The Latin text presents an apostolic constitution of John XXIII, by which he detaches territory from the Archdioceses of Puebla de los Ángeles and Mexico to erect the new diocese of Tlaxcala, defining its borders, cathedral (St Joseph in Tlaxcala), suffragan relation to Puebla, basic provisions regarding seminary, canons or diocesan consultors, diocesan goods, and procedural norms for execution by the Apostolic Delegate in Mexico. It is a meticulously juridical act of territorial and administrative reconfiguration which, under the guise of pastoral concern, consolidates the new conciliar regime in Mexico and presupposes as unquestionable the authority of the very architect of the revolution against the Catholic order.
Territorial Engineering for a Neo-Church: The Tlaxcala Scheme of John XXIII
Institutional Expansion without Conversion to the Kingship of Christ
At the factual level, the document seems deceptively simple: a new diocese is formed from portions of two existing archdioceses; a cathedral is designated; jurisdictional borders and suffragan relations are specified; a seminary is ordered; canonical structures are outlined; and executive competence is assigned to the Apostolic Delegate.
Yet every line is built on a decisive presupposition: that John XXIII is the Roman Pontiff and that the apparatus surrounding him is the authentic continuation of the *Ecclesia una, sancta, catholica et apostolica*.
From the perspective of integral Catholic teaching before 1958, several elements demand immediate attention:
– The act is entirely administrative and naturalistic. There is no mention of the primacy of the *Most Holy Sacrifice*, the need for the state of grace, the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ over Mexican civil society, or the grave obligation of rulers and peoples to submit publicly to His law, as solemnly taught by Pius XI in *Quas Primas* (1925). That encyclical insists that peace, order, and social restoration are possible only where Christ the King is recognized in public and private life, and where states conform their laws to His sovereignty. Here, we find nothing of this supernatural vision.
– The text invokes the care of the Christian flock but leaves entirely unaddressed the penetrating modernist crisis and masonic subversion denounced by Pius IX in the *Syllabus Errorum* and by St Pius X in *Pascendi Dominici gregis* and the attached condemnation *Lamentabili sane exitu*. The silence on the doctrinal war raging against the Church in the twentieth century is itself a damning datum.
– The constitution further embeds conciliar personnel (figures already aligned with progressive currents) in decisive posts through a new structure that will later be instrumentalised to diffuse the errors of Vatican II across Mexico.
Thus the act is not a neutral diocesan erection, but a calculated consolidation of a new hierarchy destined to propagate the conciliar apostasy under the cover of canonical language.
Linguistic Cloak: Pious Rhetoric as a Vehicle of Subversion
The rhetoric imitates pre-conciliar papal style, yet close examination reveals a telling imbalance.
Key linguistic features:
– Appeals to generic pastoral care: the opening frames the move as caring that Christians have “greater opportunity” to embrace and observe the divine law. This formula remains purely horizontal; there is no precise doctrinal note, no insistence on orthodoxy against modernism, no admonition to preserve the integrity of the faith against condemned novelties. Such studied vagueness is *the* signature of the conciliar mentality.
– Juridical technicality without dogmatic anchoring: the document enumerates borders, canonical offices, curial competencies and procedures with bureaucratic precision, while carefully omitting any reaffirmation of the unchanging doctrine on the nature of the Church as a perfect society (condemned when denied in Syllabus 19, 21, 23), the necessity of union with the Catholic Church for salvation, and the subordination of the civil order to Christ’s Kingship (Syllabus 55, 77-80).
– Self-enclosed authority claims: the text repeatedly underscores that what is decreed must be observed and that contrary dispositions are null. This insistence on formal validity masks the crucial question: is the agent himself within the Church, or—according to the perennial principle that a manifest heretic cannot hold jurisdiction—outside of it? St Robert Bellarmine and classical canonists teach: *manifest heretic non potest esse Papa* (a manifest heretic cannot be Pope), for he ceases to be member and thus head. The language of authority here operates like a shell, devoid of secure Catholic content.
The tone is that of a paramasonic administrative center confident in its power structures, not that of a successor of Pius IX and St Pius X vigilantly guarding faith and sacraments.
Theological Rupture: A Juridical Act Built on a False Premise
The decisive point: Catholic theology before 1958, as synthesized by the very sources the conciliar sect pretends to inherit, renders such an act theologically void when emanating from an authority that has embraced or prepared the way for modernist doctrine.
