The document attributed to John XXIII under the title “Sancti Dominici… Constitutio Apostolica” announces the erection of a new diocesan structure in the Dominican Republic: the Diocese of Nuestra Señora de la Altagracia in Higüey, carved from the territory of the Archdiocese of Santo Domingo. It lays out borders, assigns suffragan status, regulates clergy ascription, seminary formation, canonical consultors, cathedral status, economic endowment, and delegates execution to curial officials. Behind the polished canonical Latin of a routine administrative act, it attempts to clothe a looming revolution against the Church’s constitution with the language of pastoral solicitude.
Administrative Cosmetics for a Rising Counter-Church
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, this act must be read not as an innocent technical decree, but as an early brick in the construction of the conciliar, anthropocentric, paramasonic structure which, beginning publicly with John XXIII, usurps Catholic forms to subvert Catholic substance. The solemn formulas of apostolic authority, when wielded by one who prepared and convoked the Vatican II revolution, do not sanctify that revolution; they unmask it.
Factual Rearrangement versus Perverted Finality
At the factual level, the text describes:
– The detachment of the civil provinces “La Altagracia” and “El Seibo” from Santo Domingo to form a new “Diocese of Nuestra Señora de la Altagracia in Higüey”.
– Specification of boundaries by oceans and neighbouring provinces.
– Designation of Higüey as episcopal see, with a planned Marian sanctuary as cathedral; interim status for the existing church of St. Dionysius.
– Establishment of ordinary diocesan rights and obligations, suffragan dependency on Santo Domingo.
– Mandate for at least an elementary seminary; for advanced studies, sending the best candidates to the Pontifical Latin American College in Rome.
– Provision for canons’ chapter, diocesan consultors, and diocesan administration according to 1917 Code of Canon Law.
– Delimitation of clergy incardination, episcopal mensa funding sources (curial revenues, offerings, share of goods, and a state-provided “dos”).
– Procedural clauses empowering a papal envoy to execute the decree; assertion of perpetual validity, universal derogation of contrary norms, and penalties for disobedience.
On its face, nothing here explicitly contradicts pre-1958 norms: the erection of dioceses, alignment with civil boundaries, requirement of seminaries, episcopal suffragan relations, these all belong to the normal exercise of papal jurisdiction as understood by the constant Magisterium.
However, integral Catholic theology judges not only acts in isolation, but within their *ordo finis* (order of end) and *contextus fidei* (context of faith). Here lies the problem: the same figure promulgating this constitution is the architect of the aggiornamento, of the council and reforms that would soon enthrone religious liberty, ecumenism, and the cult of man—errors solemnly condemned by Pius IX’s *Syllabus Errorum*, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Pius XI.
Thus:
– If the author is a manifest modernist, his claim to universal jurisdiction is gravely suspect.
– If the act serves as juridical consolidation for a soon-to-be subverted structure, it becomes functionally part of the revolution.
The document’s “innocence” is precisely its mask.
Language of Authority in the Service of Subversion
The Latin style imitates traditional papal constitutions: *“Servus servorum Dei… ad perpetuam rei memoriam… de apostolica Nostra potestate… decernimus ac iubemus… irritum atque inane haberi iubemus.”* The rhetorical clothing is impeccably canonical. Yet a close reading of tone and presuppositions reveals several symptoms:
1. Bureaucratic self-assurance:
– The text repeatedly absolutizes its effectiveness: anything contrary is “prorsus irritum atque inane”. Such formulas are legitimate in a true Pope. On the lips of a man preparing to overturn doctrinal safeguards, they become an ironic parody of the authority he is about to relativize in practice.
2. Positivistic accent:
– The stress falls almost exclusively on legal-technical norms: borders, consultors, acts, archives, procedural delegation. There is almost no supernatural exhortation: no call to preserve the integral faith against liberalism, no warning against modernist contagion, no explicit insistence on the traditional formation demanded by St. Pius X in *Pascendi* and the Anti-Modernist Oath. The silence is thunderous.
3. Pastoral generality:
– At the beginning, a generic phrase: that such measures help the faithful more easily know and embrace Gospel law and doctrine. But “Gospel” is left abstract, not explicitly identified with the dogmatic, anti-liberal, anti-modernist faith defined by Trent, Vatican I, and previous popes. This generic softness anticipates conciliar rhetoric, where under the same vocabulary the substance is mutated.
Integral Catholic language, especially in an era of raging modernism and masonic assault (see Pius IX’s *Syllabus*; St. Pius X’s *Pascendi* and *Lamentabili sane exitu*; Pius XI’s *Quas Primas*), is concrete, doctrinally armed, and vigilant. Here we see the opposite: a tranquil administrative voice that refuses to name the real enemies.
Theological Vacuum and the Betrayal of Christ’s Kingship
Measured against pre-1958 doctrine, the deepest indictment of this constitution is not what it does juridically, but what it refuses to confess supernaturally.
