The Latin text attributed to John XXIII announces the erection of a new ecclesiastical circumscription in Brazil, the so-called Diocese of “Sanctae Crucis in Brasilia” (Santa Cruz do Sul), by detaching specified municipalities from the Archdiocese of Porto Alegre, defining territorial limits, designating Santa Cruz do Sul as episcopal see, raising the parish church of St John the Baptist to cathedral rank, determining suffragan dependence on Porto Alegre, ordering the creation of a chapter or diocesan consultors, prescribing at least an elementary seminary, regulating economic support for the new structure, and imposing canonical procedures for documents and governance. All of this is wrapped in solemn legalistic formulas asserting universal jurisdiction and demanding unconditional obedience to the will of the signer.
Engineering the Conciliar Sect: The “Sanctae Crucis in Brasilia” Blueprint of Usurpation
From Petrine Mandate to Administrative Technocracy
The opening lines attempt to sacralize a purely administrative act by invoking John 17:3 and claiming continuity with the Petrine mandate:
“since to Us, to whom divinely, as to Peter, it has been enjoined to lead the flock of the faithful…”
Here lies the first and foundational perversion: the entire document presupposes, without proving, that the signer is a true successor of Peter. Yet:
– The line beginning with Roncalli (John XXIII) stands historically and doctrinally at the head of the conciliar revolution: the demolition of the integral faith, the preparation of Vatican II’s modernist decrees on false religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality.
– A man who promotes and protects condemned doctrines cannot, according to the perennial doctrine synthesized by St Robert Bellarmine, remain head of the Church: manifestus haereticus… statim cadit (a manifest heretic falls at once from office), since one who is not a member cannot be the head.
Therefore all subsequent legal assertions of this constitution are built upon a usurped authority. A pseudo-Petrine voice is used to fabricate new limbs for a paramasonic organism which will later be weaponized against the same Catholic doctrine it pretends to serve.
The constitutional form is thus not neutral. It is the juridical mask of a revolution. By 1959 the modernist network long condemned by St Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi had already infiltrated seminaries, episcopates, and Roman dicasteries. Instead of purging them, Roncalli elevates them and reorganizes the map to give them structural power. This is not pastoral solicitude; it is logistical preparation for apostasy.
Bureaucratic Rhetoric as Symptom of Theological Emptiness
The language of the document is externally pious and internally vacuous. It begins with a generic reference to eternal life as knowing God and Jesus Christ, then immediately reduces its application to an administrative axiom:
“therefore it is Our most ancient care… to procure for the Christian people, through fitting arrangement of Churches, such a state of affairs that individuals may nourish the faith…”
Note what is missing:
– No mention of the *Most Holy Sacrifice* as propitiatory offering for sins.
– No emphasis on the necessity of the *state of grace*, sacramental confession, ascetical life, or the danger of hell.
– No insistence on the duty of states and peoples to recognize the social Kingship of Christ (so forcefully proclaimed by Pius XI in Quas primas).
– No reaffirmation of the exclusive truth of the Catholic Church against condemned indifferentism (Pius IX, Syllabus 15–18).
Instead we find:
– Smooth, civil-service Latin.
– Technocratic detailing of municipal boundaries.
– Standardized clauses on archives, consultors, incomes, and procedural obedience.
This is the language of an ecclesiastical administration already thinking more as a geopolitical NGO than as the *Societas perfecta* divinely instituted for the salvation of souls.
When the supreme authority of the Church speaks, omission is as eloquent as statement. The silence about the war against Modernism, Freemasonry, laicism, socialism, and indifferentism—fiercely denounced by Pius IX and St Pius X—is the true voice of this constitution. It is a silence that prepares Vatican II’s betrayal.
Territorial Multiplication without Doctrinal Confession
On the factual level, the text:
– Lists the municipalities carved from Porto Alegre.
– Fixes the cathedral in Santa Cruz do Sul.
– Subordinates the new see as suffragan to Porto Alegre.
– Orders the erection of an elementary seminary.
– Defines income sources (curial revenues, offerings, partition of goods).
At first glance this resembles numerous legitimate pre-1958 arrangements. The crucial difference is context and purpose.
Before 1958 such acts:
– Presupposed and explicitly reinforced the integral Catholic faith.
– Functioned within a magisterium militantly opposed to liberalism, rationalism, and false ecumenism.
– Served as concrete instruments to extend the reign of Christ the King over souls, families, and nations.
