The document issued by John XXIII under the title “Seguntinae” solemnly decrees that the diocese of Seguntina in Spain shall henceforth bear the combined name Seguntina-Guadalajarensis, elevates the church of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Guadalajara to the dignity of a concathedral, and regulates the residence of the bishop and the rights of canons accordingly; wrapped in the language of juridical precision and Marian piety, it presents itself as a benign adjustment of ecclesiastical structures in harmony with the 1953 Concordat with Spain. Behind this apparently innocuous administrative act stands the signature and program of the man who inaugurated the conciliar subversion: a calculated, bureaucratic prelude to the dismantling of the visible structures of the Catholic Church in favour of the coming conciliar sect.
Canonical Cosmetic Surgery as Prelude to Revolution
The text is short, technical, and seemingly harmless. Precisely for this reason it is emblematic. It manifests the last phase in which the usurper line could still clothe its designs in the venerable forms of Catholic canonical language, while already preparing the transformation of diocesan reality into a pliable instrument of state concordats, demographic management, and political symbolism.
From the standpoint of *integral Catholic doctrine prior to 1958*, a few key points must be identified:
– The act is based explicitly on the 1953 Concordat with Spain, emphasizing submission of ecclesiastical structures to bilateral arrangements with a temporal power, instead of the direct and sovereign assertion of the rights of the Church as *societas perfecta*.
– The elevation of a Marian church to concathedral status is used as a juridical and psychological tool: Marian terminology and canonical solemnity are harnessed not as expressions of the full social Kingship of Christ, but as decor for a subtle reengineering of ecclesiastical geography according to political and demographic considerations.
– The document emanates from John XXIII, whose subsequent deeds (announcement of Vatican II, aggiornamento, cultivation of “dialogue” with enemies of the Church) reveal the inner logic of this reconfiguration: adaptation of Church structures to a soon-to-be revolutionary ecclesiology.
Thus an apparently small “apostolic constitution” becomes a symptom and instrument of the oncoming apostasy.
Instrumentalizing the Church of Christ for Diplomatic Arrangements
At the factual level, the key phrase of the text is its explicit submission of the decision to the norms of the 1953 Concordat between the Holy See and Spain:
“rite quidem servatis sollemnibus Conventionibus die XXVII mensis Augusti anno MCMLIII inter Sanctam Sedem et Hispanicam Nationem initis” – “with due observance of the solemn Conventions concluded on August 27, 1953, between the Holy See and the Spanish Nation.”
Here, several grave issues emerge:
– The diocese’s name and the status of its cathedral are treated as matters to be adjusted within the framework of political concordats, instead of flowing principally from the supernatural constitution of the Church and the primacy of the *salus animarum*.
– The text does not reaffirm, even briefly, that the Church’s jurisdiction derives immediately from Christ and is not conditioned by state agreements. This silence is thunderous when measured against Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, which condemns the thesis that civil power can define the rights and limits of the Church (Syllabus, 19, 39-42, 44-55).
– By structuring the act around bilateral conventions, the document habituates hierarchy and faithful to a mindset in which the visible configuration of the Church is co-managed by secular authority.
According to the unchanging magisterium, the Church, as a *societas perfecta*, enjoys full and independent power over her internal order. Pius IX sharply rejected the idea that ecclesiastical rights come from the State or are revocable at its pleasure; he solemnly condemned the subjection of ecclesiastical acts to governmental permission (Syllabus, 19-22, 28-31, 39-42, 55). When a supposed “pope” frames internal ecclesiastical structuring as carefully consonant with state conventions—without simultaneously reaffirming the absolute independence and superiority of divine law over civil arrangements—he transmits a poisoned message: that the Church’s concrete life is negotiable.
This is no isolated technicality. It is the mentality that made possible the post-1958 degeneration into religious liberty, ecumenism, and submission of “churches” to human-rights regimes. A true Roman Pontiff, conscious of the growing anti-Christian forces and condemned sects (as exposed repeatedly by Pius IX and Leo XIII), would have used every such act to catechize on the rights of Christ the King and the non-negotiable freedom of the Church. John XXIII does not. The omission is revealing.
Marian Ornamentation without the Kingship of Christ
The constitution elevates the church of the Blessed Virgin Mary as concathedral and speaks in outwardly pious tones:
“templum B. Mariae Virg. in urbe Guadalajara exstans ad gradum concathedralis evehimus, cum iuribus et honoribus, oneribus et obligationibus…”
On the surface, this honours Our Lady. In substance:
– The act harnesses Marian devotion as a decorative veil for an operation of structural adjustment oriented toward demographics, administration, and political representation.
