying).
– When the appearance of authority is used to protect the introduction of principles condemned by previous Popes, Catholics are bound to adhere to the unchanging doctrine, not to novelties.
By retroactively reading this constitution in the light of the subsequent conciliar revolution, the pattern emerges:
– Early acts create or adjust diocesan frameworks under the colour of papal authority.
– These frameworks are then commandeered to impose doctrines and rites irreconcilable with the faith.
– Dissent from these novelties is branded as “disobedience to the Pope.”
This is a perversion of the very nature of the Papacy and of ecclesiastical jurisdiction as defined by Vatican I and the constant Magisterium. Authentic papal authority cannot be coherently invoked to demand acceptance of what previous Popes have condemned as errors leading to the ruin of souls.
Hence, to absolutize obedience to the decrees of John XXIII and his successors, while silencing the teachings of Pius IX, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII, is to invert Catholic order: a cult of the current occupant rather than fidelity to the deposit of faith.
Conclusion: Mazatlán as a Case Study in the Expropriation of the Catholic Shell
Measured by the sole legitimate criterion—unchanging Catholic doctrine before 1958—the “Durangensis – Sinaloensis (Mazatlanensis)” constitution is:
– formally: a correctly drafted apostolic constitution in the line of traditional canonical praxis;
– materially and contextually:
– the first administrative maneuverings of a usurping regime;
– an act that reassigns people, clergy, and goods into what will become a paramasonic conciliar structure;
– a text whose pious language masks a deadly silence about the very truths most under attack: anti-Modernism, the Kingship of Christ, the social rights of the Church, the immutability of dogma.
Theologically:
– It claims universal jurisdiction for an individual whose subsequent teaching and policies align with condemned principles.
– It weaponizes papal style in preparation for anti-papal substance.
– It serves, concretely, to provide a territorial and hierarchical chassis upon which the neo-church will mount its new cult, new creed, and new morality.
For those who hold the integral Catholic faith, such a document cannot be naively venerated as a benign administrative footnote. It must be recognized as part of the genealogy of the abomination of desolation: the seizure of Catholic names, laws, dioceses, and cathedrals as instruments for leading souls away from the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary, away from the Social Reign of Christ the King, and into the naturalistic, ecumenical, anthropocentric religion so relentlessly condemned by the very Popes whom the conciliar usurpers dare to cite.
Against this perversion, the only Catholic response is unwavering adherence to the pre-1958 magisterium, sacramental life, and ecclesiology, refusing to confuse territorial and legal continuity with fidelity to the faith. *Non nova, sed nove tenenda: non aliud, sed idem* (Not a different thing, but the same must be held—yet with renewed firmness).
Source:
Durangensis – Sinaloensis ab Archidioecesi Durangensi atque a Dioecesi Sinaloensi quibusdam detractis territoriis, nova constituitur dioecesis « Mazatlanensis » appellanda, die XX m. Novembris A.D. 19… (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025