Hiroshimensis: Bureaucratic Expansion of a Neo-Episcopate in the Age of Imposture
The document “Hiroshimensis,” dated 30 June 1959 and signed by antipope John XXIII, declares the elevation of the Apostolic Vicariate of Hiroshima to the rank of a diocese, assigns it as suffragan to Nagasaki, entrusts it to local clergy, orders the establishment of a cathedral chapter and seminary, regulates temporal goods, and mandates execution through the Apostolic Internuncio and the “Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith,” claiming perpetual canonical force for all these provisions within the conciliar structure.
This apparently “pious” and administrative act is in fact a sterile, juridical veil thrown over the approaching conciliar revolution, installing and consolidating a future paramasonic hierarchy destined to propagate Modernism rather than the Kingdom of Christ the King.
Formal Correctness Masking the Subversion of Authority
On the surface, the text imitates the style of genuine Apostolic Constitutions: invocation of divine providence, concern for the spread of the faith, reference to the Cardinals of Propaganda Fide, canonical language on diocesan erection, chapter, seminary, episcopal mensa, execution clauses, derogation of contrary norms.
Key elements:
“Apostolicum Vicariatum Hiroshimaénsem in ordinem dioecesium redigimus, eodem cognomine iisdemque finibus; quae S. Congregationi Fidei Propagandae perget esse obnoxia et archidioecesi metropolitanae Nagasakiensi suffraganea.”
Translation: “We reduce the Apostolic Vicariate of Hiroshima to the order of dioceses, with the same name and the same boundaries; it shall continue to be subject to the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith and suffragan to the metropolitan archdiocese of Nagasaki.”
Within an integral Catholic framework, the erection of dioceses is in itself a legitimate expression of the Church’s hierarchical constitution (cf. Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus; ordinary jurisdictional ordering of the Church). Historically, Rome often raised vicariates to dioceses as the faith matured. Taken in isolation, the act would seem almost textbook.
However, here this “normal” act is signed by the architect and inaugurator of the conciliar revolution. The same person who would convoke Vatican II and open the floodgates of condemned doctrines (religious liberty, false ecumenism, collegiality, cult of man) is precisely the one installing the juridical scaffolding through which these errors would be spread. This reveals the central contradiction:
– The text claims the authority of the Roman Pontiff as guardian of faith and discipline.
– The signer stands at the head of the line explicitly condemned by traditional doctrine on manifest heresy and loss or nullity of office.
From the perspective of unchanging Catholic theology prior to 1958:
– *Nemo dat quod non habet* (“no one gives what he does not have”): an antipope cannot create true dioceses or appoint true bishops with ordinary jurisdiction in the Church of Christ.
– *A non ordinario nullum ordinatum* in the order of jurisdiction: the entire construction is a juridical apparition – a shadow-wiring of a future neo-church.
Thus, while the formulae mimic authentic pontifical acts, the authority is lacking and the structure they serve is ordered, not to defend the deposit of faith, but to prepare its systematic relativization.
Naturalistic Rhetoric Without Supernatural Edge
The language is revealing in what it omits.
The document speaks of:
– the “propagation of the faith,”
– the joy that those “who once served vain gods now earnestly seek” the true God,
– the exhortation that the local clergy “extend the frontiers of the Christian cause as far as possible.”
But note the anemia:
– No mention of the obligation of pagans and apostates to enter the one true Church under pain of damnation.
– No mention of the absolute necessity of the true faith and the sacraments for salvation in opposition to false religions.
– No explicit stress on the kingship of Christ over Japan, its public order, its laws, its institutions.
Compare this silence with the clarity of Pius XI in Quas primas (1925), who teaches that peace and order are impossible until individuals and states recognize and submit to the reign of Christ the King, and with Pius IX in the Syllabus (1864), who condemns the errors of religious indifferentism and the separation of Church and State. There, the mission of the Church is doctrinally precise, supernatural, exclusive, and public. Here, under John XXIII, the vocabulary is neutral, pastoral-bureaucratic, disarmed.
This kind of rhetoric is symptomatic:
– It cherishes canonical and administrative terminology, while avoiding open doctrinal militancy against idolatry, Freemasonry, or secular power.
– It does not remind Japan’s rulers that they are bound to recognize the true religion (against Syllabus proposition 77–80).
– It does not condemn the Masonic forces already ravaging global politics and culture, which Pius IX explicitly identified as the “synagogue of Satan” warring against the Church.
