The Latin text issued under the name of John XXIII announces the elevation of the Apostolic Vicariate of Hiroshima, entrusted to the Jesuits, to the status of a diocese, suffragan to Nagasaki, with its see in Hiroshima and its cathedral at the church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, establishing a canonical structure with chapter or diocesan consultors, seminary, episcopal mensa, and subjection to the Congregation of Propaganda Fide according to the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
From the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine, this act, though clothed in traditional juridical and liturgical language, is already the juridical mask of a program that would soon enthrone the conciliar revolution in place of the one true Church of Christ.
The Hollow Splendour of Juridical Forms Without the Catholic Faith
The document is brief, apparently “classical,” almost anodyne. Yet precisely such texts, signed by the first usurper of the conciliar line, require pitiless unmasking.
We are dealing with a juridical act dated 30 June 1959, after the death of Pius XII (9 October 1958) and after the usurpation of the Roman See by John XXIII, the initiator of what would culminate in the neo-religion of Vatican II. The content:
– raises the Apostolic Vicariate of Hiroshima to a diocese;
– confirms its boundaries and suffragan dependence on Nagasaki;
– entrusts it to local clergy, ordering the erection of a cathedral, a chapter or consultors, and at least a minor seminary;
– regulates material support through existing goods, curial income, alms, and subsidies of Propaganda Fide;
– subjects its governance to the existing canon law and Propaganda Fide;
– clothes everything in solemn canonical language, threatening penalties against those who disregard the decree.
At the factual level, it appears entirely compatible with pre-1958 Catholic practice: the maturation of mission territories into dioceses, promotion of indigenous clergy, solemn assertion of papal jurisdiction, and subjection to the Holy See.
However, three essential points must be underlined at once:
1. The act is performed by one who, by his doctrine and program, is outside the Catholic faith and thus incapable of exercising papal jurisdiction.
2. The text conceals behind an appearance of continuity the gestation of a reoriented “mission”: from conversion to the Catholic faith to dialogical coexistence with false religions.
3. By 1959 the network of future conciliar collaborators—especially within the Jesuit order and Propaganda Fide—was already the operational vanguard of Modernism condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi.
Thus the constitution “Hiroshimaensis” is not a neutral administrative gesture; it is an early stone in the architecture of the paramasonic “conciliar sect” that would occupy the hierarchy and twist missionary structures into instruments of religious indifferentism.
Factual Facade: A “Missionary” Advancement Without Mission
Factual analysis must first acknowledge what is stated, then expose what is conspicuously omitted.
Key provisions of the constitution:
– The Vicariate of Hiroshima is elevated “in ordinem dioecesium” with the same borders.
– It is suffragan to Nagasaki and continues under Propaganda Fide.
– It is entrusted to indigenous clergy, with exhortation to extend the “boundaries of Christian affairs” as far as possible.
– The cathedral is designated; a chapter is to be established; diocesan consultors may substitute.
– A minor seminary is mandated, in accord with universal law and particular norms of Propaganda Fide.
– Episcopal mensa is formed from existing vicariate goods, curial income, offerings of the faithful, and Propaganda Fide subsidies.
– Implementation is entrusted to the Apostolic Internuncio.
At first glance this aligns with the authentic Catholic pattern of missionary maturation: Rome erects particular churches where the faith has taken root, giving them stable hierarchy and institutions to foster the Most Holy Sacrifice, the sacraments, and catechesis.
Yet several elements, in context, signal a shift of substance beneath unchanged vocabulary:
– There is no explicit call to convert Japan from its false religions to the one true Church, no reiteration of the dogma “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” (outside the Church there is no salvation).
– There is no clear insistence on rooting the new diocese in the public Kingship of Christ over society—as taught non-negotiably in Pius XI’s Quas Primas—especially poignant in a city emblematic of modern warfare and secular power.
– There is silence concerning the errors condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors: religious indifferentism, the parity of false religions, the myth of a religiously neutral State. Yet precisely these errors would soon be institutionalized by the conciliar sect under the guise of “religious liberty” and “dialogue.”
– The text is surgically limited to structural, bureaucratic, and financial concerns, as if the promotion of canonical machinery were self-sufficient proof of Catholic vitality.
This silence is not accidental. In the integral Catholic mind, especially after the anti-liberal Magisterium of Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII, any act concerning the establishment of a diocese in a pagan land should burn with the supernatural imperative of conversion, the proclamation of the one true faith, and the denunciation of idols.
