The Latin text presents an apostolic constitution of John XXIII by which he, as putative supreme legislator, carves territory from the Apostolic Vicariate of Luluaburg in the Belgian Congo to erect a new Apostolic Vicariate of Luebo, entrusting it explicitly to the “indigenous clergy,” meticulously defining its borders by rivers and administrative lines, granting it the usual rights and privileges, and commissioning Alfred Bruniera to implement the act with canonical formalities.
Behind the pious verbiage, this juridical gesture is a paradigmatic sign of the approaching conciliar revolution: a geopolitical and bureaucratic re-engineering of mission lands that prepares the replacement of the Catholic Church by a neo-colonial, naturalistic, paramasonic apparatus.
Colonial Cartography in Ecclesial Vestments
Geographical Technocracy in Place of Supernatural Mission
At the factual level, the text is almost obsessively topographical. For many lines we read nothing but:
“…the course of the river Kassai… to the borders… then the course of the Luebo… the Zomba… Kele-Kele… Tshipumba… Bibombo… Lutshatsha… Tshilomba… Tshibashi… Lulua… Lulanga… Tembakata… Tshiowa… Mulungila… Mwanzangoma… Tshaimba… Biombombo… Mukole… Lubudi… Lutaki… Lubuishi…”
The rhetorical centre of gravity lies not in the *salus animarum* (salvation of souls) but in the delimitation of jurisdictions, echoing secular colonial decrees. The only spiritual claim of weight comes in the opening flourish:
“Unlike earthly kingdoms, which collapse one from another, whose wealth scarcely leaves ruins to posterity, the kingdom of Christ, that is, the Church, not only does not perish, but… extends its borders day by day, subjects peoples and nations to the divine empire of its Founder…”
At first glance, this seems traditional, consonant with Pius XI’s insistence in *Quas primas* that peace and order are only possible under the public reign of Christ the King. Yet immediately, the document betrays itself: the “extension” of the Kingdom is translated almost exclusively into administrative subdivision and “promotion” of local clergy within structures that, by 1959, are already in the hands of men intellectually and spiritually predisposed to betray that very Kingship.
Key factual observations:
– The text:
– Assumes the legitimacy and Catholicity of John XXIII, whose entire subsequent activity (convoking Vatican II, rehabilitating condemned errors, promoting ecumenism) proves him an architect of the conciliar revolution.
– Treats the missionary question as a question of boundary drawing and personnel allocation, not primarily one of preserving the integral faith against Modernism, Communism, Freemasonry, and pagan syncretism.
– Embeds the Church’s expansion into the same conceptual framework as colonial territorial administration: rivers, “administrative territories,” and technical execution by diplomats and chancery officials.
Here the first mask slips: what is solemnly proclaimed as the victorious march of the Kingdom of Christ is in fact the cartographic rationalization of future mission territories of the conciliar sect. The spiritual language is an aromatic incense cloud meant to conceal a mutation of the Church’s self-understanding from supernatural organism to governable NGO.
Language of Triumph without the Cross
The linguistic texture of the constitution is revealing.
1. Pseudo-traditional exordium:
– The opening lines sound orthodox, contrasting perishable earthly kingdoms with the indefectible Church, speaking of peoples “subjected” to Christ’s dominion and “renewed” by doctrine.
– But this is a hollow shell. There is:
– No mention of *state of grace*, *conversion from error*, *rejection of paganism*, *necessity of the true faith for salvation*.
– No echo of Pius IX’s *Syllabus* which anathematizes religious indifferentism, liberalism, and state supremacy over the Church.
– No explicit insistence that new ecclesiastical structures exist to impose, in the strict sense, the law of Christ over every error and superstition.
2. Bureaucratic triumphalism:
– The pathos of the document revolves around:
– “Dividing” vicariates.
– “Erecting” new entities.
– “Granting rights, privileges, honours.”
– Execution by curial officials, with juridical formulas about nullity of contrary acts.
– The style is juridical in a way that foregrounds institutional management over supernatural warfare.
3. Ideological euphemism: “indigenous clergy”:
– A central motive is stated:
– The division will supposedly foster “greater growth” of religion and improve the position of “indigenous clergy” governing a new circumscription.
