This constitution of John XXIII establishes an apostolic exarchate in Germany for Ruthenian faithful of the Byzantine rite displaced by the Second World War, directly subject to the Apostolic See, with its seat in Munich and governed according to Eastern canonical traditions, with seminarians to be formed in Rome and the exarchal structures financed by the faithful and exarchate goods.
Oriental Ornament or Instrument of Subversion: The German Exarchate as Pre-Conciliar Trojan Horse
The Foundational Lie: A Manifest Heretic Legislating for the Church
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, the entire document collapses at its first and decisive presupposition: that Angelo Roncalli, self-styled “John XXIII,” could validly and authoritatively erect ecclesiastical jurisdictions in the Church of Christ.
Catholic doctrine prior to 1958, as expressed consistently:
– *Cum ex Apostolatus Officio* of Paul IV affirms that if someone has “defected from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy” prior to election, any such election is null, void, and of no effect.
– Classical theology (St. Robert Bellarmine, quoted in the provided Defense of Sedevacantism file) teaches that a manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church, since he is no member of it.
– Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law states that public defection from the faith effects automatic loss of ecclesiastical office “by the fact itself and without any declaration.”
Roncalli’s modernist trajectory, his associations and doctrinal orientations (already censurable before 1958 and subsequently embodied in the conciliar revolution) fall precisely under the condemnations of Pius X in *Lamentabili sane exitu* and *Pascendi Dominici gregis*. These doctrinal norms are not optional; they bind universally. A man objectively aligned with the principles condemned there cannot be presumed a safe guardian of faith and discipline.
Therefore, the central thesis:
No matter how “pastoral” the tone, a jurisdiction erected by one who stands in continuity with condemned Modernism is not an act of the Spouse of Christ, but an administrative gesture of the conciliar sect preparing its future subversion of both East and West.
Everything in this constitution must be read under this light.
Factual Plane: Humanitarian Pretext Masking an Ecclesiological Mutation
The (ARTICLE) opens by invoking the tragedy of war and the dispersion of Ruthenian Byzantine faithful from Galicia and the Carpathian region. It recounts that the Holy See:
“non modo hos filios, quos semper carissimos habuit, omnimodis iuvit, sed etiam Apostolicum Visitatorem misit, Petrum videlicet Werhun, eos suo nomine curaturum.”
and that Pius XII judged it useful for “alendae fidei et rituum integritati servandae” to create an exarchate in Germany, a project which Roncalli now formalizes.
On the surface, this appears entirely legitimate: the Pope providing for exiled Eastern Catholics, preserving their rite, ensuring communion with the Apostolic See. Such structures, in themselves, correspond to the Church’s traditional solicitude and to the teaching reaffirmed by Pius XI in *Quas Primas*: that all peoples, nations, and rites must be integrated under the one reign of Christ the King through His Church.
Yet several points reveal the inner dissonance:
1. The text leans heavily on the completed will of Pius XII as moral cover, but:
– There is no promulgated act of Pius XII cited; Roncalli claims to “bring to completion” what his predecessor intended “nullis datis de ea re apostolicis Litteris”.
– This rhetorical anchoring in a deceased pontiff is a typical conciliar maneuver: retroactively legitimizing present innovations by appealing to the vague “intentions” or “spirit” of predecessors, while bypassing their actual juridical acts.
2. The choice of Munich as the seat (“ubi plures eiusmodi ritus cives degunt”) is not doctrinally problematic in itself, but historically and strategically revealing:
– Germany was (and would become even more under the conciliar sect) a central laboratory for ecumenism, liturgical experimentation, and theological subversion.
– Inserting a directly Roman-dependent Byzantine structure there under the future modernist regime prepares a field where Eastern identity can be instrumentalized for “dialogue” with schismatic Orthodoxy, exactly the type of ecumenism condemned implicitly by Pius IX’s *Syllabus* (propositions 15–18, 55, 77–80) and explicitly by perennial doctrine.
3. The constitution appeals to protection of “fidei et rituum integritati” while being issued by the very usurper whose program would unleash the most radical devastation of faith and rites in history.
– This is not mere irony; it is structural duplicity. The exarchate is founded in words on integrity, but in historical reality functions within the advancing system that rejects *Quas Primas*, subverts the Most Holy Sacrifice, and enthrones religious liberty.
Thus, even on the factual and historical plane, we see the typical pattern: a humanitarian-tragic narrative used as a moral shield for an act that, while externally canonical in form, is internally ordered toward the new ecclesiology and future conciliar revolution.
Linguistic Plane: Pious Latin as the Vestment of Apostasy
At the linguistic level, the constitution deliberately wraps itself in classical curial Latin, solemn threats, and canonical formulae:
– Direct subjection to the Apostolic See: “Nova circumscriptio Apostolicae Sedi directo subicietur”.