Instead, we have a bloodless administrative register. The “mission” is implied, never confessed; the supernatural end is presupposed, never weaponized. Such evasive reserve is the signature of a hierarchy already infiltrated by Modernism: doctrinal clarity muted; juridical forms preserved as a camouflage for a forthcoming doctrinal inversion.
Language as Sedative: Traditional Formulas in the Service of Revolution
On the linguistic level, the constitution is written in pre-conciliar curial Latin, strewn with formulas apparently orthodox and solemn:
– “ad perpetuam rei memoriam”
– “servus servorum Dei”
– threats against those who despise papal decrees;
– appeals to the joy of seeing the faith spread among peoples who formerly “served vain gods.”
Taken materially, nothing in these phrases is heretical. But in 1959 they function as a powerful sedative: the manipulative use of venerable style to reassure the faithful that nothing essential has changed, precisely as the usurper prepares the Council that will enthrone the cult of man and the religion of human rights.
This is the core modernist technique condemned by St. Pius X:
– the preservation of formulas with simultaneous change of content;
– the “development” that is in fact corruption, presented as homogeneous with the past;
– the use of traditional language to carry non-traditional intentions.
The rhetoric:
– Emphasizes structures (diocese, cathedral, chapter, seminary, mensa).
– Emphasizes procedural fidelity (Propaganda Fide, canonical norms).
– Emphasizes universal jurisdictional authority.
Yet it studiously avoids:
– Confession of the absolute necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation.
– Any denunciation of the false religions dominant in Japan.
– Any mention of the Kingship of Christ over nations, as defined in Quas Primas: that States must publicly recognize and obey Christ and His Church, or face divine chastisement.
– Any reminder of the supernatural order: sanctifying grace, mortal sin, judgment, hell, or the duty to shun heretical and pagan worship.
In Hiroshima—the city annihilated by an atomic bomb, a historical pulpit for naturalistic pacifism, UN-style humanism, and interreligious sentimentality—this silence resounds as an indictment.
Where Pius XI insisted that “peace of Christ” can only be found “in the Kingdom of Christ,” and that States and societies must submit to Christ’s law, the conciliar usurper lays a merely canonical stone, perfectly compatible with a future policy of “dialogue” with Shinto, Buddhism, and atheistic humanitarianism.
The formal Latin and empty threats of canonical penalties become an ironic mask: forma sine veritate (form without truth).
Theological Dissection: Jurisdiction Cannot Flow from a Manifest Revolutionary
The fundamental theological issue cannot be evaded: can one who prepares and propagates the conciliar overthrow of the faith be regarded as a true Roman Pontiff, and his acts as papal?
The constitution “Hiroshimaensis” rests entirely on the assumption that John XXIII is pope and that his act creates a true Catholic diocese. This assumption collapses when measured by the pre-1958 doctrine, not by conciliar myths.
Key principles (drawing on sources summarized in the provided Defense of Sedevacantism file and classical theology):
– *Principium certissimum* (most certain principle): Non christianus nullo modo potest esse Papa (“A non-Christian in no way can be Pope”); a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church and cannot be her head. This doctrinal axiom is expounded by St. Robert Bellarmine and received in the theological tradition.
– Manifest heresy severs a man from the Body of the Church prior to, and independently of, further judicial procedures; such a one loses all jurisdiction. Bellarmine and later authors clarify: the Church does not depose an already-not-a-pope; she recognizes the fact.
– The 1917 Code, canon 188.4, codifies that public defection from the faith causes automatic loss of ecclesiastical office by tacit resignation, “ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione” (by the very fact and without any declaration).
John XXIII’s entire pontificate is defined by:
– the convocation and ideological direction of Vatican II toward “aggiornamento,” religious liberty, false ecumenism, collegiality, and the cult of humanity—ideas already condemned in substance by Pius IX’s Syllabus, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Pius XI;
– benevolent protection and promotion of theologians whose positions coincide with propositions condemned in Lamentabili and Pascendi;
– the abandonment, in programmatic teaching and practice, of the integral anti-liberal, anti-modernist line of his predecessors.
These are not marginal ambiguities; they are a systematic program. One who publicly adopts and promotes doctrinal positions condemned by the authentic Magisterium, and who institutionalizes their spread through a pseudo-council, places himself among manifest heretics.
Therefore:
– He cannot be the successor of Peter in the sense defined by Vatican I and the perennial Magisterium.