Here, under Roncalli:
– The same canonical forms are re-used as a shell, but emptied of militant doctrinal clarity.
– The multiplication of dioceses in Latin America—without simultaneous purging of modernist clergy—strengthens the hands of those who will later propagate liberation theology, liturgical subversion, and ecumenical syncretism.
– The “pastoral” expansion works as infrastructure for the *conciliar sect* which will soon, under the label of “aggiornamento,” reject in practice the very principles solemnly proclaimed by previous popes.
Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief): a diocesan map that will soon be governed by ministers of the new cult is not neutral. It is the logistical grid of the *abominatio desolationis*.
The Seminary Clause: Manufacturing Future Apostates
The constitution imposes on the new “bishop”:
“the grave obligation of building as soon as possible at least an elementary seminary… from whom the best are to be sent to Rome to the Pontifical Pio-Brazilian College for philosophy and sacred theology.”
At first hearing, soundly traditional: local seminary, then Roman studies. In reality, this is the most revealing and condemnable line.
Why?
1. By 1959, Roman academic centers—especially the Biblical Institute, various faculties, and key congregations—are already penetrated by the very tendencies condemned by St Pius X:
– Evolution of dogma.
– Historical-critical dissolution of Scripture.
– Minimization of scholastic theology.
– Opening toward Protestant and liberal thought.
2. The constitution binds the new structure to send its most promising youth directly into this environment, ensuring:
– Doctrinal deformation at the source.
– A future clergy intellectually formatted for Vatican II’s novelties: ecumenism, collegiality, religious liberty, liturgical “reform”.
3. This is not pastoral prudence; it is strategic programming. The seminary is envisaged not as a fortress of orthodoxy, but as a feeder-channel into the laboratories of Modernism.
St Pius X warned that the modernist, more than an external enemy, is a hidden infiltrator within the sanctuary. This constitutio builds a pipeline that delivers souls to them, under the stamp of “apostolic” approval. It is difficult to imagine a more subversive use of ecclesiastical law.
Theology Replaced by Legal Absolutism
Towards the end, the document erupts into solemn threats:
“Whoever… should despise or in any way reject these Our decrees, let him know that he will incur the penalties established by law against those who do not carry out the orders of the Supreme Pontiffs.”
We have here a chilling inversion:
– A man at the head of a doctrinally deviant project demands absolute submission.
– No doctrinal confession is proposed; no reiteration of Trent, Vatican I, the Syllabus, or anti-modernist teaching is required.
– The only non-negotiable is obedience to his own organizational will.
Authentic Catholic rule is the contrary:
– Authority is binding precisely because it guards and transmits what was always taught: *quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus*.
– When a claimant uses the papal apparatus chiefly to restructure, centralize, and redirect, while muting the integral doctrine, his absolutist formulas no longer manifest the authority of Peter, but the will of a usurper.
The juxtaposition is striking:
– On the one hand, the text itself provides almost nothing of supernatural nourishment: no fiery zeal for the true faith, no condemnation of the errors rending Brazil and the world, no insistence on the Social Kingship of Christ, no safeguards against modernist infiltration.
– On the other, it threatens canonical penalties against any resistance to this barren administrative project.
This is juridical voluntarism detached from Catholic substance—exactly the environment in which the conciliar revolution thrives: obedience redefined as submission to novelty, rather than fidelity to tradition.
Systemic Fruits: A Laboratory of the Church of the New Advent
Viewed symptomatically, this 1959 constitution anticipates the essential patterns of the later “Church of the New Advent”:
1. Pastoralism without Dogma
– Everything is justified as “for the good of souls,” yet “good” is never defined according to the hard commands of the pre-1958 Magisterium.
– The text never recalls that salvation is found exclusively in the Catholic Church and that religious error has no rights as such (Pius IX, Syllabus 15, 77–80).
2. Structuralism without Supernatural Combat
– New dioceses, new offices, new chapters, new seminaries—but no intensified call to penance, no Eucharistic reparation, no anti-Masonic vigilance, no condemnation of socialism, no exposure of modernist theology.
3. Obedience Severed from Orthodoxy
– Threats and juridical clauses are abundant; doctrinal clarity is negligible.
– Thus the concept of “obedience” is gradually shifted from fidelity to revealed truth to compliance with a bureaucratic machine that will soon promulgate heretical principles under conciliar labels.
