The document issued under the name of Ioannes XXIII on 17 January 1959, titled “CAIAZEIRASENSIS-CAMPINENSIS GRANDIS (PATOSENSIS)”, is an apostolic constitution which, in solemn juridical language, carves territories from the dioceses of Cajazeiras and Campina Grande in Brazil to erect a new diocese of Patos. It defines its boundaries, assigns Patos as the episcopal see, designates “Nossa Senhora da Guia” as cathedral, regulates the future chapter of canons or diocesan consultors, orders the erection of at least an elementary seminary, determines the composition of the episcopal mensa (revenues), incorporates clergy incardination norms, and entrusts execution to the Apostolic Nuncio Armandus Lombardi and the Consistorial Congregation. All appears, at first glance, as a routine act of pastoral administration—yet it stands as a juridical mask legitimizing the nascent conciliar revolution by cloaking an emerging counterfeit hierarchy in the venerable forms of the pre-1958 Church.
Administrative Facade for the Conciliar Usurpation
The text imitates, almost flawlessly, the canonical style of genuine pontifical constitutions: solemn invocations, territorial precision, submission to metropolitan authority, insistence on seminaries, chapters, curial order, archives. This exact imitation is the first and principal indictment.
A man who, as history and doctrine show, inaugurated the very council that would enthrone religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism, and the cult of man, here appears as a faithful continuer of Pius XII’s ecclesiastical governance. The contradiction is not accidental; it is systematic. This constitution must be read as a transition-mask: an act which seeks to bind the faithful into obedience to an authority that, in doctrine and in subsequent acts, reveals itself as alien to the *una, sancta, catholica et apostolica Ecclesia*.
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, every apparently “neutral” structural act issued under such a usurped authority becomes an instrument of the same subversion: by multiplying diocesan structures obedient to the conciliar project, it fabricates the future operating map of the *conciliar sect*.
Instrumentalization of Traditional Canonical Form
On the factual level, the constitution:
– Detaches specified municipalities and parishes from Cajazeiras and Campina Grande.
– Erects the Diocese of Patos (“Dioecesis Patosensis”) with civil boundaries as ecclesiastical boundaries.
– Subordinates it as suffragan to the metropolitan of Paraíba.
– Orders:
– Establishment of a cathedral chapter (or interim diocesan consultors).
– Construction of at least an elementary seminary.
– Transfer of clergy incardination according to territory.
– Provision for episcopal revenues from offerings, curial income, and assigned goods.
– Confers execution to the Apostolic Nuncio and the Consistorial Congregation.
Taken in isolation, none of these elements contradicts pre-1958 discipline. The Church has always erected new dioceses for pastoral reasons. But the decisive question is: in whose name, and toward what doctrinal end, are these structures established?
By 1959, the man signing as “Ioannes PP. XXIII” was preparing the council that would promulgate precisely what Pope Pius IX in the *Syllabus Errorum* (1864) condemned: religious liberty (prop. 15–18, 77–80), the equality of false religions, and reconciliation with “modern civilization.” Pius X in *Lamentabili sane exitu* and *Pascendi* had denounced the modernist program of evolving dogma, relativized magisterium, and the transformation of ecclesiastical structures into vehicles of democratic and naturalistic ideas. The same program begins to unfold formally under John XXIII.
Therefore the constitution’s apparent orthodoxy on territorial and institutional matters functions as *camouflage*: it normalizes obedience to a line of governance that, in its doctrinal orientation, has already broken continuity with the pre-1958 Magisterium.
On this basis, the act is not an innocent administrative measure, but a juridical step in integrating Brazilian Catholics into what will become the *neo-church* of Vatican II.
Linguistic Piety as a Veil for Future Apostasy
The constitution opens with a high theological prelude:
“Quandoquidem Deus, ut est sapientissimus, redemptos homines per tormenta doloris Filii sui Iesu Christi maternis voluit Ecclesiae sanctae curis ad aeternam salutem perduci…”
(“Since God, as most wise, has willed that redeemed men be led to eternal salvation by the maternal care of holy Church through the torments of the suffering of His Son Jesus Christ…”)
This is classical language: redemption through Christ’s Passion, the maternal mediation of the Church, pastoral solicitude for eternal salvation. Yet this same pen and persona will soon convoke a council whose documents and implementation will:
– Silence the doctrine of the exclusive necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation in practice, while not abrogating it in theory.