– The choice of language (emphasis on promotion of indigenous administration as a goal per se) is not per se sinful, but in this context it signals the mutation of the missionary ideal:
– From forming indigenous clergy to be uncompromising guardians of *integral Catholic doctrine*;
– To using indigenous clergy as instruments of a democratized, inculturated, soon-to-be-modernist structure.
– This anticipates the post-1958 ideological exaltation of “local churches” and “inculturation” against Roman doctrinal centrality. It is the rhetorical seed of the later conciliar dogma that all cultures and religions must be dialogued with, not converted.
4. Ostentatious omission:
– Not once are explicitly condemned:
– Pagan beliefs.
– Witchcraft and animism.
– Syncretistic sects.
– Freemasonry and revolutionary movements, which, as Pius IX and Leo XIII taught, orchestrate war on the Church especially in colonial transitions.
– Not once is it stated that those outside the Church cannot be saved while remaining obstinately outside, as the constant Magisterium taught.
– Silence about the necessity of rejecting false worship in order to belong to the Kingdom of Christ is not neutral; it is an ideological silence that prefigures the conciliar cult of “religious liberty.”
The tone thus appears pious, but its omissions scream. It is a classic example of *dolus per omissionem* (deceit by omission).
Apostolic Constitution as Pre-Conciliar Trojan Horse
Substitution of Missionary Zeal with Ecclesiastical Engineering
In pre-1958 teaching, missions are ordered to one end: *ad fidem catholicam unice convertere gentes* (to convert the nations to the Catholic faith alone).
– Pius XI in *Quas primas*:
– Insists that Christ’s Kingship is public, juridical, objective, demanding submission of states and individuals and condemning secularism and indifferentism.
– Pius IX, in the *Syllabus*:
– Condemns every thesis asserting equality of religions, independence of state from the true Church, and “progress” against immutable doctrine.
– St. Pius X, in *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*:
– Denounces all attempts to “adapt” dogma or mission to modern consciousness or evolution of religion.
Measured against this standard:
– The document under review:
– Never articulates the erection of the Vicariate as an instrument to demand the exclusive rights of Christ the King against tribal cults, Islam, liberalism, or sects.
– Never reaffirms the intolerance of error which is intrinsic to true charity.
– Speaks solely of:
– Jurisdictional division.
– Expectation that the local clergy will educate and guide the people.
– Completely omits:
– Warnings against Modernism.
– Reference to the anti-Christian forces Pius IX saw as “synagogue of Satan” operating through sects such as Freemasonry.
This silence is not accidental. In 1959 John XXIII is already preparing Vatican II, which will officially enthrone:
– the hermeneutics of “dialogue,”
– religious freedom,
– the cult of man,
– ecumenism with schismatics and heretics.
The administrative constitution for Luebo must be read as one brick in that edifice: the mission field is structurally reorganized so it can later absorb the new conciliar doctrine. The map is drawn for an *ecclesia nova*.
Theological Inversion: From Christocentric to Anthropocentric Criteria
A crucial sentence declares that entrusting this new Vicariate to indigenous clergy is done in the confident hope that they will diligently instruct the people and lead them according to Christ’s precepts.
On its face, this could be sound. However, context and formulation betray a deeper shift:
– The decisive argument for the change is not:
– safeguarding doctrinal integrity,
– combating syncretism or Modernism,
– or anchoring the region more firmly to the Chair of Peter as defined by Vatican I.
– Instead, the decisive argument is:
– institutional adaptability,
– administrative efficiency,
– socio-ethnic representation (“clero indigenae condicionem fieri novae circumscriptionis regendae”).
This is proto-conciliar sociologism:
– The structure is shaped first by human, ethnic, and political considerations;
– The supernatural end is invoked vaguely, without doctrinal precision, as a legitimising gloss.
In traditional Catholic theology:
– *Finis regit media* (the end governs the means).
– If the explicit, rigorous end of a papal act is not:
– defense and propagation of the one true faith,
– destruction of error,
– salvation of souls by integration into the visible Catholic Church,
then the act is at best defective and at worst ordered to another, alien end.