4. Catechesis by Omission
– Ordinary faithful, seeing “papal” documents concerned almost exclusively with technical reorganizations and smooth pastoral generalities, absorb the message that doctrine is either settled and irrelevant, or malleable and secondary.
– This prepares them to accept Vatican II and its aftermath as a harmless “updating,” rather than as the radical rupture it truly constitutes.
In this light, the so-called Diocese of “Sanctae Crucis in Brasilia” is not an innocent administrative detail but a deliberate insertion into the future web of the neo-church. Its seminarians, clergy, and institutions will, in fact, become agents of post-conciliar disfigurement: new “liturgy,” false ecumenism, indifferentism, and practical denial of Christ’s Kingship over society.
The Absent Cross: Exploiting Sacred Names for a New Religion
Ironically, the new diocese is styled “of the Holy Cross.” Yet the Cross in Catholic doctrine is:
– The center of the *Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary* offered on our altars.
– The sign of contradiction against the world, its errors, its false freedoms, its Masonic projects.
– The measure of all true pastoral work: to lead souls to die to sin and live in grace.
In this constitution the Holy Cross is reduced to a toponym, a label for a territorial unit of the future conciliar network.
There is:
– No call to embrace the Cross in penance and mortification.
– No mention of reparation for sin.
– No stand against the anti-Christian forces already marching through Brazil: socialism, Freemasonry, secularism.
To instrumentalize the name of the Cross for an apparatus that will soon dismantle the Mass, desecrate doctrine, and prostitute itself to the world’s ideologies is not mere imprudence. It is sacrilegious camouflage.
Continuity with Condemned Liberalism and Modernism
Measured against pre-1958 doctrine, the trajectory signaled here is evident.
Contrast:
– Pius IX, who explicitly condemns:
– The separation of Church and State (Syllabus 55),
– Religious indifferentism (15–18),
– Liberal errors about progress and “modern civilization” (77–80).
– St Pius X, who:
– Denounces modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies,”
– Commands bishops to root it out of seminaries and universities,
– Insists on Thomistic formation and docility to previous magisterium.
– Pius XI, who:
– In Quas primas proclaims that peace and order can only exist where Christ reigns socially and publicly,
– Identifies laicism and secular “human rights” ideology as the plague of the age.
And then observe:
– A 1959 “apostolic constitution” that:
– Ignores the doctrinal battlefield,
– Treats diocesan creation as a mere organizational optimization,
– Entrusts formation to Roman structures already contaminated with the very ideas previously anathematized,
– Demands rigorous obedience to this process while maintaining total silence about reigning heresies.
Qui tacet consentire videtur (he who is silent appears to consent). The cumulative, systematic silence of Roncalli’s acts on the gravest condemned errors—while he simultaneously sets the stage for their triumph—reveals the moral and theological bankruptcy at work.
The Only Legitimate Criterion: Immutable Tradition
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, the verdict is inescapable:
– Authority in the Church is not a matter of bare succession or external legal forms; it is inseparable from the profession and defense of the immutable faith.
– When a claimant to the papacy uses the forms of apostolic constitutions to:
– Reinforce an apparatus that will destroy the traditional Mass,
– Promote or protect theologians and policies previously condemned,
– Replace doctrinal militancy with bureaucratic pastoralism,
– Demand unconditional obedience to his own novelties,
he unveils himself as architect of a parallel structure, not guardian of the Bride of Christ.
Thus this constitution:
– Is not a harmless administrative footnote,
– But a precise fragment of the founding charter of the conciliar sect in Brazil.
The only Catholic response is:
– To measure all such acts exclusively by pre-1958 magisterium,
– To refuse to confer on them the moral authority they falsely claim,
– To adhere without compromise to the doctrine solemnly taught and defended by the true popes, councils, and saints of the undivided tradition,
– To recognize that any “diocese,” “seminary,” or “clergy” embedded in the apparatus of post-1958 apostasy and its pseudo-sacraments stands objectively outside the unity of the Catholic Church, no matter how devout the rhetoric or venerable the titles.
The Holy Cross cannot be annexed as a logo for a Church that denies, in practice and often in word, the full rights of Christ the King, the exclusivity of the Catholic religion, and the unchanging truth of dogma. Under the mask of legal Latin and territorial maps, this text participates in that denial.
Source:
Portalegrensis in Brasilia (S. Crucis in Brasilia) (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025