– Provision of all rights and privileges: “omniaque iura, honores, privilegia, quae talibus Ecclesiis cedunt, et huic damus”.
– Severe juridical language: derogation of contrary prescriptions, insistence that any contrary acts are “irritum atque inane”, threat of penalties against those who despise these decrees.
This is carefully calculated:
1. It imitates the traditional style of true Apostolic Constitutions to project continuity.
2. It uses maximal canonical solemnity in a matter which, on the surface, seems modest and routine (the erection of a jurisdiction), thereby training the faithful and clergy to accept Roncalli’s acts as unquestionably binding.
But here the principle *lex orandi, lex credendi* (the law of prayer is the law of belief) warns us analogously: a counterfeit authority will first mimic the externals of tradition in order to introduce a new religion. Pius X in *Lamentabili sane exitu* condemned precisely the modernists’ art of using Catholic language with subverted meaning.
The tone is paternal, orderly, even severe against disobedience. Yet the same usurper will soon convoke the pseudo-council that enthrones notions condemned in the *Syllabus*, undermines the social Kingship of Christ defined in *Quas Primas*, and relativizes the exclusivity of the Catholic Church.
The pious, bureaucratic Latin here is not a guarantee of orthodoxy but the liturgical vestment of a juridical simulacrum.
Theological Plane: Inversion of the Church’s Principles under the Cover of Eastern Care
Measured against pre-1958 Catholic doctrine, several crucial theological problems emerge.
1. The Subject of Jurisdiction: Can a Manifest Heretic Create a True Exarchate?
Integral Catholic theology (as summarized in the Defense of Sedevacantism file):
– A manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church because he is outside the Church.
– Public defection results in loss (or invalidity) of jurisdiction.
– *Cum ex Apostolatus Officio* explicitly nullifies the acts of one who was heretical before election; the theological tradition extends this in principle to manifest heresy.
If Roncalli stands in the line of those promoting ideas condemned by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Pius XII—religious liberty, ecumenism divorced from conversion, historicism, doctrinal evolution—then:
actus non sunt Ecclesiae, sed personae privatae aut sectariae (the acts are not of the Church, but of a private or sectarian person).
Thus, no matter how canonically phrased, this “Exarchia” is at best a materially useful administrative arrangement for faithful of Eastern rite, but formally lacking the guarantee of Christ’s authority. It prefigures the paramasonic structure which, after 1958, occupies the Vatican.
2. Eastern Rites as Instruments of a Future Ecumenism without Conversion
The constitution repeatedly insists on:
– Preservation of “alendae fidei et rituum integritati”.
– Observance of “probati usus ac legitimae Orientalis Ecclesiae consuetudines”.
By itself, this is entirely in line with traditional teaching: the Church has always guarded the legitimate rites of the East, condemned Latinizing aggression where it endangered legitimate traditions, and affirmed that the Eastern rites are fully Catholic when in submission to the Roman Pontiff.
However, within the emerging conciliar ideology, a subtle but deadly shift occurs:
– The “integrity of rite” becomes gradually detached from the requirement of doctrinal and confessional clarity (the necessity to be explicitly and exclusively Catholic).
– The language of respect for Eastern traditions is later weaponized to justify a relativistic “communion” with schismatic Orthodoxy without their conversion, in open contradiction to Pius IX’s rejection of indifferentism and to the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church.
This constitution stands chronologically and conceptually at the hinge: using authentic Eastern Catholic vocabulary while being signed by the man who will sponsor precisely such ecumenism.
What appears as a defense of Eastern Catholic identity here becomes, under the conciliar regime, a preparatory move for a pan-ritual, pan-confessional federation where submission to the one true Church is replaced by a mutual recognition of errors.
3. Submission to Rome: To Which “Apostolic See”?
The text places the exarchate:
“Apostolicae Sedi directo subicietur” (directly subject to the Apostolic See).
Classically, this is glorious: Eastern Catholics directly tied to the rock of Peter, manifesting that there is una fides, unum ovile, unus Pastor (one faith, one fold, one Shepherd).
But the theological crisis after 1958 forces the crucial question that the (ARTICLE) never—and cannot—address:
– Is this “Apostolic See” the same in faith as that of Pius IX defining the *Syllabus*?
– Is it the same as that of Pius XI in *Quas Primas*, proclaiming the duty of nations to submit publicly to Christ the King?
– Is it the same as that of Pius X, anathematizing Modernism and condemning evolution of dogma?
The conciliar sect answers this with the hermeneutic of continuity, itself a modernist trick condemned implicitly by *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*: words of continuity veil factual rupture.
