The Latin text promulgated by John XXIII under the title “Verae Crucis — Tehuantepecensis (S. Andreae de Tuxtla)” announces the territorial dismemberment of the Archdiocese of Veracruz and the Diocese of Tehuantepec in Mexico and the erection of a new ecclesiastical circumscription: the Diocese of San Andrés Tuxtla, with defined municipal boundaries, its own cathedral, chapter to be erected, seminary, financial provisions, and subjection as suffragan to the metropolitan see of Veracruz; execution is entrusted to Apostolic Delegate Luigi Raimondi, with all usual juridical clauses of validity, derogation, and penalties. In a single sentence: this constitution is the bureaucratic self-assertion of a usurping structure already in departure from integral Catholic ecclesiology, dressing its growing apostasy in the forms of canonical normality.
Apparent Canonical Normality as Veil for an Emerging Counter-Church
At first glance, the document mimics pre-1958 papal constitutions: Latin form, solemn incipit, territorial precision, subordination to a metropolitan see, concern for seminaries, canons, episcopal mensa, and procedural exactitude. Yet precisely this imitation reveals its deepest problem: a paramasonic, conciliarized organism claiming the juridical prerogatives of the Church while already preparing the revolution condemned by the pre-conciliar Magisterium.
The issue here is not one of geography in itself; *ecclesiastical circumscriptions are instruments for the salvation of souls* (*salus animarum suprema lex* – “the salvation of souls is the supreme law”). The question is: who wields this authority, to what doctrine is it ordered, and which faith is structurally encoded into these new “dioceses”?
By 23 May 1959, Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII) publicly and programmatically aimed at aggiornamento, ecumenical reorientation, pacification with the world, and doctrinal softening – precisely those modernist trajectories solemnly anathematized by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII. When a manifest innovator, already favorable to religious liberty, “dialogue,” and the revision of the anti-liberal magisterium, uses the papal form to re-engineer diocesan structures, this is not a neutral act. It is the infrastructure of an impending revolution.
Factual Level: Territorial Engineering in Service of a Different Religion
On the surface, the constitution:
– Detaches a list of municipalities from Veracruz and Tehuantepec.
– Erects the Diocese of San Andrés Tuxtla with its see, cathedral, and boundaries.
– Assigns it as suffragan to Veracruz.
– Orders the erection of:
– a seminary (at least elementary),
– a future chapter of canons,
– diocesan consultors.
– Regulates:
– clergy incardination,
– transfer of archives,
– income for the episcopal mensa.
– Empowers Luigi Raimondi to execute the provisions.
All of this appears canonically orthodox when isolated from context. Prior to 1958, such acts were generally instruments to intensify sacramental life, strengthen the hierarchical bond with Rome, and ensure closer pastoral government so that Catholic doctrine and cult might more effectively reign over society. This is how Pius XI speaks: the public reign of Christ the King is the condition for true peace; all civil and ecclesial ordering must acknowledge His sovereign rights, and the Church is a perfect society, independent and superior in her own order (Quas Primas; Syllabus of Errors, props. 19, 39, 55 condemned).
Yet in this 1959 text, several conspicuous absences and structural symptoms mark the shift:
– No explicit mention of the primary end of ecclesiastical erection: the supernatural salvation of souls in opposition to the errors devouring Mexico (Freemasonry, socialism, laicism, anti-clericalism, Protestantism).
– No reaffirmation of:
– the exclusive truth of the Catholic religion,
– the social kingship of Christ,
– the duty of civil power to recognize and assist the Church,
– the mortal danger of liberalism and secret societies which Pius IX identified as the “synagogue of Satan” warring against the Church (Syllabus, accompanying allocutions).
– Silence regarding:
– the obligation to preach against indifferentism and syncretism,
– the threat of Modernism condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili and Pascendi,
– the need to form clergy explicitly as soldiers against these errors.
The act is treated as a technical rearrangement, as if the Church were one more international administration drawing internal borders. This naturalistic, functionalist approach already betrays the mentality of the forthcoming conciliar sect: a “church” of structures, pastoral engineering, and diplomatic balancing, where doctrinal militancy vanishes into soothing bureaucracy.
Linguistic Level: Bureaucratic Formalism Masking Doctrinal Emasculation
The rhetoric is revealing. We read pious formulas about:
– “grex christiani populi a summo Pastore pascendus” (the flock entrusted to the Supreme Pastor),
– fitting division of dioceses for “greater benefit of the Christian community,”
– canonical correctness, penalties for disobedience, authenticity clauses.
But observe what the language systematically avoids:
– No strong confession of the integral Catholic faith as the only means of salvation.
