The document “Diuturno usu,” issued by John XXIII on 29 February 1960, decrees the erection of an Apostolic Internunciature of the Holy See in the Republic of Turkey, with its seat in Constantinople, attributing to this diplomatic mission all the faculties, privileges, and indults proper to pontifical legations, in order to bind the “Apostolic See” and the Turkish Republic with public bonds of friendship “for the firm establishment of the goods of peace and the attainment of true progress.” It is a terse juridico-diplomatic act whose entire theological content, where it appears at all, is subordinated to the ideology of secular “peace,” mutual recognition, and parity between the one true Church of Christ and an openly anti-Catholic, Islamist-laicist regime: in one sentence, it is a small but pure specimen of the conciliar revolution’s abandonment of the public Kingship of Christ for the cult of inter-state diplomacy.
Conciliar Diplomacy in Turkey: Institutionalizing the Reign of Secularism
Formalization of Apostasy: From the Triumph of Christ to the Flattery of Ankara
The heart of this act lies in a few programmatic affirmations. John XXIII asserts, in substance:
“Long experience has proved that the public relations of offices which exist between this Apostolic See and Nations are of very great utility, since such relations are very effective for strengthening the goods of peace and obtaining progress worthy of the name. Therefore, since it seemed expedient that the Apostolic See and the Republic of Turkey be bound together by public bonds of friendship, We, motu proprio… erect in the Republic of Turkey an Apostolic Internunciature, establishing its see in Constantinople.”
Already here, the poison is visible.
1. The act assumes as a self-evident good that diplomatic normalization with a militantly laicist and Islamic milieu is a privileged means to “strengthen peace” and “obtain true progress,” without the slightest mention of:
– the obligation of the civil power to recognize and worship Christ the King;
– the necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation;
– the duty of the Church to convert nations from error and idolatry.
2. The entire rationale is naturalistic and horizontal. The “public bonds of friendship” are praised; the supernatural end—*salus animarum* (salvation of souls)—is not once named. The “Apostolic See” is presented as one actor among “Nations,” as if the Bride of Christ were merely a moral power collaborating in an international order constructed on religious neutralism. This is precisely what Pius IX condemned when he rejected the thesis that “the State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits” and that the Church’s rights depend on civil concession (Syllabus, 39, 19, 20).
3. The choice of Constantinople/Istanbul as symbolic center is paraded as a purely diplomatic calculation, emptying of meaning the tragic history of the East, the usurpation of Hagia Sophia, the centuries of Islamic domination, and the persecuted Catholics who require not protocols, but confession of the Kingship of Christ and steadfast preaching against error.
This is not Catholic statecraft; it is the solemnization of capitulation.
Factual Level: Diplomatic Triumph over the Missionary Mandate
At the factual and juridical layer, the document:
– Erects an Apostolic Internunciature in the Republic of Turkey.
– Grants it “all and each of the offices, privileges, and indults which are proper to legations of this kind.”
– Envelops this act in the standard formulae of irreformable validity.
On the surface this may appear as a benign administrative measure. Yet, measured against pre-1958 Catholic doctrine:
1. The Turkish Republic is officially founded on laicism, explicitly rejecting the public law of Christ. Its legal and socio-political structure is built on the principles repeatedly condemned by:
– Gregory XVI in “Mirari Vos” and “Singulari Nos” (religious indifferentism, liberty of error).
– Pius IX in the Syllabus (55: separation of Church and State; 77–80: liberalism, reconciliation with “modern civilization” understood as emancipation from Christ).
– Leo XIII in “Immortale Dei” and “Libertas,” affirming that civil authority is obligated to worship the true God and favor the true religion.
2. By presenting the establishment of a permanent legation as “most useful” for peace and “true progress,” this act implicitly:
– Accepts the Turkish laicist order as a legitimate, morally neutral partner.
– Refrains from any demand that the State renounce its rebellion against Christ.
– Silences the dogma that “outside the Church there is no salvation” and that the State, as such, must recognize the authority of the Church in matters pertaining to salvation.
3. Historically, the pre-conciliar papacy enters relations with non-Catholic and even hostile states with a clear hierarchy:
– The Church’s diplomatic activity is an instrument subordinate to the duty of preaching the Gospel and defending her liberty.
– Concordats and legations are judged by whether they safeguard the integral faith and the rights of the Church, not by whether they “bind in friendship” as an end in itself.
Here, however, the text reverses the order:
– Peace and progress between “this Apostolic See and Nations” appear as primary goods.
– The supernatural salvation of Turks—trapped in Islam, Freemasonry, or militant laicism—is completely eclipsed.
This silence is damning. *Quod tacet, consentit* (he who is silent, consents) when the silence covers the denial of Christ’s public rights.