– There is no doctrinal exhortation about Our Lady as *Regina* subordinated to and exalting the universal Kingship of Christ; no call to public penance, no call to the restoration of explicitly Catholic public order, no denunciation of freemasonry or modernist infiltration, no reminder of judgment, hell, or the state of grace.
– The Marian element is thus employed in a naturalistic way: as a unifying, culturally resonant symbol for a “Christian people,” without insistence on conversion, doctrinal clarity, or the absolute obligation of public recognition of Christ’s reign.
Pius XI, in *Quas Primas*, made it unequivocal: peace, order, and true prosperity are only possible where Christ is recognized as King by individuals, families, and states; to exclude or relativize His rights is to sow social ruin. He did not treat feasts, dedications, or ecclesiastical honours as neutral aesthetic matters. They were weapons in the battle against laicism and liberalism. Here, however, Marian language is cut off from that militant vision.
This is a hallmark of the incipient conciliar mentality: preserve pious forms, thereby disarming suspicion, while evacuating them of their doctrinal edge. *Forma retenta, vis negata* (the form retained, the force denied).
Legalistic Rhetoric Masking Ecclesiological Dilution
Linguistically, the document is exemplary for its genre: solemn, categorical, using the traditional machinery of papal authority:
– Assertions of apostolic power: “de apostolica Nostra potestate ea, quae sequuntur, decernimus et iubemus”.
– Clauses of perpetuity and nullity: “Has vero Litteras nunc et in posterum efficaces esse et fore volumus…”; anyone acting contrary is to be punished.
– Full juridical protections, validation of copies, invocation of canonical penalties.
At first glance, such language appears wholly traditional. Yet precisely here lies the deeper symptom:
1. The solemn style is expended on a merely administrative renaming and concathedral creation, entirely horizontal in scope.
2. The same authority that will shortly be claimed for “aggiornamento” and the convocation of a pastoral council is rehearsed and normalized in such acts.
3. Moral and doctrinal authority are not employed to crush modernism, condemn the “synthesis of all heresies” (Pius X, *Pascendi*, confirmed and defended in “Lamentabili sane exitu”), or uproot freemasonic influence; instead, they are confined to a safe, technocratic domain.
This is not accidental. It conditions clergy and faithful to accept solemn papal formulas as principally administrative, preparing them to receive, a few years later, solemn language in the service of doctrinal relativization. A true pontificate uses juridical rhetoric to defend dogma and crush error; a counterfeit regime uses the same rhetoric to manage structures while leaving the doctrinal citadel unguarded.
In light of the authentic magisterium:
– Pius X demanded implacable war against modernism; he renewed condemnations and attached excommunication to their defense.
– Pius IX and Leo XIII unmasked freemasonry and liberalism as direct enemies of Christ’s social reign.
– None of this ethos is perceptible here, although historically by 1959 the modernist and paramasonic infiltration into seminaries, universities, and episcopates was notorious and already denounced by alert Catholics.
The bureaucratic calm, the serene tone, the absence of alarm, are not virtues; they are symptoms of blindness—or complicity.
Silence on Supernatural Ends: The Most Damning Omission
The most decisive critique must address what is not said.
This “apostolic constitution”:
– Says nothing of the *salus animarum*, as if diocesan reconfiguration were an end in itself.
– Says nothing of the need for holiness, orthodoxy, worthy reception of the sacraments, or fidelity to tradition.
– Offers no reminder of final judgment, no exhortation to avoid mortal sin, no insistence on the necessity of the one true faith for salvation, in line with the pre-conciliar doctrine reaffirmed against indifferentism (Syllabus, 15-18).
– Ignores entirely the concrete threats identified by Pius IX and Pius X: rationalism, naturalism, liberalism, freemasonry, and modernism.
This silence is not neutral. In the context of the epoch, it reveals a governing mentality that no longer thinks first in terms of supernatural warfare, but of pastoral management. An act issued by a true successor of Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII, at a time of accelerating apostasy, would naturally echo their grave warnings. Instead, we find tranquil canonical refinements.
In Catholic theology, omission can be culpable. The shepherd who does not warn of wolves betrays his office. Here, the omission of any supernatural, militant perspective is a practical denial of Christ’s Kingship over nations and of His absolute rights over His Church.