– No militant tone against the errors tearing Mexico apart.
– No invocation of the kingship of Christ over the Mexican nation or its laws (against the laicist, masonic order aggressively imposing itself).
– No appeal to the condemnations of liberalism, socialism, and secret societies which, as Pius IX warned, were the principal agents of ecclesiastical persecution.
– No reminder that diocesan erection exists to strengthen the preaching of dogma, combat heresy, and multiply the Most Holy Sacrifice in its authentic, propitiatory form.
Instead, the vocabulary is abstract, administrative, as if neutral: territories, municipalities, suffragan relationships, canonical prescriptions. This is the speech of a system transitioning from supernatural militancy to technocratic management – that very mutation Modernism seeks, replacing the Church of Christ the King with an NGO-like “People of God,” governed by “structures” rather than by dogma.
The solemn threats of punishment at the end – “poenas… qui Summorum Pontificum iussa non fecerint” – ring hollow when issued by one who in doctrine and program distances himself from the very line of those true Supreme Pontiffs. It is precisely the weaponization of form without the substance of the faith: juridical thunder in the service of quiet revolution.
Theological Level: Discontinuity with Pre-1958 Ecclesiology and Magisterium
From the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine, several key theological points are at stake.
1. Ecclesia est societas perfecta (the Church is a perfect society)
– Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius XI insist that the Church has:
– full, native, independent authority from Christ,
– the right and duty to judge error,
– the claim to public recognition.
– Territorial reconfiguration is good only insofar as it intensifies this supernatural mission, enabling:
– purer doctrine,
– more frequent sacraments,
– tighter discipline,
– resistance to the world.
Here, the new structure is erected by a man who will shortly convoke the council that:
– promotes “religious liberty”,
– emasculates the Syllabus,
– opens to ecumenism and dialogue with sects and false religions,
– relativizes the exclusive salvific claim of the Catholic Church.
Thus the institution of a diocese under such a program is not neutral; it is incorporation into a developing anti-ecclesial framework. Formally it retains pre-conciliar language; materially it prepares dioceses to be future cells of the conciliar sect.
2. Formation of the Clergy: Seeds of Doctrinal Corruption
The constitution orders:
“Curet sacer huius novae Ecclesiae Praesul ut Seminarium saltem elementarium struat… iuvenes… Romam mittantur, in Pontificium Collegium Pianum Latinum Americanum.”
This looks orthodox; seminaries are essential. But two facts invert the sense:
– By 1959, Rome was already permeated by theological currents Pius X condemned:
– historical relativism,
– biblical criticism against inerrancy,
– the idea of evolving dogma.
– St. Pius X in Lamentabili and Pascendi explicitly condemned those who:
– deny full inspiration of Scripture (props. 9–12),
– claim dogmas are mutable expressions of religious sentiment (22, 54, 58–60),
– separate “historical” Christ from “Christ of faith” (29–31).
To send the best youth of San Andrés Tuxtla into institutions presently moving towards aggiornamento, to be formed by professors who will soon be engineers of Vatican II, is to place the future clergy of this new diocese at the very spring of Modernist contamination.
What is omitted:
– No mandate to ground seminarians rigorously in:
– the anti-liberal magisterium,
– the Syllabus of Errors,
– Pascendi and Lamentabili,
– Quas Primas and the doctrine of Christ the King.
– No obligation to preach against Modernism and ecumenism.
– No insistence on guarding against those very tendencies that the pre-1958 Church had formally condemned.
The silence is not accidental; it is programmatic. A diocese whose seminarians are normalized into post-1958 theology becomes an organ of a new religion.
3. Subordination to a Metropolitan See Destined for Conciliar Mutation
The new diocese is made suffragan of Veracruz. On paper, this is standard. In reality:
– A suffragan relationship is ordered to doctrinal and disciplinary unity.
– If the metropolitan and the Roman center turn towards error, the suffragan structure transmits that error down to the parish level.
The constitution cements juridical dependence on an authority which, within a few years, will:
– impose a new rite that disfigures the propitiatory nature of the Most Holy Sacrifice,
– promote religious liberty and ecumenism against the Syllabus and Quas Primas,
– absorb diocesan life into the “Church of the New Advent.”
Thus, what appears to be strengthening the Church is, in fact, building the pipeline through which the conciliar revolution will be enforced.
Symptomatic Level: A Prototype of the Conciliar Sect’s Method
This relatively “innocent” territorial constitution reveals the essential method of the post-1958 usurping line:
1. Preserve external canonical form.
– Latin texts, solemn formulas, references to canons, threats of penalties.