– Elevate “dialogue,” “human dignity,” and “religious freedom” to quasi-dogmatic axioms.
– Replace the *social kingship of Christ* with coexistence of religions in the public square—precisely what Pius XI in *Quas Primas* denounced as the root of secular apostasy (“this plague is laicism, its errors and wicked endeavors”).
Thus we observe:
– A rhetoric formally aligned with Catholic tradition.
– A subsequent praxis diametrically opposed to the same tradition.
This duplicity corresponds exactly to what St. Pius X described as modernist tactics: outward respect for formulas, inward subversion of their content. The use of immaculate Latin and canonical precision becomes here a liturgical vestment clothing the body of a nascent revolution.
The linguistic features that betray this function include:
– Emphasis on “aequiores… conditiones” (more suitable conditions) couched in pastoral pragmatism, subtly opening the door to a horizontal, sociologically driven concept of ecclesial governance.
– Constant insistence on formal legality and process, cultivating trust in structural obedience that, once Vatican II begins, will be redirected from immutable dogma to mutable “aggiornamento.”
Territorial Engineering as Precondition for the Conciliar Sect
On the theological-symptomatic level, the erection of Patos must be seen in its historical moment:
– 1958: Death of Pius XII, end of the last unquestionably Catholic pontificate.
– 1958: Election of John XXIII, soon to reveal his project of a “pastoral council” and aggiornamento.
– 1959: This constitution: consolidating ecclesiastical territories and chains of obedience which will participate in the council and its post-conciliar deformation.
By creating a suffragan diocese within the Brazilian hierarchy, the document:
– Ensures that future “bishops” of Patos, formed already on the eve or in the wake of Vatican II, will be integrated into the *paramasonic structure* that usurps Catholic forms.
– Establishes a new local node through which the conciliar errors will be disseminated: the new catechisms, the new “Mass,” the ecumenical and religious liberty agenda.
The act is therefore structurally significant: it is part of the logistical preparation of the battlefield on which the true faith will be displaced by post-conciliar novelties. What appears as a pastoral gesture is, in effect, a repartition of sheepfolds to be entrusted to future hirelings.
The Seminary Clause: Formation for the New Religion
The constitution gravely obliges the new “bishop”:
“ut Seminarium saltem elementarium construat, pueris excipiendis qui ad sacerdotium Dei voce invitentur: sunt enim spes omnis Ecclesiae.”
(“that he build at least an elementary seminary for boys called by God’s voice to the priesthood: for they are the entire hope of the Church.”)
In genuine Catholic order, this is a holy and necessary precept. Yet in view of the impending conciliar upheaval, it acquires a markedly different meaning:
– Those “seminaries” established under the authority of John XXIII and his successors will, as history incontrovertibly shows, rapidly abandon Thomistic philosophy, orthodox dogmatic theology, and ascetical-mystical formation.
– They become laboratories of:
– *Nouvelle théologie*
– Liturgical deformation
– Ecumenism and religious indifferentism
– Moral laxism and naturalism
Pius X in *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi* had warned precisely against such academic environments, where “biblical” and “historical” criticism stripped Scripture and dogma of their supernatural, immutable character. To command the erection of seminaries under a soon-to-be modernist regime is effectively to command the industrial production of invalid or heretical “clergy” for the *conciliar sect*.
The rhetorical appeal—“they are the hope of the Church”—is thus turned on its head. In practice, these seminarians, formed according to the new orientation, will become:
– Promoters of the degraded “New Mass”
– Propagators of religious liberty condemned in the *Syllabus*
– Functionaries of a “Church of the New Advent” no longer ordered to the *regnum Christi* over nations as taught by Pius XI, but to a humanitarian fraternity.
Cathedral, Chapter, and the Hollowing Out of Apostolic Succession
The constitution solemnly designates “Nossa Senhora da Guia” as the cathedral. It mandates a chapter of canons or, temporarily, diocesan consultors. It insists on canonical norms for governance, capitular vicar election, archival custody.
All this presupposes:
– A validly consecrated bishop.