Linguistic Level: Bureaucratic Pseudo-Magisterium without Christ the King
The language is revealing:
– “Diuturno usu est comprobatu[m] permagnas utilitates e publicis officiorum rationibus… ad pacis bona firmanda verique nominis profectum adipiscendum.”
– “Publicis amicitiae vinculis.”
– “Legationum huiusmodi propria.”
This rhetoric:
1. Exalts “public relations of offices,” a technocratic and diplomatic vocabulary foreign to the robust supernatural idiom of the authentic Magisterium.
– Contrast with Pius XI in *Quas Primas* (1925), who teaches that true peace can only be obtained when individuals and states submit to the reign of Christ; secularism is called a “plague” that destroys society.
– Here, “peace” and “progress” are abstract, unqualified by the reign of Christ; they can be read (and are meant to be read) as the peace of the Masonic world order condemned by previous popes.
2. Omits all the classic Catholic juridical-theological terms that once governed such acts:
– No mention of *regnum Christi* (Kingdom of Christ).
– No insistence on the Church as *societas perfecta* (perfect society) superior in spiritual order to any earthly state.
– No reference to the duty of the State to aid the Church in leading souls to heaven.
3. Elevates a sterile chancery style in which the Church is reduced to a dignified NGO. It is exactly the linguistic mutation that St. Pius X condemned in *Pascendi* and Lamentabili: a rewriting of ecclesial reality in historical-sociological terms that obscure its supernatural essence.
The omission of divine rights is not accidental. It is the rhetoric of Modernism: retain forms, evacuate substance.
Theological Level: Practical Denial of the Social Kingship of Christ
From the perspective of unchanging Catholic doctrine before 1958, the central theological crimes of this text can be summarized:
1. Naturalistic notion of peace and progress.
The act claims that diplomatic relations constitute “very great utility… for strengthening the goods of peace and attaining true progress.”
– Pius XI in *Quas Primas* teaches with apostolic clarity: peace among nations will not come as long as individuals and states refuse to recognize Christ’s reign; secularism is the root of modern calamities.
– Pius IX in the Syllabus explicitly condemns:
– The equality of all religions before the law.
– The separation of Church and State.
– The idea that modern liberal civilization can be reconciled with the Church if she renounces her claims.
When John XXIII elevates “amicitia” with an anti-Catholic configuration as such an unquestioned good, devoid of any call to the submission of that nation to Christ, he effectively contradicts the doctrinal orientation of his predecessors. He replaces supernatural peace (*pax Christi in regno Christi*) with international cohabitation. That is theological treason.
2. Implicit legitimization of laicism and Islam.
The Republic of Turkey is characterized by:
– Masonic-laicist repression of public Christianity;
– domination of Islam, which denies the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Yet in this document:
– No denunciation of the false religion that holds the majority.
– No reminder that Catholicism alone is the true religion (Syllabus, 21).
– No assertion that the Turkish regime, insofar as it institutionalizes religious indifferentism, sins against the divine law.
Instead, formal “friendship” is celebrated. This is nothing other than the practical enthronement of the condemned thesis 80 of the Syllabus: that the Roman Pontiff “can and should reconcile himself to, and agree with, progress, liberalism and modern civilization,” where “modern civilization” is defined precisely by laicism, religious pluralism, and negation of Christ’s Kingship.
3. Inversion of means and ends in ecclesial authority.
The entire act is a showcase of juridical solemnity:
– “Motu proprio, certa scientia ac matura deliberatione… deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine… erigimus… statuimus, decernimus…”
This plenitude of power is exercised to secure:
– Not doctrinal clarity.
– Not the defence of the Most Holy Sacrifice and valid sacraments.
– But the erection of a diplomatic apparatus to flatter a regime built on principles anathematized by Pius IX and Leo XIII.
The use of the formula of binding validity (“irritum et inane… si quidquam secus… attentari contigerit”) to protect an act that embodies the conciliar program is an abuse of papal juridical language to weaponize the revolution. It anticipates the post-conciliar praxis, wherein juridical forms are retained to consecrate doctrinal deviation.
4. Silence as denial: no evangelization, no call to conversion.
Most grave is what is absent:
– No appeal for the conversion of Muslims.
– No reference to the duty to bring back schismatics and heretics.
– No cry for the liberation of Catholics from anti-Christian laws.
– No reminder that temporal regimes that officially reject Christ walk toward ruin.
This systematic silence violates the divine mandate: “Go, teach all nations… teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” The Church’s diplomatic engagement is detached from her raison d’être. When the vicarial voice of Peter substitutes “public bonds of friendship” for “preach the Gospel to every creature,” it ceases to be Catholic and becomes an echo of the world.