– Acts issued in his name as “Supreme Pontiff,” though dressed in canonical form, lack the formal authority of Christ and of the Roman Pontiff.
– Structures created by such authority, especially as integrated into the subsequent conciliar sect, participate juridically in a counterfeit hierarchy.
Thus, the “Diocese of Hiroshima” erected by John XXIII is, in strict terms, a territorial cell of the emerging “Church of the New Advent,” not a guaranteed organ of the true visible Church, unless and only insofar as there remain within it valid sacraments and clergy who secretly or openly resist the conciliar apostasy. The text’s appeal to canonical penalties for disobedience becomes tragically inverted: it is John XXIII and his collaborators who incur the penalties attached to subversion of the faith and disobedience to prior solemn condemnations.
Systemic Symptoms: From Propaganda Fide to Propaganda for Indifferentism
The constitution explicitly maintains the new “diocese” under the Congregation of Propaganda Fide. Historically, Propaganda Fide was an instrument of authentic missionary zeal, subject to the doctrine that:
– Pagan religions are false.
– Their adherents must be converted to the Catholic Church.
– All nations are bound to recognize the authority of Christ the King and His Church.
But by late 1950s, Propaganda Fide (and large segments of the missionary clergy, notably Jesuits) had already absorbed the anti-doctrinal leaven of:
– anthropological relativism,
– misnamed “respect for cultures” reinterpreted as respect for false religions,
– embryonic “interreligious dialogue.”
The constitution’s failure to restate the uncompromising missionary mandate, especially in a land dominated by paganism and post-war secular humanism, is itself symptomatic:
– The focus on “indigenous clergy” is reasonable in itself; the Church has always sought local vocations.
– Yet, when combined with silence on doctrinal militancy, it prefigures the conciliar pattern: nationalized episcopates, culturally conformist clergy, and “contextual theologies” that dissolve dogma to suit local religious pluralism.
The “diocese” so erected becomes the ideal framework for:
– liturgical experimentation and later adoption of the Masonicized “New Mass”;
– catechetical dilution under the banner of inculturation;
– cohabitation and “dialogue” with Shinto-Buddhist structures instead of their conversion;
– transformation of Hiroshima into a symbol not of the triumph of the Cross, but of UN-style pacifism and interreligious ceremonies.
The document’s bureaucratic tone—obsessed with chapters, consultors, income, decrees—while ignoring the looming war against the faith diagnosed by Pius IX and St. Pius X (Masonic sects, Modernism, liberalism), merely confirms that the conciliar line is more concerned with managing an institution than saving souls.
Silence on Christ the King: A Direct Betrayal of Quas Primas
Pius XI taught with divine clarity that:
– individuals and States are bound to recognize and obey the Kingship of Christ;
– social and political apostasy is a root cause of modern calamities;
– the Church must openly oppose laicism and the exclusion of Christ from public life.
In Quas Primas he states in substance that there is no hope for true peace as long as men and nations refuse to acknowledge the royal rights of Christ; that civil laws, education, and institutions must be ordered according to His commandments; and that equating the true religion with false ones is an abomination.
Measured against this teaching, the constitution on Hiroshima is gravely defective:
– No call is addressed to the Japanese nation or authorities to abandon paganism and submit to Christ’s reign.
– No warning is given that public recognition of false religions violates God’s rights and brings chastisement.
– No link is made between Hiroshima’s devastation and the universal reign of Christ’s justice and mercy, mediated only through His true Church.
Instead, we see a perfectly “neutral” institutional expansion, capable of coexisting with a secular democratic regime, false religions, and internationalist humanism without affronting any of them.
This silence is theological speech. It prefigures the conciliar sect’s betrayal:
– Dignitatis humanae’s exaltation of religious liberty condemned by the Syllabus.
– Nostra aetate’s poisonous praise for false religions.
– The public worship of “dialogue” in place of the public worship of Christ the King.
Where Pius XI arms the faithful with a feast that publicly condemns secular apostasy, John XXIII offers an administrative act devoid of confessional edge—an ecclesial bureaucracy already internally reconciled with liberal pluralism.
Canonical Threats and Moral Inversion
The constitution ends by insisting:
– that its provisions are to be held in force now and in the future;
– that contrary prescriptions are nullified;
– that those who despise these determinations will incur penalties established for disobedience to the commands of the Supreme Pontiff.
This usage of canonical censure warrants precise inversion.
