The text published under the name of Ioannes XXIII and titled “LULUABURGENSIS (LUEBOËNSIS)” announces the territorial division of the Apostolic Vicariate of Luluaburg in the Belgian Congo and the erection of a new Apostolic Vicariate of Luebo, entrusted explicitly to the indigenous clergy, with precise geographic boundaries set by rivers and administrative limits, and executed under the supervision of Alfred Bruniera and Bernard Mels, in continuity with Roman central administration and the Congregation de Propaganda Fide. It presents this bureaucratic restructuring as an expression of the expansion of the “Kingdom of Christ” and the life of the “Church” in mission lands.
Administrative Geography in Place of the Kingship of Christ
The entire document must be read in AD mode, that is, as an act issued by the first conciliar usurper John XXIII, whose accession in 1958 marked the visible beginning of the paramasonic nova structura that would soon codify its apostasy in the so‑called Vatican II. From the outset, therefore, this constitution is not a neutral canonical act, but an ideological signal: the language of Catholic tradition is retained externally, yet emptied and redirected to serve a new, political-ethnic and humanist paradigm.
The opening sentence feigns continuity with authentic ecclesiology:
“Secus ac terrestria regna… Christi regnum, id est Ecclesia, non modo non perit, verum etiam… in dies profert fines, gentes ac nationes divino Conditoris subicit imperio…”
English translation: “Unlike earthly kingdoms, which fall one from another and whose riches scarcely reach posterity as ruins, the kingdom of Christ, that is the Church, not only does not perish, but also, as He Himself foretold, day by day extends its borders, subjects peoples and nations to the divine rule of the Creator…”
At first glance this echoes Pius XI’s *Quas Primas*, which affirms that only in the reign of Christ do nations find order and peace. But here this majestic thesis is immediately debased: the “extension” of the Kingdom is reduced to territorial subdivision and the promotion of local clergy as part of a colonial-administrative program. The supernatural Kingship is instrumentalized to justify a cartographic operation.
This is the decisive perversion: what the pre‑1958 Magisterium always grounded in the full, doctrinally integral, sacramental and juridical unity of the *una, sancta, catholica et apostolica Ecclesia*, is here silently detached from doctrinal clarity and converted into an ecclesio-political management of populations.
Factual Inversion: From Missionary Zeal to Ethno-Managerial Engineering
On the factual plane, the constitution:
– Declares the detachment of certain territories from the Vicariate of Luluaburg.
– Erects the Vicariate Apostolic of Luebo.
– Entrusts it “clero indigenae” – the indigenous clergy.
– Enumerates extremely detailed geographical borders.
Superficially, such acts resemble older missionary provisions of genuine popes. Yet several critical points emerge when held against integral Catholic standards:
1. The text presents the division primarily as a means for “maiora christianae religionis incrementa” and “clero indigenae condicionem fieri novae circumscriptionis regendae” – greater growth and a fitting situation for indigenous clergy. The language subtly shifts the center of gravity:
– True Catholic missionary law, as exemplified by Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius XI, Pius XII, always places at the center the integrity of doctrine, the safeguarding of sacramental validity, and the subjection of peoples to the social Kingship of Christ, explicitly opposed to paganism, liberalism, Freemasonry, and false religions (cf. Pius IX, *Syllabus Errorum*; Leo XIII, *Immortale Dei*; Pius XI, *Quas Primas*).
– Here, there is no mention of guarding the flock from socialism, sects, syncretism, or from the imminent global revolution of Modernism that Pius X condemned as “the synthesis of all heresies” (*Pascendi*, *Lamentabili sane exitu*). Silence at this historical juncture is itself accusatory.
2. The emphasis on indigenous clergy as such, without any parallel insistence on their rigorous Thomistic formation, doctrinal orthodoxy, or protection from political tribalization, anticipates the conciliar sect’s race- and culture-centered pseudo-theology (later marketed as “inculturation” and “local Churches” with quasi-autonomous identities). It is an early manifestation of replacing the Catholic principle *unum ovile et unus pastor* (one fold and one shepherd) with ethno-ecclesial fragmentation.
3. The constitution buries the most important realities – *Most Holy Sacrifice*, state of grace, necessity of the true faith, rejection of idolatry – under a flood of topographical minutiae. The Kingdom of Christ is thus obscured behind technical language of borders and bureaucrats. The disproportion is spiritually revealing: where authentic popes use legal description as an instrument of doctrine, here doctrine is a thin preface to technical reengineering.
In short, instead of fortifying the faithful in Congo against errors condemned by Pius IX and Pius X, the act inaugurates the managerial style of the Church of the New Advent: cartography instead of confession, procedure instead of profession.
Bureaucratic Latin as the Mask of Emerging Modernism
The linguistic register is instructive. Externally, we see apparently pious, “traditional” formulas:
– References to the “regnum Christi”.