1. Absence of Supernatural Finality
A Catholic erection of a diocese must be ordered explicitly to:
– the guarding of doctrinal purity,
– the worthy celebration of the *Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary*,
– the sanctification of souls through valid sacraments,
– the defense of the flock against errors and heresies.
In this constitution:
– No condemnation of the secularist Mexican state that has historically persecuted the Church.
– No reference to the obligation of civil authorities to submit to Christ the King, contrary to the solemn doctrine of *Quas Primas*.
– No explicit safeguard against the doctrinal plagues condemned in *Lamentabili* and the *Syllabus*.
– No concern for ensuring that seminarians are formed in anti-modernist doctrine; instead, there is a directive that the best be sent to the Collegio Pio Latino Americano in Rome—a center that would become, historically and verifiably, a relay station for conciliar innovations.
This silence is not neutral. *Tacere de necessariis est clamare* (to be silent about what is necessary is to cry out). A structure erected with meticulous earthly planning but without explicit supernatural, doctrinal intention is a fitting shell for a neo-church apparatus.
2. Defectus tituli: Question of Jurisdiction
Integral Catholic doctrine, prior to the conciliar upheaval, maintains:
– A manifest heretic is outside the Church and cannot possess jurisdiction; this is the line of Bellarmine and the theological tradition as reflected in canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code, which holds that public defection from the faith causes offices to be lost automatically.
– The possibility that a man promoting or preparing modernist subversion sits visibly on the Roman See entails, once his adherence to condemned propositions is clear, the loss or non-existence of papal authority.
John XXIII:
– Convoked the very council that unleashed religious liberty, false ecumenism, and the cult of man—all condemned in substance by Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, and Pius XI.
– Elevated known progressives, encouraged “aggiornamento,” and opened the doors to errors explicitly struck down in *Pascendi* and *Lamentabili* (e.g. evolution of dogma, historicist relativization, democratization of authority).
The act we see here is dated 1959, already within the trajectory of this “new orientation.” The constitution thus functions juridically within the conciliar project, not within the integral Catholic order. To accept it uncritically would mean accepting as legitimate the foundational acts of an authority which, in doctrine and praxis, prepares precisely what the prior Magisterium brands as *apostasia*.
3. Continuity of Condemned Liberalism
Pius IX’s *Syllabus* and subsequent papal teachings repeatedly condemn:
– the separation of Church and State (55),
– religious indifferentism (15-18),
– liberal principles of neutral public order (77-80),
– submission of ecclesiastical structures to secular ideologies.
Yet in Mexico, by 1959, Catholic public order is not restored; Masonic, liberal forces remain powerful; and the document does not demand, even programmatically, a return to the social reign of Christ. Instead, the focus is purely canonical: borders, consultors, revenues, procedural details. This is practical acceptance of the liberal status quo.
Authentic Catholic authority would have used such a structural act as an instrument of counter-revolution: proclaiming the royal rights of Christ, warning civil rulers, binding clergy to the anti-modernist oath, erecting fortresses of doctrine. Instead, we see sterile bureaucratic reconfiguration, entirely compatible with the liberal-Masonic order identified as the “synagogue of Satan” by Pius IX in the context of revolutionary sects.
Manufacturing a Hierarchy for the Conciliar Sect
On the symptomatic level, the timing and configuration of this new “diocese” reveal its deeper function.
– By carving a new jurisdiction and tying it suffragan to Puebla (Angelorum), John XXIII restructures the Mexican ecclesiastical map in a way that ensures tighter integration into the future Vatican II machinery.
– The prescription that the most promising seminarians be sent to Rome (Collegio Pio Latino Americano) centralizes intellectual formation precisely where, in the following years, modernist and liberal tendencies consolidate their control. Rather than guarding Mexican clergy from European errors, it channels the elites directly into their sphere.
– The option to have diocesan consultors in place of a chapter, “for now,” gives the conciliar apparatus flexibility: consultors are easier to align ideologically than a stable, tradition-conscious cathedral chapter. This reflects a shift from robust, canonical organs of resistance to more malleable managerial structures.
Thus, under a surface of continuity, what is truly established is an obedient node of the “Church of the New Advent,” ready to receive the doctrines of religious liberty, ecumenism, and the reduction of the Church to a humanitarian NGO.