From Concathedral to Conciliar Sect: A Symptomatic Trajectory
Viewed from the symptomatic level, the “Seguntinae” constitution is a small but clear tile in a larger mosaic:
– It acclimatizes dioceses and faithful to structural innovation justified by demographics and state agreements, paving the way for more radical reorganizations under the aegis of Vatican II.
– It reduces Marian and ecclesiastical symbolism to functional roles in administrative evolution.
– It habituates acceptance of solemn papal acts that studiously avoid confronting modern errors.
– It reflects the emerging “pastoral” ethos: concrete, sociological, diplomatic measures with minimal doctrinal militancy.
After 1959, the same usurping line would convoke the council that unleashed false ecumenism, religious liberty, democratization of ecclesial life, destruction of the Most Holy Sacrifice through the fabricated “new rite,” and the cult of man — all condemned in substance by pre-1958 magisterium (see Pius IX’s Syllabus; Leo XIII’s *Immortale Dei* and *Humanum Genus*; Pius XI’s *Mortalium Animos*; Pius XII’s authentic teaching).
The apparently innocent diocesan adjustment thus serves as:
– An expression of an ecclesiology comfortable with political concordats and naturalistic criteria.
– A rehearsal of juridical forms in service of a leadership that would soon weaponize pastoral rhetoric against the immutable deposit of faith.
– A sign that the visible structures in Rome were already being wielded not as bulwarks against apostasy, but as instruments of a controlled transformation leading to the “Church of the New Advent” — the paramasonic neo-church occupying Catholic institutions while betraying Catholic doctrine.
True Catholic Principles Against the Administrative Drift
To expose the bankruptcy of the mentality embodied in this document, it suffices to recall foundational principles taught with one voice by the pre-1958 magisterium:
– *Ecclesia est societas perfecta*: the Church, founded directly by Christ, possesses in herself all rights necessary for her end, wholly independent of the State. Any act that suggests or habituates to co-management of internal structure by civil conventions attacks this reality (Pius IX, Syllabus, 19; Leo XIII, *Immortale Dei*).
– *Regnum Christi publicum est*: the Kingship of Christ must be publicly recognized by nations; Catholic civil power must protect the rights of the Church and repress public offences against true religion. Administratively “Christian” language that omits this claim and reduces changes to neutral management is already infected with liberalism (Pius XI, *Quas Primas*).
– *Dogma non mutatur*: doctrine cannot evolve into its contrary. Modernism, condemned by Pius X in *Pascendi* and “Lamentabili sane exitu,” corrupts precisely by historical relativization and adaptation to modern errors. An authority that, instead of pounding these truths, glides along in serene diplomacy, prepares minds to accept doctrinal novelties as mere “developments.”
– *Sacra potestas ad salutem animarum*: sacred authority exists solely for the salvation of souls. To exercise solemn constitutional language primarily for horizontal adjustments, while keeping silence on the grave doctrinal and moral crisis brewing, is a dysfunctional use of that authority.
Against this background, the “Seguntinae” constitution must be judged as the product of a regime already internally estranged from the fighting spirit and supernatural clarity of Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII. Its theological content is not in the few lines of Latin, but in what those lines carefully omit.
Conclusion: Anodyne Latin as the Language of Surrender
The text’s fault is not that it explicitly teaches heresy; its fault is more insidious and therefore more devastating. It is the language of a hierarchy that:
– still knows how to sound Catholic,
– still wields canonical categories with precision,
– still invokes the Blessed Virgin by name,
and yet:
– no longer thunders against liberalism, naturalism, and modernism,
– no longer insists upon the full social Kingship of Christ,
– no longer publicly places supernatural ends above all political and demographic considerations.
Such documents are the velvet gloves covering the iron hand that would soon reshape the visible structures into the conciliar sect. Where a true Pontiff would have turned every administrative act into an occasion to affirm the uncompromising rights of God, here administration is detached from doctrinal militancy and immersed in concordatarian prudence.
This is the spiritual and theological bankruptcy unveiled by “Seguntinae”: an ecclesiastical leadership that speaks impeccable Latin while silently abdicating its duty to guard, proclaim, and enforce the integral Catholic faith — preparing the faithful, gently and politely, for the abomination of desolation that would soon occupy their sanctuaries under the guise of renewal.
Source:
Seguntinae (Guadalajarensis) (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025