Here, the end is technocratic: fragment territory, adjust governance, empower a cadre that will soon be indoctrinated by European “theologians” of aggiornamento. The pre-conciliar formulas are deployed to sacralise an anthropocentric, political strategy.
Neglect of the Real Enemy: Modernism and Intramural Apostasy
In the same decades, the true Popes had:
– Repeatedly condemned:
– secret societies,
– liberal Catholicism,
– rationalism,
– and especially Modernism (*Lamentabili*, *Pascendi*).
The (ARTICLE) constitution:
– Does not even mention:
– the threat of Modernism infiltrating clergy and seminaries,
– the need to guard African vocations against European and American liberal academia,
– the obligation to form priests who will refuse ecumenism and religious liberty.
Instead:
– It presupposes the reliability of a hierarchy that, by then, is already tolerating and promoting condemned errors.
– It entrusts new structures to the same currents that will produce catechisms denying the necessity of the Church, liturgies that profane the Most Holy Sacrifice, and “dialogues” with animist cults.
This is precisely one of the traits identified in the supplied analysis of Fatima-like operations: diversion from the true apostasy (Modernism within) toward secondary or purely external issues. Here, there is not even a diversion—just silence. The serpent works best when no one names it.
From Mission Vicariate to Laboratory of the Neo-Church
Conciliar Sect Infrastructure in Embryo
Symptomatically, several elements reveal this constitution as infrastructure for the future conciliar sect:
1. Emphasis on indigenous governance without doctrinal guarantees:
– A prelude to the ideology that doctrine and practice should adapt to local cultures.
– This produced, post-1960s, an “African Catholicism” easily blended with tribal rites and political ideologies, under the banner of “inculturation.”
2. Reduction of Rome’s role to technical authorization:
– The Holy See here acts like a remote secretariat that:
– ratifies boundaries,
– issues mandates,
– and threatens canonical penalties for defiance.
– The robust, paternal voice of Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X—who thundered against errors—is replaced by a bloodless chancery tone.
3. Absence of strong confessional assertion:
– No recall of:
– extra Ecclesiam nulla salus in its traditional sense.
– the duty of civil powers (where present) to recognize and favour the true religion.
– the intrinsic opposition between Christ’s Kingdom and paganism, Islam, Protestantism, Freemasonry, communism.
Thus the constitutional act:
– Uses the vocabulary of “Kingdom of Christ” while tacitly emptying it of its sharp, exclusive claims.
– Prepares territory and personnel for the *abomination of desolation* that will soon occupy the sanctuaries: the Church of the New Advent.
Legal Formalism Masking a Crisis of Authority
The document is saturated with solemn formulas:
– It declares all contrary acts “null and void.”
– It imposes penalties on those who would spurn the decrees of “Supreme Pontiffs.”
– It demands unquestioning obedience to its canonical engineering.
This juridical absolutism becomes tragically ironic when:
– The same claimant to papal authority dismantles, in doctrine and practice, the very foundations of that authority:
– by convening a council that endorses religious liberty (against the *Syllabus*),
– by promoting ecumenism (against the dogma of the unica Ecclesia),
– by introducing a new liturgy that obscures, if not denies, the propitiatory essence of the Most Holy Sacrifice.
The text, therefore, weaponizes papal legal authority to enforce an act that is part of a broader trajectory of self-destruction of that authority. This is a juridical self-contradiction: using the aura of the Papacy to build scaffolding for its own replacement by a paramasonic structure.
From the standpoint of immutable doctrine:
– *Potestas ecclesiastica* (ecclesiastical power) is ordered to guarding the deposit of faith.
– A “papal” act that is structurally integrated into a program of doctrinal subversion loses moral authority and exposes the underlying usurpation.
Silence on the Sacraments and Supernatural Life
One of the gravest indicators of theological bankruptcy in this constitution is what it does not say.
Given that it erects a Vicariate (whose heart should be the altar and confessional), it is strikingly silent about:
– The Most Holy Sacrifice as centre of the new circumscription.