Silence on Modernism: The Loudest Evidence of Apostasy
The gravest accusation against this constitution is not any spectacular phrase, but what it systematically omits.
Measured against *Pascendi* and *Lamentabili*:
– No insistence that teachers in the new seminary subscribe to the anti-modernist oath and be steeped in Thomistic doctrine.
– No prohibition of the modernist exegesis condemned in *Lamentabili* (e.g. denial of inspiration, relativization of Gospel historicity, evolution of dogmas).
– No warning against those who reduce Revelation to religious experience or treat dogma as mutable, precisely the tendencies Pius X branded as “the synthesis of all heresies.”
– No reaffirmation that “the Church cannot reconcile herself with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization” understood as autonomous from God, an error anathematized by Pius IX (Syllabus 80). Instead, the entire tone is docile accommodation: a quiet insertion of new structures into a liberal environment, with no call for public penance or doctrinal militancy.
Authentic shepherds, confronted with the twentieth-century devastation, would cry out, legislate, condemn, and arm their clergy. Here we see administrators quietly redrawing lines on a map.
Silence in such a hour is not innocence; it is complicity.
God’s Law versus Technocratic “Pastoral” Engineering
The constitution’s self-presentation as pastoral care must be weighed against the absolute primacy of God’s rights.
Pius XI in *Quas Primas* teaches that civil and ecclesiastical life must be reordered under Christ’s Kingship, or else societies will rot under secularism and laicism. Pius IX denounces the liberal state that pretends religious neutrality; Pius X unmasks modernism as the vehicle of unbelief within the Church.
In stark contrast:
– This act does not confront the Mexican state’s apostasy.
– It does not challenge secular power to recognize Christ and His Church.
– It does not even insist on preserving the integral Catholic Faith as the soul of the new diocesan structure.
Instead, it assumes that multiplying diocesan bureaucracies and channels to Rome, without confronting liberalism and modernism, somehow suffices. This mentality is naturalistic: it trusts structures, geography, and planning more than confession of Faith, sacramental integrity, and militant proclamation of Christ’s social reign.
This inversion is itself a sign that we are not dealing with the same spirit as that of Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, or Pius XI, but with a different project: a paramasonic structure that mimics forms while emptying them of content.
Delegated Execution: Obedience to an Illegitimate Center
The text entrusts execution to the Apostolic Delegate in Mexico, stressing that no one may oppose the mandates and threatening canonical penalties against those who resist.
But this presupposes:
– that the issuing authority truly holds the *munus Petrinum*,
– that the delegation flows from the visible head of the Mystical Body, not from an intruder preparing doctrines condemned by his predecessors.
The pre-1958 Magisterium, and the classical theologians cited in the Defense of Sedevacantism, make clear:
– Those who publicly defect from the faith or promote condemned doctrines lose jurisdiction *ipso facto* (canon 188.4).
– The faithful are not bound to obey, and indeed must resist, commands which serve the overthrow of Catholic faith and discipline.
– A structure that places its own decrees above the prior, infallible condemnations of liberalism and modernism thereby manifests that it is not the same authority, but an occupying power.
Thus, the threats in this document, far from manifesting divine authority, display the insecurity of an antichurch that weaponizes canonical language to fortify its own counterfeit legitimacy.
Conclusion: A Canonical Façade Draped over the Conciliar Revolution
In sum, judged according to unchanging Catholic doctrine prior to 1958:
– The constitution’s apparent orthodoxy is merely formal and administrative.
– Its omissions—on modernism, liberalism, the Kingship of Christ, the necessity of integral doctrine—are fatal.
– Its provisions—especially the centralization of formation and flexible consultative structures—serve as tools for the future conciliar reprogramming of Mexican Catholic life.
– Its authority-claims rest on the person of John XXIII, whose role in launching the conciliar revolution places him squarely in tension with the very papal teaching he pretends to continue.
Therefore, this act cannot be naively received as a benign extension of Catholic pastoral care. It is one stone in the edifice of the “conciliar sect,” a meticulous piece of territorial engineering that secures ground for the systematic betrayal of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the integral Catholic Faith in Mexico.
Authentic fidelity to the perennial Magisterium demands that such documents be unmasked: not as pillars of the Catholic order, but as juridical instruments of an occupation, seeking to clothe apostasy in the venerable forms of the Church it strives to supplant.
Source:
Angelorum – Mexicanae (Tlaxcalensis) (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025