1. Silence on the Social Kingship of Christ:
Pius XI teaches that lasting peace and order are impossible until states recognize and submit to the reign of Christ the King in their laws, institutions, and public life; peace is only possible in the kingdom of Christ (Quas Primas). Yet:
– The constitution presupposes state cooperation (a government-funded episcopal “dos”) without a single word that civil power is bound in conscience to uphold the Catholic faith, or that Christ’s kingship demands Catholic legislation.
– There is no affirmation that this new diocese must be an instrument for restoring the rights of Christ and His Church over Dominican public life.
– The acceptance of a state stipend is mentioned as a neutral datum, with no doctrinal conditions, no warning against state control or liberal encroachment—despite the 19th- and early 20th-century Magisterium repeatedly condemning subordination of the Church to the civil power (Syllabus, propositions 19–21, 39–45, 55).
This omission is not accidental; it embodies the nascent conciliar mentality which will soon proclaim “religious freedom” and practical separation of Church and state, directly contradicting the Syllabus’ condemnation of such principles.
2. Silence on Modernism and Masonic Subversion:
St. Pius X in *Lamentabili sane exitu* and *Pascendi* exposes Modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies,” mandates strict vigilance in seminaries and theology, and binds clergy to the Anti-Modernist Oath. Any act erecting a new diocese in 1959—barely decades after those condemnations—ought, in continuity with that Magisterium, to insist:
– That seminarians be formed uncompromisingly in Thomistic doctrine and anti-modernist principles.
– That professors and clergy abjure condemned propositions (evolution of dogma, relativization of Scripture, subjectivist revelation).
– That masonic and liberal influences be rigorously excluded.
Instead, this constitution:
– Vaguely orders a seminary “secundum normas et leges” of the Roman Congregation, and sends “the best” to a Roman college (which would soon be impregnated with conciliar errors).
– Does not mention the Anti-Modernist Oath.
– Does not explicitly reference *Pascendi*, *Lamentabili*, or the Syllabus.
– Offers no doctrinal criteria by which “meliores” candidates are discerned.
By this cultivated vagueness, it implicitly loosens the anti-modernist wall painstakingly built by St. Pius X. The omission is a program.
3. Sacramental and Ecclesiological Minimalism:
A Catholic apostolic constitution erecting a new diocese, in continuity with the Church’s constant practice, habitually connects juridical structure with supernatural end: salvation of souls, sanctification by the Most Holy Sacrifice, preaching of the true faith, defense against heresy.
Here:
– There is no mention of the Most Holy Sacrifice as propitiatory, no explicit reference to the Holy Mass as the heart of diocesan life.
– No reminder that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation understood in the sense taught by the pre-conciliar Magisterium (and not the elastic, indifferentist interpretations that would follow).
– No insistence on the bishop’s duty to condemn liberalism, socialism, and all forms of religious indifferentism so clearly denounced by Pius IX and Leo XIII.
This is not mere negligence; it is an ecclesiological naturalism, preparing the way for the neo-church that will speak endlessly of structures, “pastoral” care, and human advancement, while emptying mission of its supernatural, exclusive, salvific content.
From Canonical Form to Conciliar Deformation: The Symptomatic Dimension
This constitution, dated 1 April 1959, stands at a threshold. Several symptomatic elements reveal its role as an instrument of the conciliar revolution:
1. Submission of Territory to a Future “Council Church”
By erecting and regularizing territories under the authority of John XXIII and his collaborators, the document effectively:
– Ties the Dominican ecclesiastical landscape to the line of authority that will promulgate Vatican II and the new rites.
– Ensures that once the new, heterodox “ecclesiology” is unleashed (collegiality, religious liberty, false ecumenism), these dioceses, already juridically dependent on the usurping center, can be rapidly assimilated into the conciliar sect.
The act is structurally similar to a military pre-positioning: securing logistical control before changing doctrine.
2. Instrumentalizing Marian Devotion
The diocese is placed under the title of “Nuestra Señora de la Altagracia.” True Marian devotion is intrinsically anti-modernist, anti-liberal, and subordinate to Christ’s Kingship; Our Lady crushes all heresies.
This constitution, however:
– Uses the Marian title as a sentimental and cultural marker, not as a doctrinal banner against errors.
– Says nothing of Our Lady as the destroyer of all heresies, nothing of her role in defending the integrity of faith against Modernism.
– Anticipates the conciliar technique: retaining Marian names and images while evacuating their doctrinal edge, bending them to a new, horizontal, nation-centric piety.
3. Collegial and Bureaucratic Ecclesiology
The text’s preoccupation with consultors, chapters, procedures, and curial delegation resonates with the ideology that will be dogmatized at Vatican II:
– The bishop is framed primarily as an administrator within a network, not as a guardian who must wield *gladius spiritus* (the sword of the Spirit) against false doctrine.