– A clergy validly ordained in the traditional rite.
– Submission to the Roman Pontiff who professes and defends the integral Catholic faith.
But John XXIII initiates the line of antipopes and the subversive council which:
– Alters the episcopal and priestly rites (under “Paul VI”), casting grave doubt upon sacramental validity when the essential sacramental theology is eroded and the form ambiguous.
– Reorients episcopal authority from defending the deposit (*depositum fidei*) to implementing conciliar aggiornamento.
– Introduces collegial and democratic structures that relativize the monarchical, divine right of the papacy and the hierarchical constitution of the Church.
Thus the newly created cathedral and chapter, instead of being a stronghold of apostolic tradition, become an institutional shell:
– Outwardly canonical.
– Inwardly serving a new religion that:
– Accepts pluralism of worship as a civil right (condemned by Pius IX, props. 77–79).
– Engages in false ecumenism and prayer with sects and infidels.
– Mutes or contradicts the doctrine of the social reign of Christ the King (Pius XI, *Quas Primas*).
In other words, the very structures which historically safeguarded orthodoxy are here being replicated under the authority of the one who will betray that orthodoxy at the global level.
Submission Clauses as Tools of Enslavement to the Neo-Church
The constitution concludes with the usual solemn formula:
“Ras vero Litteras nunc et in posterum efficaces esse et fore volumus… si quis… contra egerit ac Nos ediximus, id prorsus irritum atque inane haberi iubemus… Qui… detrectaverit, sciat se poenas esse subiturum…”
(“We will and decree that these Letters be and remain now and in the future effective… If anyone should act against what We have decreed, We order that it be considered totally null and void… Whoever rejects or refuses shall know that he will incur the penalties established for those who do not obey the orders of the Supreme Pontiffs.”)
In a true pontifical document, such clauses protect the flock and the divine constitution of the Church. Here, they perform a sinister inversion:
– The faithful are morally blackmailed into obedience to a juridical act whose author will soon promote and ratify, directly or through a council he called, propositions doctrinally incompatible with the pre-1958 Magisterium.
– Resistance to these new structures in light of their future function (vehicles of conciliar errors) is framed as disobedience to “Summorum Pontificum iussa,” although the very identity of the “Summus Pontifex” is theologically contestable once manifest heresies are embraced in word or in praxis.
As integral Catholic theology, reiterated in the sources summarized in the “Defense of Sedevacantism” document, affirms:
– A manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church or hold jurisdiction (*non potest esse caput qui non est membrum* – “he cannot be head who is not a member”).
– Public defection from the faith (cf. 1917 Code, can. 188.4) vacates office *ipso facto*.
– Paul IV’s *Cum ex Apostolatus Officio* declares null the elevation of one who has deviated from the faith.
The post-1958 line’s trajectory—starting with the architect of Vatican II—must be evaluated precisely against this doctrinal criterion. The threat of canonical penalties in this constitution thus becomes doubly perverse:
– It lays claim to papal obedience while preparing ecclesial submission to what will become the conciliar, anti-traditional system.
– It weaponizes the sacred concept of papal authority to consolidate compliance with future novelties.
Silences that Accuse: No Mention of the True Crisis
From the perspective of Catholic Tradition, the gravest indictment of this constitution is not what it says, but what it omits.
Notably absent:
– Any warning against modernism, despite its rampant spread in seminaries and theological faculties worldwide, explicitly condemned by Pius X.
– Any insistence on Thomistic formation, the bulwark against doctrinal corruption.
– Any reaffirmation of:
– The unique necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation.
– The condemnation of religious indifferentism and liberalism (Pius IX, *Syllabus*).
– The social reign of Christ the King over nations (Pius XI, *Quas Primas*), which should be particularly relevant in reorganizing ecclesiastical structures within a modern state.
– Any reference to guarding the faithful against secret societies, Freemasonry, and anti-Christian political forces—although prior popes repeatedly linked such forces to assaults on the Church.
The text moves entirely within an intra-ecclesiastical, bureaucratic horizon. It treats diocesan architecture as if the only task were “better administration,” totally ignoring the doctrinal war enveloping the Church in the 20th century. This naturalistic administrative focus—void of militant supernatural vigilance—is itself modernist in spirit.