The omission is not accidental; it reflects the mentality that would, only a few years later, produce the conciliar sect’s “dialogue” with false religions, instead of their conversion.
Localization of Hierarchy as Preparation for Modernist Capture
The text shows particular emphasis on entrusting the new diocese to indigenous clergy:
“Eam autem clero indigenae concredimus, eum hortantes ut nihil omittat ut rei christianae fines, quantum fieri poterit, proroget.”
Translation: “We entrust it to the indigenous clergy, urging him to omit nothing in extending as far as possible the boundaries of the Christian cause.”
In itself, forming indigenous clergy is a perennial aim of the Church. But here, two converging lines appear:
1. The elevation of local hierarchies in territories under intense Masonic, pacifist, and postwar ideological influence.
2. The immediate historical context: on the eve of Vatican II, John XXIII and his collaborators are placing key outposts under bishops who will be structurally dependent on, and integrated into, the conciliar revolution.
The formula “extending the boundaries of the Christian cause” is vague. It lacks:
– The clarity that the “Christian cause” is exclusively the Roman Catholic faith, outside of which there is no salvation (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus).
– The militant note that Pius X demanded against Modernism and errors in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi, where any dilution of dogma into a “religious movement” or sociological phenomenon is condemned.
By elevating new dioceses under a usurping authority that will shortly enthrone Modernism, the act effectively:
– Fixes a parallel episcopate through which the neo-church will act.
– Ensures that Japan’s “Catholic” structures will be organically linked to a future regime of religious liberty, ecumenism with Shinto and Buddhism, and submission to UN-style secularism.
The legal apparatus appears Catholic; the teleology is inverted.
Silence on Heresy, Modernism, and Freemasonry: An Accusation
One of the gravest aspects of the document is not what it says, but what it carefully never says.
In the mid-20th century:
– Modernism had already been unmasked and anathematized as the “synthesis of all heresies” by St. Pius X.
– Secret societies and Masonic structures had been repeatedly condemned by the Magisterium, including Pius IX, who explicitly indicated their role in persecuting the Church and attempting to subjugate her.
– Naturalism, indifferentism, and the cult of man were visibly advancing.
Yet in this act, which organizes a strategic see in Hiroshima—symbolically the epicenter of the new world mythology of “peace without Christ” and humanistic victimhood—
– There is no warning against the naturalistic idolatry of “peace” severed from Christ the King.
– No denunciation of the global forces that turned Hiroshima into a perpetual emotional lever for anti-Christian, anti-authority propaganda.
– No call to recognize the chastisements of God or the necessity of penance and conversion from the sins that drew down such devastation.
Instead, we are shown a calm, technocratic act of canonical rearrangement as if the world order were religiously neutral and stable, and as if the Church’s only task were to fine-tune its administrative borders.
This is not the supernatural vigilance of authentic popes; it is the tranquil tone of a hierarchy already infiltrated, as Pius X and Pius IX had forewarned, by those who seek to reduce the Church to a coexisting partner within a pluralistic, Masonic world.
Jurisdictional Maximalism Without Doctrinal Fidelity
The constitution multiplies formulae of absolute authority:
“Has vero Litteras nunc et in posterum efficaces esse et fore volumus… Quapropter si quis, quavis praeditus auctoritate, sive sciens sive insciens contra egerit ac Nos ediximus, id prorsus irritum atque inane haberi iubemus.”
Translation: “We will and decree that these letters be and remain effective now and in the future… Wherefore if anyone, of whatever authority, knowingly or unknowingly acts contrary to what We have decreed, we order that it be held absolutely null and void.”
The style is that of classic papal solemnity: derogation clauses, perpetuity, threats of penalties.
However, according to the constant doctrine referenced in the sources provided:
– *Cum ex Apostolatus Officio* (Paul IV) and the theological tradition summarized by Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas, and others affirm that a manifest heretic cannot validly obtain or retain the papacy.
– Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code provides for the automatic loss of ecclesiastical office by public defection from the faith.
– The principle: a non-Catholic cannot possess jurisdiction in the Church; a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church and therefore cannot be her head.
Once John XXIII is recognized, in light of his doctrinal orientation and the revolution he initiated, as belonging to that line of manifest deviators, his pompous assertions of unassailable authority become a tragic parody. The more he absolutizes his decrees, the more glaring the contradiction: an authority internally shattered attempting to legislate with maximal formality.