– The emphasis on consultative bodies foreshadows the democratizing, synodal tendencies that dissolve clear hierarchical responsibility.
The result: a diocese perfectly formatted to become part of the “Church of the New Advent,” where canonical machinery runs smoothly while faith, liturgy, and morals are gradually perverted.
Contradiction with Pre-1958 Magisterium: The Hidden Schism
Even if one bracketed the question of personal legitimacy and judged purely doctrinal atmosphere, the internal tension is evident.
1. Against the Syllabus of Errors:
Pius IX explicitly condemns:
– The separation of Church and state (55).
– The reduction of the Church’s rights under civil power (19–21, 39–45).
– The notion that the Roman Pontiff must reconcile with “progress, liberalism, and modern civilization” (80).
Yet:
– The tone and omissions of this constitution conform to that liberal “reconciliation”: no bold assertion of Catholic confessional order, easy acceptance of state arrangements, a purely technical structuring indifferent to the explicit re-evangelization of public order.
2. Against Lamentabili and Pascendi:
St. Pius X condemns:
– The “development” that corrupts dogma.
– The democratization of dogmatic authority.
– Any historical-critical mentality that relativizes the supernatural.
Yet:
– The very author of this constitution would soon unleash a council promoting the evolution of doctrine (in practice), religious liberty, and collegiality—exactly those tendencies pre-condemned.
– The constitution’s failure to reaffirm anti-modernist safeguards, while reorganizing ecclesiastical structures, is itself a betrayal of St. Pius X’s mandate that vigilance must be integral and constant.
3. Against Quas Primas:
Pius XI declares that the central plague of the age is the rejection of Christ’s public reign, and institutes the feast of Christ the King to counter secularism.
In this light:
– Every structural act of the Church in the 20th century should have been explicitly ordered to restoring the social kingship of Christ.
– This constitution, however, is void of such orientation; it is the bureaucracy of a body that has lost consciousness of its royal mandate.
The conclusion is inescapable: while clothed in pre-conciliar legal forms, this act already breathes another spirit—a spirit that denies, by silence and direction, the integral anti-liberal, anti-modernist stand of the true Church.
Grave Responsibility of the Neo-Hierarchy and the Illusion of “Continuity”
It would be a fatal naivety to interpret this 1959 act as proof of “continuity.” The conciliar sect loves to point to such documents to argue that John XXIII simply “continued” the tradition. In reality:
– This constitution illustrates the tactical method of the revolution:
– Maintain traditional externalities (Latin, canonical formulas, Marian titles).
– Avoid overt doctrinal contradiction—for the moment.
– Gradually redirect structures, seminaries, dioceses into dependence on a center preparing to mutate doctrine and worship.
– Once the new theology burst forth under the same juridical shell, these dioceses, including Higüey, became organs of a system propagating:
– A protestantized “eucharistic celebration” in place of the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary.
– False ecumenism and recognition of false religions as “ways” or “instruments” of salvation.
– Religious liberty and human-rights ideology against the social reign of Christ.
– Aggressive burial of anti-modernist teaching.
Therefore:
– The modernist “bishops” installed into these structures, sharing the new rites and doctrines, cannot be regarded as guardians of the Catholic religion but as administrators of an apostate network.
– Their jurisdiction, their sacraments (celebrated in post-1968 rites), and their governance serve not the Mystical Body of Christ but the “neo-church” which occupies Catholic buildings and titles while waging war on Catholic dogma.
Return to the Authentic Ecclesial Order
The only coherent response, in light of pre-1958 magisterial teaching and the manifest trajectory inaugurated under John XXIII, is:
– To refuse the myth that such acts guarantee orthodoxy to the subsequent conciliar edifice. Canonical acts severed from the profession and defense of the unchanging faith lose their salvific orientation.
– To judge all structures born into or surrendered to the conciliar revolution by the criterion of integral Catholic doctrine:
– Where the traditional faith, sacraments, and worship are maintained in their pre-1958 sense, there the Church’s life remains.
– Where modernist teaching, ecumenism, religious liberty, and profaned liturgy reign, there we confront a paramasonic, anti-Catholic system, even if it boasts apostolic constitutions and diocesan curias.
The Diocese of Nuestra Señora de la Altagracia, as architected here, is an example of how the revolution secured its institutional map in advance. The Latin phrases, the canonical pedantry, the Marian veneer only sharpen the accusation: *sub specie pastorali* (under a pastoral appearance), the nascent conciliar sect laid claim to territories and souls that, by divine right, belong to Christ the King and to the immutable Church that cannot—*non potest*—betray the faith once delivered to the saints.
Source:
Sancti dominici – Constitutio Apostolica ab Archidioecesi Sancti Dominici quibusdam detractis territoriis, nova conditur dioecesis «A Domina Nostra vulgo De La Altagracia in Higüey seu Higueyensis» ap… (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025