– Invocation of “Nostra summa et apostolica potestas”.
– Threats of canonical penalties against those who “spreverit vel… detrectaverit” these decrees.
However, several linguistic symptoms of decomposition appear:
1. Instrumentalization of Majesty:
The lofty first paragraph extolling the indefectibility and expansion of Christ’s Kingdom is immediately yoked to an entirely naturalistic operation: the redrawing of vicariate lines. This rhetorical structure weaponizes sacred language to sanctify merely human administration. In the pre‑1958 mind of the Church, jurisdictional change is subordinate to clear soteriological aims; here those aims are assumed, vaguely invoked, never doctrinally specified.
2. Absence of Doctrinal Precision:
There is no reaffirmation of:
– Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus understood in the traditional sense.
– The absolute falsity of pagan and animist cults.
– The condemnations of indifferentism and religious liberty (Pius IX, *Syllabus* 15–18, 77–80).
– The war of the Church against the Masonic and revolutionary forces ravaging Africa.
The omissions are conspicuous. The document’s vocabulary is aseptic, technocratic, and thus perfectly suited to be later re-read in a religiously pluralist, “development” and “human promotion” key. Language that does not explicitly exclude error is primed to include error.
3. Legalism Without Supernatural Edge:
The threats of penalties for non-compliance are exercized to defend territorial decisions, not divine dogma. The text is juridically sharp when its own institutional will is at stake, but dogmatically mute concerning the salvation of souls:
– This inversion reflects precisely the modernist methodology condemned by Pius X: preserving forms while emptying content, exalting structures while dissolving doctrine.
The rhetoric thus reveals a deeper intention: maintain the prestige of Roman centralism, while silently relocating the axis from immutable truth to adjustable governance.
Theological Impoverishment and Implicit Betrayals
Measured against the integral doctrine of the Church as it stood unquestionably before 1958, the document’s theological content is not merely thin; it is symptomatic.
1. Ecclesia regnum Christi – asserted, but evacuated:
While the constitution equates the Church with the Kingdom of Christ in formula, it omits the very elements which Pius XI presents as inseparable from this Kingdom in *Quas Primas*:
– The subjection of rulers and laws to Christ.
– The public profession of the only true religion.
– The condemnation of secularism and laicism as a “plague.”
– The necessity of ordering all civil and cultural life to the sweet yoke of Christ the King.
Instead, the text praises the extension of jurisdiction as if the mere existence of new vicariates were itself evidence of the Kingdom’s growth. This is theological nominalism: equating external labels with supernatural reality, regardless of future doctrinal corruption.
2. Silence on Modernism at the Edge of the Abyss:
The constitution is dated 1959, only a short time after Pius XII’s death and on the eve of the conciliar explosion. At this moment, an authentic successor of Pius X and Pius XII – fully aware of the subversive infiltration they had repeatedly warned against – would have:
– Reaffirmed the condemnations of Modernism (*Lamentabili*, *Pascendi*).
– Warned missionaries and clergy in Congo against liberal theology, syncretism, ethnocentric agitators, socialism, and Freemasonry – which Pius IX denounces as the “synagogue of Satan” corrupting nations.
– Emphasized that episcopal structures have no value apart from guarding intact the deposit of faith and the propitiatory Sacrifice.
Instead, the text is theologically anesthetized. This muteness in the face of looming apostasy is not neutrality; it is complicity. *Qui tacet consentire videtur* (he who is silent is seen to consent).
3. Preparation for the Conciliar Ethos of “Local Churches”:
The explicit emphasis on entrusting the new vicariate to indigenous clergy “in spe fore ut summo studio atque industria” they educate and direct people to Christ’s precepts sounds pious, but functions as a hinge:
– It subtly detaches the authority of governance from the universal, Roman, dogmatically monolithic mind, and roots it in ethnic-local structures, anticipating the later rhetoric of “inculturation,” “Amazonian” theologies, and “synodal” fragmentation.
– Pre‑1958 popes supported the formation of indigenous clergy, but always under strict insistence on Thomistic doctrine, anti-liberal vigilance, and unwavering Roman discipline. The present text omits any such safeguards.
Thus, the act theologically legitimizes a proto-national-church dynamic: structures nominally Roman, in practice adapted to the egalitarian, democratizing, and tribalizing pressures that the conciliar sect later embraced.
4. Misuse of Apostolic Authority:
The constitution claims to act from “Nostra summa et apostolica potestate” and enforces compliance under threats.
From an integral Catholic standpoint:
– If the one promulgating this act publicly abandoned integral doctrine – which John XXIII did by convoking a “pastoral” council to reconcile the Church with condemned liberal modern civilization, explicitly contradicting Pius IX’s condemnation of such reconciliation in Syllabus 80 – then he falls under the principle articulated, among others, by St. Robert Bellarmine and confirmed by later theologians: a manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church, and any claim to papal authority is void.
– Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code confirms that public defection from the faith vacates ecclesiastical office ipso facto.
Therefore, the theological tragedy here is double:
– On the one hand, the text manifests the old Roman legal form.
– On the other hand, it is issued by one who prepared, initiated, and symbolized a doctrinal orientation irreconcilable with the anti-modernist magisterium. The formal shell of authority is thus seized to inaugurate and normalize the emerging antichurch mentality.
Symptom of the Conciliar Revolution: The Invisible Poison
Viewed symptomatically, this constitution reveals the core pathology of post‑1958 structures:
1. Shift from Salvation to Structures:
– No mention of mortal sin, sacramental confession, the narrow way, or hell.
– No warning against the errors that devour Africa: animism, witchcraft, Protestant sects, political messianism, Islam, Freemasonry.
– Only the confident assertion that more vicariates = more Christ’s Kingdom.
This quantifying illusion is the same which later allowed the conciliar sect to display diocesan maps, episcopal conferences, and statistical tables while the faith collapsed and sacrilege multiplied. It inverts the principle that jurisdiction exists for the *salus animarum* (salvation of souls), not for cartographic splendour.
2. Technocratic Obedience Without Doctrinal Obedience:
The text curses with canonical penalties anyone who disregards its territorial dispositions, yet the same emerging regime encourages, tolerates, or personally exemplifies:
– Liturgical deformation of the Unbloody Sacrifice.
– Ecumenical relativization of the one true Church.
– Dialogue with condemned sects and ideologies.
Obedience is demanded where institutional self-preservation is at stake; obedience to revealed truth is surrendered. This is the mark of the paramasonic neo-church: it absolutizes its mutable decrees while relativizing divine law.
3. Origins of the “Church of the New Advent” in Missionary Language:
The African context is not incidental. Mission territories became laboratories for:
– Experimenting with local leadership detached from the strong pre‑1958 doctrinal control.
– Testing “pastoral” language that emphasizes culture, people, and development more than dogma.
– Creating a generation of hierarchy easily absorbed into the later conciliar structures that enthrone man, “human rights,” and interreligious collaboration.
What appears in 1959 as a seemingly harmless vicariate erection becomes, in retrospective clarity, part of the gradual displacement of the true Church’s missionary mandate by the globalist-humanitarian project of the conciliar sect.
Christ the King versus Ethnic-Pastoral Cartography
To expose the spiritual bankruptcy at work, it suffices to recall the antithesis laid down by Pius XI in *Quas Primas* and Pius IX in the *Syllabus*:
– Quas Primas teaches that peace and order will not come until individuals and states publicly submit to Christ the King, that secularism and religious equality are crimes, and that rulers must recognize the Catholic religion alone as true.
– The *Syllabus* condemns the notion that the Church must adapt to progress, liberalism, and modern civilization (prop. 80), and rejects indifferentism, rationalism, and the state’s control of the Church.
Against this backdrop, this constitution:
– Does not demand that colonial or post-colonial powers recognize the Reign of Christ.
– Does not denounce the Masonic and liberal forces manipulating decolonization.
– Does not explicitly bind the new vicariate to combat modern errors.
Instead, it proclaims as a sort of triumph that another vicariate map has been drawn and that indigenous clergy will govern it. This is far from the robust confession of Christ’s Kingship; it is a proto-conciliar gesture toward the democratization and nationalization of ecclesial power structures—precisely the tendencies which authentic popes had warned against under the names of Gallicanism, nationalism, and liberal Catholicism.
Conclusion: Anatomy of a Pious-Looking Rupture
The Luluaburgensis/Lueboënsis constitution is not the most flamboyant heretical manifesto; its danger lies in its subtlety. It is a quiet piece in a larger mosaic that:
– Preserves the Latin, the curial signatures, the canonical form.
– Redirects attention from dogma to administration, from universal doctrine to ethnic-local management.
– Silences the anti-modernist magisterium exactly when it should have been trumpeted.
– Uses juridical authority to consolidate the influence of a man and a regime already turning toward condemned liberal principles.
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, this document is thus:
– Theologically impoverished: it fails to affirm the full claims of Christ the King, the uniqueness of the Catholic Church, and the gravity of modern errors.
– Linguistically deceptive: traditional formulas are deployed to canonize purely practical acts, without the doctrinal backbone that alone gives them legitimacy.
– Symptomatically revealing: it belongs to the continuum by which the conciliar sect gradually replaced the true Church’s supernatural mission with a humanitarian, ethnically dispersed, structurally rich but spiritually vacated pseudo-church.
Where true popes fought the synagogue of Satan – Freemasonry, liberalism, indifferentism – with clear anathemas, the author of this constitution prepared the terrain on which the “Church of the New Advent” would enthrone man, dialogue, and territorial statistics in place of the absolute and public Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Source:
Luluaburgensis (Lueboënsis) (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025