The constitution thereby accustoms clergy and faithful to an unconditional submission to the very “magisterium” that will soon:
– Undermine the Syllabus of Errors.
– Relativize the exclusive claims of the Church.
– Replace conversion with ecumenical “dialogue.”
– Transform the Holy Mass into a horizontal, anthropocentric assembly.
Thus the juridical language here is not neutral; it is conditioning for obedience to a counter-magisterium.
From Missionary Zeal to Diplomatic Neutrality
Note the role assigned to the Apostolic Internuncio in Japan and the tone of the instructions:
“Ceterum, ea quae mandavimus exsequenda curabit venerabilis Frater Maximilianus de Furstenberg… Quod si alius tempore exsecutionis eidem Apostolicae Internuntiaturae praesit, hic iussa Nostra facere studebit.”
The whole act is framed as a matter of:
– diplomatic channels,
– procedural correctness,
– transmission of documents,
– external canonical order.
What is missing?
– Any solemn charge to guard the integrity of doctrine with the zeal of Pius X, who demanded the rooting out of Modernism in seminaries, universities, episcopates.
– Any grave warning that the bishop of Hiroshima, precisely in such a symbolic city, must confront the errors of pacifist naturalism, religious relativism, socialist and Masonic ideologies.
– Any insistence that the seminary be a bastion of Thomistic theology, fidelity to the anti-Modernist oath, and strict rejection of condemned propositions (as in Lamentabili).
Instead, we find a bland reference to observance of general law and the “particular norms” of Propaganda Fide, without doctrinal emphasis. This is not accidental; it reflects an ecclesiology mutating into diplomatic coexistence with the world rather than the intransigent militancy of the pre-1958 Magisterium.
Seminary and Cathedral Chapter as Future Engines of Apostasy
The text prescribes:
– erection of a cathedral chapter,
– at least an elementary seminary according to canon law and norms of Propaganda Fide,
– organization of the mensa episcopalis from vicariate goods, curial revenues, offerings, and funds from Propaganda Fide.
In a Catholic order, such prescriptions are instruments to ensure:
– stable liturgical life centered on the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary,
– dignified and learned clergy,
– doctrinal solidity.
But this constitution:
– is historically located at the threshold of the great liturgical and doctrinal dismantling.
– ensures structurally that Hiroshima will have institutions perfectly positioned to receive and implement the novelties of the upcoming council and its aftermath.
Once the conciliar sect imposes:
– ecumenical “worship” with heretics and pagans,
– liturgical rites that obscure the propitiatory nature of the Sacrifice,
– seminaries poisoned by Modernism and historical criticism condemned by Pius X,
the very chapter and seminary called into being here become effective organs of the *abominatio desolationis* (abomination of desolation) within a nominally Catholic shell.
In other words:
– The document’s “good” elements are weaponized by history.
– The crime is not in establishing a chapter or seminary per se, but in doing so under a counterfeit authority preparing to invert their purpose.
Hiroshima as Symbol: The Church of Christ vs. the Cult of Human Suffering Without Conversion
The choice of Hiroshima is not the work of chance in symbolic history.
The city has been transformed globally into:
– a quasi-religious shrine of “peace” detached from the Social Kingship of Christ,
– a persistent moral cudgel against “war” while never calling nations to the law of God, rejection of heresy, and repudiation of the anti-Christian sects.
An authentic Catholic pontiff, raising Hiroshima to a diocese:
– would remind the world that true peace is the fruit of submission to Christ the King and adherence to the one true Church (Pius XI, Quas primas);
– would call the Japanese people away from idolatry and syncretism towards the exclusive worship of the Triune God;
– would interpret Hiroshima also as a call to penance, not as a mythic pillar for secular humanitarianism.
This constitution does none of that. It:
– treats Hiroshima as a neutral see to be integrated into the global institutional network,
– speaks in a value-free manner, absent prophetic courage.
This silence is, in itself, an accusation:
– *Qui tacet consentire videtur* (he who is silent seems to consent).
– By refusing to place Hiroshima within an explicitly supernatural, doctrinal framework, the neo-structure aligns itself with the world’s humanistic cult of suffering without conversion, reconciliation without truth, peace without Christ.