According to pre-1958 doctrine and the principles summarized from classical canonists:
– One who publicly adopts and spreads condemned errors stands under the shadow of heresy and loses authority.
– Hence, the very penalties the text evokes rebound not upon those who would resist the conciliar usurpers, but upon those who, under the name of pope, wage war against the integral Catholic faith.
Thus:
– Faithful Catholics in Japan who refused to follow the conciliar imposture, who clung to the true Mass and pre-conciliar doctrine, were not rebels against legitimate authority; they were guardians of authority against a counterfeit hierarchy.
– The Hiroshima structure, once it becomes a cell of the post-1960s neo-church, ceases to be presumed a safe organ of Catholic life; it becomes an occupied fortress.
Lex iniusta non est lex (“an unjust law is not law”). Likewise: jurisdictio haeretici manifesta est nulla (“the jurisdiction of a manifest heretic is null”). The solemn tone of the constitution only highlights the abyss: a usurped office wielding the weapons of canonical language to consolidate the position from which the faith will be systematically undermined.
The Hiroshima Diocese as Prototype of the Neo-Church’s Empty Shells
In the decades following 1959, what have the “dioceses” erected or steered by the conciliar sect typically become?
– Centers of liturgical sacrilege, where the Most Holy Sacrifice is replaced or obscured by the protestantized “new rite,” rendering worship at least gravely suspect, and in many cases idolatrous.
– Platforms for false ecumenism: joint prayers with pagans, atheists, and sects; denial in practice of the dogma that the Catholic Church alone is the ark of salvation.
– Schools and seminaries disseminating modernist theology, evolution of dogma, and moral relativism explicitly condemned in Lamentabili sane exitu.
– Mouthpieces for naturalistic agendas: “peace,” “social justice,” “human rights,” “disarmament,” without submission to Christ the King.
Hiroshima, symbolically chosen, fits this pattern: a place where the conciliar sect can parasitically exploit the memory of nuclear horror to preach an earthly peace without the Cross, a “universal brotherhood” without conversion, a sentimental compassion that never speaks of mortal sin, judgment, or hell.
Nothing in the 1959 constitution prevents—indeed, everything in its silences permits—this trajectory. The document’s traditional lexicon masks its role as proto-legal infrastructure for the Church of the New Advent.
Integral Catholic Response: Reject the Conciliar Mask, Confess the Kingship of Christ
From the perspective of unchanging pre-1958 doctrine, the only coherent response is:
– to deny the legitimacy of John XXIII and his successors as true Roman Pontiffs, on the basis of manifest rupture from prior Magisterium;
– to refuse to recognize as unquestionably Catholic the diocesan and hierarchical structures erected or definitively captured by these usurpers, including Hiroshima, except where concrete adherence to the integral faith and valid sacraments can be morally ascertained;
– to judge missionary structures not by their canonical titles, but by their doctrinal content:
– Do they condemn paganism, heresy, and indifferentism?
– Do they uphold the Syllabus of Errors and Quas Primas?
– Do they reject Modernism in the sense defined by St. Pius X?
– Do they offer the true Roman rite, the Unbloody Sacrifice, without dilution or compromise?
Where the answer is negative—and in the post-conciliar Hiroshima it is overwhelmingly negative—Catholics must see not the Bride of Christ but the paramasonic caricature occupying her visible apparatus.
Non possumus: we cannot bow to a “missionary” diocese that has become a chaplaincy to secular humanism and interreligious utopianism.
Non possumus: we cannot accept the juridical acts of those who, by their words and deeds, have placed themselves outside the Catholic Church.
Non possumus: we cannot allow pious Latin formulas to seduce us into complicity with the great apostasy.
The path forward is not romantic nostalgia for curial style, nor submissive obedience to structures hollowed out by Modernism, nor participation in the neo-church’s sacrilegious liturgies. It is a return to:
– the dogmatic intransigence of Pius IX’s Syllabus,
– the anti-modernist steel of St. Pius X,
– the social Kingship of Christ proclaimed by Pius XI,
– the untainted sacramental life and catechesis codified in 1917 law and the perennial catechisms.
Only within this integral continuity does the erection of dioceses possess meaning—as fortresses of truth, not administrative districts of apostasy.
Source:
Hiroshimaënsis, Constitutio apostolica Apostolicus vicariatus hiroshimaësis ad dignitatem dioecesis evehitur, d. 30 m. Iunii a. 1959, Ioannes PP. XXIII (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025