Symptomatic Level: A Microcosm of the Conciliar Sect’s Program
This brief letter is not an isolated trifle; it is emblematic. It reveals, in miniature, the DNA of the conciliar sect that begins with John XXIII and culminates in the present Antichristic parody:
1. Horizontalization of the Church.
– The authentic pre-1958 Magisterium, as seen in Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, and Pius XI, constantly insists that:
– The Church is a divine society.
– Her rights are innate and independent of civil concession.
– The State must subject itself to the moral law as guarded by the Church.
– “Diuturno usu” instead:
– Embeds the “Apostolic See” inside the system of “public relations” among Nations.
– Speaks as one diplomatic subject among others, whose greatness lies in its usefulness for “peace” in the Masonic sense.
This is the spirit condemned by Lamentabili and *Pascendi*: the reduction of the Church’s transcendence to a historical, institutional role in the human community.
2. Ecumenico-diplomatic relativism.
Though the text does not explicitly use the language of “dialogue” or “religious freedom,” it is animated by the same essential principle:
– Peaceful coexistence with false religions and secularist powers is sought and institutionalized, not for their conversion, but as “true progress.”
This anticipates:
– The later conciliar cult of “dialogue” with Islam and other false religions;
– The betrayal of the Syllabus in the name of “opening to the world.”
By erecting the legation without demanding the recognition of Christ’s law, John XXIII sets the pattern: the Church of the New Advent will embrace regimes and religions “as they are,” presenting presence and conversation as ends in themselves. The notion of Christ’s Kingship is effectively relegated to private devotion.
3. Masonic logic masked by curial Latin.
Pre-1958 popes repeatedly unmaksed Freemasonry as the architect of:
– laicism,
– religious indifferentism,
– subjugation of the Church to the State,
– dissolution of Catholic states.
The laicist Turkish Republic is the offspring of this program. To present binding “friendship” with such a system as unqualified good is to adopt the Masonic criterion: the Church is acceptable insofar as she renounces claims to exclusive truth and becomes a co-operating partner in the secular order.
The sleek legalism of “Diuturno usu” is thus not neutral. It is the polished Latin veil over the enthronement of the very errors condemned by the Syllabus and by Pius X’s measures against Modernism.
4. Abuse of “Apostolic” language to cloak a non-apostolic mission.
The letter repeatedly invokes:
– motu proprio
– certa scientia
– Apostolicae potestatis plenitudo
– Ad perpetuam rei memoriam
Such formulas traditionally protect acts that guard the deposit of faith or the rights of the Church. Here, their use sacralizes a purely horizontal initiative that:
– neither confesses Christ to the nations,
– nor strengthens the faithful in the profession of the integral Catholic faith,
– but rather binds the Church to a configuration erected on contempt for the very truths earlier popes died to defend.
This is symptomatic of the conciliar sect: it trades on the prestige of Catholic forms to legitimize their inversion.
The Gravity of the Omissions: Where Christ Is Not Named, Another “god” Rules
In line with the integral Catholic criterion:
– The most serious accusation against “Diuturno usu” is not what it explicitly states but what it systematically withholds: no proclamation of the unique divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ; no affirmation that Islam and secularism are grave errors; no reminder that the only true peace is under His sceptre.
According to Pius XI:
– Peace without the reign of Christ is illusory.
– Laicism is the cause of wars and social collapse.
According to Pius IX:
– The equality of religions and the separation of Church and State are condemned propositions.
In “Diuturno usu”:
– The Church is placed on the same stage with an Islamic-laicist state.
– “Friendship” is praised without qualification.
– The supernatural destiny of souls disappears.
This silence is not excusable diplomatic prudence; it is the signature of the new religion. When the name of Christ the King is omitted where it most needs to be proclaimed, another king is adored—the idol of humanistic peace and Masonic “progress.”
Conclusion: A Chancery Fragment of the Great Revolt
“Diuturno usu” is a short text, but its implications are immense. It exemplifies:
– The displacement of the missionary mandate by diplomatic accommodation.
– The tacit legitimization of anti-Christian orders in the name of “peace.”
– The practical negation of the Social Kingship of Christ.
– The use of solemn juridical formulas to consolidate the conciliar sect’s integration into the liberal, laicist world-system condemned by authentic popes.
Measured by the immutable standards articulated by Pius IX in the Syllabus, by Leo XIII on Christian states, by Pius X against Modernism, and by Pius XI in *Quas Primas*, this act is not a harmless administrative note; it is one more piece in the architecture of apostasy, binding the structures occupying the Vatican to the program of the enemies of Christ.
Where previous popes demanded that nations submit to the gentle yoke of the King of kings, John XXIII here offers the prestige of the “Apostolic See” to consecrate a purely naturalistic concord. Under the guise of “public bonds of friendship,” the conciliar architects construct a world without the Cross and without conversion. Such an edifice is not the City of God, but the preparation of that global order in which the abomination of desolation can take its seat where it ought not.
Source:
Diuturno usu (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025