*Silentium de rebus maximis est maxima accusatio* (Silence about the greatest matters is the greatest accusation).
Where Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII spoke prophetically against liberalism, modernism, secularism, and masonic infiltration, this constitution limits itself to technical and sentimental formulas. It reads as if the Church were at peace, not under siege—on the very eve of the greatest internal revolution in her visible structures.
From Structural Legitimacy to Systemic Apostasy
Some might argue: “This document is doctrinally irreproachable; it merely creates a diocese.” Such a view is superficial.
Key points:
1. Structures are not the faith, but they are vehicles of the faith—or of its corruption.
2. When structures are multiplied under a regime that will, within a few years, promulgate and implement:
– Religious liberty opposed to the teaching of Gregory XVI (*Mirari Vos*) and Pius IX.
– Collegiality and democratization contrary to the monarchical constitution of the Church.
– Ecumenical practices that relativize the unique truth of Catholicism.
– A liturgical revolution that obscures the sacrificial, propitiatory nature of the Most Holy Sacrifice.
then those structures become an extension of systemic apostasy.
3. The appearance of perfect canonical continuity is part of the strategy: to use the Church’s legal language, vestments, and forms as scaffolding for an entirely different edifice.
Thus this apostolic constitution is:
– On its surface: a classical act of diocesan erection.
– In its concrete historical function: a juridical brick in the construction of the conciliar pseudo-church in Brazil.
Justice and Authority: Reserved to the True Church, Not to the Neo-Hierarchy
It is crucial to emphasize:
– Authority in the Church is not democratic, not self-generated, not validated by sociological success.
– It depends upon:
– Fidelity to the integral deposit of faith.
– Valid sacramental orders.
– Visible continuity with the perennial Magisterium understood in its traditional, non-modernist sense.
The *conciliar sect* that will exploit structures like the Diocese of Patos for its post-1960s agenda:
– Has no right to judge the faithful remnant that refuses its novelties.
– Has no right to claim exclusive jurisdiction over sacraments which it has deformed.
– Has no right to wield canonical penalties founded on obedience to a counterfeit religion.
Justice and legitimate jurisdiction belong exclusively to the true Church: to bishops and priests who retain valid orders and profess without compromise the doctrine taught “always, everywhere, and by all” before the conciliar rupture (*semper, ubique, ab omnibus*).
The faithful are not bound in conscience to accept as Catholic that which mutilates the faith, even if it bears the same external trappings of dioceses, cathedrals, and Latin decrees. To the extent that acts like this constitution serve to anchor loyalty to the post-1958 hierarchy as such, they must be exposed as instruments of deception.
Conclusion: A Pious Skin over the Machinery of the New Religion
The constitution “Caiazeirensis-Campinensis Grandis (Patosensis)” is a paradigm of how the conciliar usurpation operated at its inception:
– Preserve every external form of continuity:
– Latin
– Canonical precision
– Devout formulas
– Emphasis on seminaries, chapters, obedience.
– Prepare, through those very forms, the ecclesiastical infrastructure that will quickly be taken over by a new theology and a new worship.
Measured by pre-1958 Catholic doctrine:
– Its language on diocesan order is materially orthodox.
– Its omissions regarding modernism, liberalism, and the social kingship of Christ are gravely symptomatic.
– Its juridical claims to obedience, in light of the subsequent conciliar revolution fostered by the same regime, expose a deeper counterfeit: the demand that Catholics submit not only to lawful discipline, but also to the impending mutation of the faith.
What must be rejected is not the abstract notion of local ecclesiastical organization, but the legitimacy of an authority that uses such organization to propagate doctrines and rites condemned by the authentic Magisterium. The only remedy is a radical return to the immutable Tradition of the Church, judged by the papal teaching before 1958 and the perennial doctrine of the Fathers and Councils, without compromise, without submission to the “structures occupying the Vatican,” and without illusion that such documents, however elegant, can sanctify an emerging architecture of apostasy.
Source:
Caiazeirasensis-Campinensis Grandis (Patosensis) E Sedibus Caiazeirasensi atque Campinensi Grandi quaedam territoria detrahuntur, quae in novae dioecesis formam rediguntur, « Patosensis » appellandae,… (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025