From the standpoint of unchanging doctrine, the “Apostolic See” invoked by Roncalli is no longer objectively identical in confession; it is being transformed into the central organ of a new religion of man, religious liberty, and ecumenism.
Thus, the more this constitution binds the exarchate “directly” to that See, the more it risks chaining the Ruthenian faithful to an authority which will soon:
– Subvert the Mass into a protestantized assembly.
– Hollow out doctrines defined infallibly.
– Replace missionary zeal with “dialogue.”
Subiectio ad Sedem Apostolicam (submission to the Apostolic See) is a divine duty only insofar as that See remains in the Catholic faith; where it is occupied by an antichristic regime, such subjection becomes a snare.
4. Sacramental Formation in Rome: Channeling Eastern Clergy through the Future Neo-Church
The constitution mandates:
“Quod ad iuvenes educandos attinet, qui sacerdotio initiari cupiant, ii Romam mittantur.”
Those who desire to be ordained are to be sent to Rome.
Under a true Pope, this is an act of highest prudence: ensuring sound doctrine, unity, and protection from local deviations. But under the emergent conciliar ideology, this clause becomes strategically devastating:
– It centralizes the formation of Eastern clergy in an environment soon to be poisoned by Modernism, liturgical revolution, biblical relativism, and ecumenism.
– It ensures that future Ruthenian priests in Germany will be “Roman-formed” not in Tridentine orthodoxy, but in the aggiornamento of the neo-church.
– It subtly replaces genuine Eastern traditions (rooted in the same dogma as Rome) with an Eastern “face” for the same modernist content.
Thus, the apparent respect for Eastern identity masks a plan of re-education: Eastern rite as aesthetic variety, doctrinally subjected to the conciliar synthesis condemned by the pre-1958 Magisterium.
To send future clergy into such formation is to risk producing ministers not of the Unbloody Sacrifice, but actors in a pan-ecumenical liturgical drama.
Symptomatic Plane: Prototype of the Conciliar Sect’s Method
This constitution is a minor document in scope, but a precise microcosm of the conciliar method:
1. Invocation of Humanitarian Crisis:
– The displaced Ruthenian faithful and their suffering form the emotive backdrop. The moral sensibility of Catholics is rightly touched; charity and pastoral care are demanded.
– Yet this charity becomes the cover under which the new regime asserts and normalizes the authority of a manifestly suspect figure as “Pope,” expecting that no one will dare distinguish.
2. Use of Predecessor as Moral Camouflage:
– Pius XII’s alleged uncompleted project is used, though not juridically enacted, to present Roncalli as merely executing prior papal intent.
– This is the template for later abuses: invoking “the spirit” of Pius XII, then “the spirit of the Council,” etc., to dissolve precise dogmatic and canonical boundaries.
3. Pious Latin, Strong Juridical Formulas:
– Threats of penalties against any who “spreverit vel quoquo modo detrectaverit” these decrees.
– This habituates clergy and faithful to accept without examination all subsequent acts, including those that will violently contradict prior doctrine.
4. Respect for Eastern Rites as Future Ecumenical Currency:
– The constitution’s emphasis on preserving Eastern usages foreshadows their later use as a bridge to schismatic Orthodoxy, not through conversion, but via recognition of “sister churches” without submission to Rome.
– This is implicitly condemned by the *Syllabus* (15–18; 55) and by the Church’s constant teaching that unity requires the same faith and subjection to the Roman Pontiff.
5. Centralization of Formation in Rome:
– A measure that, in 1959, still appears safe under the memory of pre-conciliar solidity, but which in reality places the taproot of these communities into the soil where Modernism is about to dominate.
Therefore, this constitution is not an innocent, isolated disciplinary text; it is an early node of the paramasonic structure that, beginning with John XXIII, will instrumentalize canonical forms for anti-Catholic ends.
Silences That Condemn: The Absent Kingship of Christ and the Invisible Supernatural
One of the gravest accusations against the (ARTICLE) is not what it says, but what it omits.
In a genuine act of the Catholic Magisterium, especially after the doctrinal clarity of Pius XI and Pius XII, one would expect:
– An explicit reaffirmation that these Ruthenian faithful, wherever they dwell, must preserve the fullness of Catholic faith against the errors of schismatics, Protestants, and secularism.
– A clear reference to the supreme law of the salvation of souls (*salus animarum suprema lex*), to the necessity of the sacraments, the state of grace, and the danger of indifferentism in heavily Protestant and secular Germany.
– A reminder of the duty, taught in *Quas Primas*, that even displaced communities witness to the public Kingship of Christ over states and societies.
– A condemnation of atheistic and naturalistic ideologies that caused and exploited the war and persecutions.