Abuse of Marian and Ecclesial Symbols for a Neo-Church
The cathedral is fixed in:
“tempio Beatae Mariae Virginis in Caelum Assumptae”
— a church dedicated to the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
The choice of a Marian title is in itself traditional. Yet, under the emerging neo-church, Marian symbols are frequently instrumentalized:
– to give a “pious” facade to doctrinal compromise,
– to mask the progressive abandonment of the intransigent anti-Modernist stance of St. Pius X,
– to integrate Marian devotion into an irenic, ecumenical, sentimental religiosity.
Given the doctrinal trajectory that follows John XXIII’s reign:
– the use of this Marian sanctuary as episcopal cathedra risks becoming part of the conciliar strategy: Marian vocabulary, but without Marian militancy against heresy; Marian iconography without Marian absolutism about the one true Church.
The very structure erected here becomes a stage on which the future spectacle of post-conciliar syncretism and pacifist liturgies can be performed, under the name of Mary but against the faith Mary professed.
Continuity of Form, Rupture of Substance: The Conciliar Sect’s Method
“Hiroshimensis” is a textbook display of the method that would define the Church of the New Advent:
– Preserve external juridical and liturgical forms (Latin formulae, canonical concepts, solemn decrees).
– Gradually invert the doctrinal content those forms carry.
– Utilize formal continuity as a shield while introducing an internal rupture.
Before 1958, papal documents:
– incessantly condemned errors: Modernism, indifferentism, naturalism, laicism, socialism, Freemasonry.
– asserted the exclusive rights of the Catholic Church and her divine constitution against the encroachments of the state and false sects.
– linked any reorganization of ecclesiastical structures explicitly to the defense and propagation of defined dogma.
In “Hiroshimensis”:
– there is no single explicit reference to the great contemporary errors solemnly condemned by Pius IX and Pius X.
– the mission is presented as expanding the “boundaries of the Christian cause,” a softer, less juridically and dogmatically sharpened phrase.
– the whole act moves in the key of administrative development and pastoral optimism.
This is precisely the mentality anathematized in substance by Lamentabili and Pascendi: the idea that religion can be re-expressed, its structures adapted, its language softened, while maintaining only a vague continuity of feeling and institution. The constitution functions as a pre-conciliar bridge: it looks Catholic enough to allay suspicion, while internally harmonizing with the soon-to-be-declared conciliar program.
Consequences: A Diocesan Shell at the Service of the Abomination
Evaluated in light of pre-1958 Catholic doctrine and the subsequent historical unfolding, “Hiroshimensis” must be unmasked as:
– not an authentic act of the Roman Pontiff, but a decree of an antipope lacking authority;
– not the strengthening of the Mystical Body, but the laying of another stone in the edifice of the conciliar sect;
– not a proclamation of the rights of Christ the King over Japan, but an accommodation to a world where Christ’s Kingship is tacitly relegated.
The most serious points:
– The document absolutizes obedience to the decrees of John XXIII while he inaugurates the process of public doctrinal deviation.
– It constructs hierarchical organs (diocese, chapter, seminary) that become conduits for Modernism, ecumenism, and religious relativism in Asia.
– It strategically avoids reaffirming the anti-liberal, anti-indifferentist teaching of Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Pius XI, despite speaking in their stylistic register.
– It participates in the larger tactic of the conciliar revolution: using canonical form to legitimize a new religion that will shortly enthrone man, dialogue, and pluralism where once Christ and His one Church reigned.
From the standpoint of the integral Catholic faith:
– Such acts must be seen as nullities in terms of true ecclesiastical authority.
– The faithful must recognize in them the pattern already denounced by the authentic Magisterium: infiltration, simulation, and the construction of a counterfeit hierarchy.
– True bishops and priests—those validly ordained and holding the traditional doctrine—remain the only legitimate guardians of jurisdictional and sacramental life, even if scattered and persecuted.
Lex orandi, lex credendi (“the law of prayer is the law of belief”) and lex gubernandi (“the law of governance”): when the governance is co-opted by those who deny, in principle or in effect, the absolute claims of Christ the King and of the one true Church, the external decrees, however solemn, cannot bind consciences as acts of the Vicar of Christ.
“Hiroshimensis” is therefore not a harmless administrative footnote. It is a specimen in which we see, purified of later rhetorical fog, the conciliar sect’s operating system: maintain the letter of canonical procedure, evacuate the spirit of doctrinal militancy, and thereby forge the chains by which countless souls will be led from the citadel of Tradition into the open temple of the abomination of desolation.
Source:
Hiroshimaënsis (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025