– The need for priests who:
– offer the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary with reverence,
– guard the Eucharist from profanation,
– hear confessions integrally,
– preach against sin, heresy, and superstition.
– The absolute necessity of remaining in the state of grace, of frequent confession, of Marian devotion understood according to pre-1958 teaching—not as emotionalism or future false apparitions.
– The last ends: death, judgment, hell, heaven.
From the integral Catholic perspective, such omissions in a foundational missionary constitution are damning:
– When erecting a new Vicariate amidst paganism and sectarianism, a true Shepherd would:
– warn against syncretism,
– command strict catechesis,
– bind the Vicariate to anti-modernist oaths,
– insist on crushing all flirtation with condemned propositions listed in *Lamentabili* and the *Syllabus*.
None of this appears.
Instead:
– We see an antiseptic, worldly, almost Masonic concern for:
– procedural validity,
– boundary integrity,
– document authentication.
*Silentium de supernaturalibus gravissimum crimen est* (Silence about the supernatural is the gravest crime) in such a context.
Intrinsic Connection to the Conciliar Revolution
From Luebo to the “Synodal,” Ecumenical Neo-Church
The constitution’s logic flows seamlessly into the post-1960 trajectory:
– Step 1: Decentralize and multiply jurisdictions in mission lands, with emphasis on local clergy and structures.
– Step 2: Inject into seminaries and episcopal ranks the “new theology,” condemned by pre-1958 Popes.
– Step 3: Through Vatican II and its implementation:
– Reinterpret “mission” as dialogue.
– Encourage “inculturation” that tolerates or sacralizes pre-Christian rites.
– Shift authority from Roman doctrinal centrality to local bishops’ conferences and synods.
– Step 4: Produce a mosaic of local churches loosely coordinated by a central apparatus that no longer demands submission to immutable dogma.
In this light, the 1959 constitution:
– Is not a benign administrative curiosity.
– It is the early legal infrastructure of the conciliar sect in Central Africa.
The emphasis on indigenous clergy without concomitant insistence on anti-modernist formation virtually guaranteed:
– That many of those clergy would be ordained in, and loyal to, the new religion of Vatican II.
– That the Vicariate of Luebo would become a field of experimentation for the Church of the New Advent:
– vernacularized worship,
– anthropocentric preaching,
– political theology,
– uncontrolled “inculturation” bordering on idolatry.
Thus, the act’s apparent respect for local responsibility serves, in practice, to dissolve unity in doctrine and worship—contradicting the perennial teaching that:
– there is one faith,
– one sacramental order,
– one visible hierarchy guarding the deposit.
Exposure of Spiritual Bankruptcy
Measured against unchanging Catholic doctrine, the constitution reveals:
– A hollow triumphalism:
– Proclaiming the growth of Christ’s Kingdom while preparing juridical terrain for a future rejection of His social Kingship.
– A naturalistic mental horizon:
– Concerned with administrative lines and human promotion, not supernatural militancy.
– A fatal silence:
– On Modernism, Freemasonry, indifferentism, paganism, sacramental integrity, and the last ends.
– An abuse of papal legal forms:
– To fortify structures that will host dogmatic novelties and liturgical perversions.
In sum:
– The text is an early specimen of the conciliar spirit under a thin pre-conciliar varnish:
– It speaks Latin, but thinks like a progressive bureaucrat.
– It invokes the Kingdom of Christ, but refuses to name His enemies.
– It elevates mission territories juridically, only to deliver them, within a few years, into the hands of a paramasonic neo-church.
The constitution’s theological and spiritual value is therefore not constructive but diagnostic:
– It documents how far the central authorities had already drifted from the integral Catholic ethos before the explosion of 1962–1965.
– It shows that, even in apparently neutral acts, the conciliar revolution was gestating: quietly redrawing maps, reshaping hierarchies, and evacuating doctrinal precision in favour of administrative “progress.”
The faithful who cling to the immutable doctrine of the pre-1958 Magisterium must read such documents lucidly:
– not as models,
– but as warnings,
– as traces of the path by which the visible structures were prepared for occupation by the abomination of desolation.
Source:
Luluaburgensis (Lueboënsis) (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025