2. Systematically omit doctrinal militancy.
– No reaffirmation of condemned truths (exclusive truth of Catholicism, social kingship, condemnation of liberalism and secret societies).
3. Embed structural decisions that:
– centralize authority in hands of innovators,
– re-route clergy formation into modernist centers,
– prepare dioceses to receive and implement the upcoming revolution.
This is the very logic Pius X unmasked in Modernism: *“the synthesis of all heresies”* operates from within, wearing Catholic language while altering the substance. Once the anti-doctrinal council and the new rites arrive, these “canonically” erected dioceses, loyal to the Roncalli-Montini line, function as obedient terminals for the conciliar sect.
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, what is erected here is not simply a diocese; it is a future administrative organ of the “Church of the New Advent,” anticipated by Modernist infiltrators and condemned in principle by the pre-1958 Magisterium.
Silence on Christ the King and the Primacy of Supernatural Ends
Contrast this constitution with Pius XI’s Quas Primas (1925):
– Pius XI teaches that:
– peace and order among nations are impossible unless they acknowledge Christ’s social kingship,
– civil and ecclesiastical life must be publicly subject to Christ,
– secularism and laicism are a “plague” that must be resisted,
– Catholics must fight under the banner of Christ the King against apostasy.
In a region like Veracruz–Tehuantepec–San Andrés Tuxtla, scarred by:
– masonic anticlericalism,
– laicist constitutions,
– anti-Catholic persecutions,
a Catholic Apostolic Constitution erecting a diocese should:
– thunder against the errors condemned in the Syllabus,
– recall that the Church cannot be subject to secular authority,
– urge clergy to preach against the separation of Church and State (Syllabus, prop. 55 condemned),
– fortify the faithful in confession of the one true Church.
Instead we find a bloodless, “neutral” administrative document. The absence of Quas Primas’ spirit is itself a damning sign. Where the true Magisterium speaks of Christ the King and war on liberalism, this text speaks only of boundaries, suffragan status, and paperwork.
This is precisely how the conciliar sect in nuce approaches reality: as if the Church’s mission were to administer religious services within the Masonic-liberal framework, not to subjugate nations to Christ.
Instrumentalization of Canon Law Against the True Faithful
The conclusion of the constitution bristles with juridical self-defense:
– Derogations from contrary norms.
– Assertions of full validity.
– Threats of penalties for those who “despise” or “resist” its provisions.
In itself, such clauses belong to legitimate papal acts. But when employed by one who uses the Petrine appearance to weaken the anti-liberal, anti-modernist ramparts, this becomes an ominous sign: the canonical armature of the Church is being weaponized to:
– demand obedience to pre-conciliar form,
– prepare mandatory acceptance of post-conciliar deformation.
Later, analogous structures and threats were invoked to:
– impose a neo-Protestantized rite,
– silence defenders of the immemorial liturgy,
– persecute those remaining faithful to the Syllabus, Quas Primas, Pascendi, Lamentabili.
Thus even here, at the moment of apparently benign diocesan erection, the same juridical style functions as rehearsal for punishing fidelity and rewarding submission to innovation.
Conclusion: A New Diocese for the Coming Neo-Church
Evaluated by the unchanging Catholic doctrine prior to 1958:
– The act of subdividing dioceses is not evil in itself; the Church has always done so for the salvation of souls.
– However, authority to erect dioceses is inseparable from:
– holding the integral faith,
– defending prior magisterial condemnations,
– maintaining the Church’s supernatural and social claims.
This 1959 constitution, arising from the Roncalli program:
– Exhibits the external shell of Catholicity without its integral doctrinal content.
– Entrusts clergy formation to centers already moving toward Modernism.
– Subordinates the new structure to hierarchs who will soon enact the conciliar revolution.
– Is saturated with bureaucratic language and void of militant supernatural clarity.
Therefore, from the perspective of integral Catholic faith, this document is not a glorious extension of the Church Militant, but an early brick in the edifice of the conciliar sect: a network of dioceses built to be docile carriers of aggiornamento, religious liberty, false ecumenism, and the cult of man, in defiance of the Syllabus of Errors, Quas Primas, Pascendi, Lamentabili, and the entire pre-1958 magisterial line.
Any Catholic faithful to that unchanging magisterium must recognize in such texts not the voice of the perennial Bride of Christ, but the smooth, legalistic preparation for the abomination later enthroned in the same structures occupying the Vatican and its suffragan dioceses.
Source:
Verae Crucis – Tehuantepecensis (S. Andreae De Tuxtla, Constitutio Apostolica Archidioecesi Verae Crucis et Dioecesi Tehuantepecensi quibusdam detractis territoriis, nova efficitur dioecesis «S. Andre… (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025