Instead, we encounter a purely administrative and horizontal text:
– No mention of the Social Reign of Christ.
– No mention of the supernatural end of man, final judgment, or the gravity of heresy and schism around these communities.
– No reminder of the unique salvific necessity of the Catholic Church, solemnly reinforced by Pius IX against indifferentism (Syllabus, 16–18).
This silence is not accidental. It is the symptom of the transition from the robust supernatural Catholicism of Pius XI and Pius XII to the diplomatic, naturalistic, “pastoral” vagueness of the conciliar sect.
By omitting the explicit affirmation of Christ the King and the condemnation of errors, the constitution already speaks in the future conciliar dialect: administration without dogma, care without conversion, structures without the Cross.
Contrast with Pius XI: The Kingship of Christ versus Ethnic-Pastoral Administration
Pius XI in *Quas Primas* teaches:
– That the evils afflicting the world come from “removing Jesus Christ and His most holy law from private, family, and public life.”
– That true peace will come only when individuals and states recognize and submit to the reign of Christ.
– That the Church must publicly assert Christ’s royal rights against secularist apostasy.
Measured against this:
– The exarchate erected here is presented only as an ethnic-pastoral solution, not as a militant outpost of the Kingdom of Christ in a secularized land.
– There is no exhortation that these Eastern Catholics act as leaven for the conversion of Germany, nor that Germany itself is bound to the same obligations before Christ the King as every nation.
– The perspective is sociological, not theological; administrative, not crusading.
This naturalistic shrinkage of vision is exactly the soil from which ecumenism, religious liberty, and the cult of man spring. A true Apostolic Constitution, in continuity with *Quas Primas*, would have burned with zeal for the triumph of Christ over false religions and secular powers. This one merely rearranges boundaries.
On Authority and Resistance: Why This Constitution Cannot Bind Consciences in the Manner It Claims
The document ends with the classic juridical closure:
“Has vero Litteras nunc et in posterum efficaces esse et fore volumus… Quapropter si quis, quavis praeditus auctoritate, sive sciens sive insciens contra egerit ac os ediximus, id prorsus irritum atque inane haberi iubemus… 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.”
This uncompromising demand for obedience is valid only if:
– The one commanding is truly Roman Pontiff.
– The content commanded is within his authority and not contrary to prior doctrine.
From the unchanging doctrine before 1958:
– A manifest heretic cannot claim this obedience.
– The faithful are bound to obey legitimate authority, not intruders or those who subvert the faith.
Thus:
– The threatened penalties for those who “despise” or “reject” these decrees have no supernatural force if the legislator is an antipope.
– Those who resisted the encroachment of the conciliar sect, or who later questioned the acts of John XXIII in light of Traditional teaching, are not rebels against the Church, but defenders of the faith condemned by Pius X as under assault by Modernism.
The solemn juridical shell of this constitution is an empty husk where authority has already been evacuated by doctrinal betrayal.
Conclusion: A Small Stone in the Edifice of the Abomination of Desolation
Taken in isolation, “Exarchia in Germania” appears as a limited, even benevolent, measure: pastoral care for exiled Eastern Catholics, respect for rites, direct union with Rome.
But weighed in the scales of unchanging Catholic teaching, historical context, and the subsequent fruits:
– It habituates the Church to recognize John XXIII as legitimate, despite his alignment with condemned tendencies.
– It embeds Eastern communities into the very center that will, within a few years, orchestrate the conciliar revolution.
– It uses traditional Latin, canonical form, and appeals to Pius XII as a mask for the emerging new religion.
– It is symptomatic of a shift from militant confession of the Kingship of Christ to sterile administrative management of ethnic-religious groups.
Therefore, from the standpoint of integral Catholic faith:
This constitution is not a luminous act of Petrine care, but an early, camouflaged move of the conciliar sect: employing traditional forms to extend its control over vulnerable Eastern faithful, in order to draw them—through “Roman” formation and direct dependence—into the future neo-church that denies in practice the exclusive, social, and doctrinal Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
The only remedy is a resolute return to the pre-1958 Magisterium: to Pius IX’s *Syllabus*, to St. Pius X’s anti-modernist crusade, to Pius XI’s *Quas Primas*, to the 1917 Code’s clear principles on heresy and office. In their light, documents such as this are unmasked: juridically polished, pastorally plausible, yet spiritually ordered to the consolidation of that paramasonic structure which occupies, but does not constitute, the true Roman Catholic Church.
Source:
Exarchia in Germania – In Natione Germanica Exarchia constituitur pro fidelibus ruthenis Byzantini Ritus ibidem commorantibus, d. 17 m. Aprilis a. 1959, Ioannes PP. XXIII (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025