The text promulgated under the name of “John XXIII” erects the so‑called diocese of Ambatondrazaka in Madagascar by detaching territories from De Diego Suarez and Tananarive, entrusting the new structure to the Trinitarian Order, defining its cathedral, financial sources, canonical dependence on Tananarive, and delegating implementation to Marcel Lefebvre as Apostolic Delegate in French Africa. Behind this bureaucratic act of “ecclesiastical” cartography stands the consolidation of an already advancing conciliar revolution: the transformation of the visible institutions into a paramasonic, geopolitical network, preparing the demolition of the true episcopate and the usurpation of the Church’s divine constitution.
Administrative Expansion as Preludium to Revolution
The document appears, on its surface, as a minor territorial adjustment: new “diocese,” revised boundaries, nomination procedures, financial dispositions, delegation of execution. Its rhetorical frame is pious: the Church as the great tree in which the peoples find shade; Madagascar as fertile missionary field; prudential reorganization for the supposed “growth” of the faith.
Yet precisely here the abyss opens.
From an integral Catholic perspective, every act touching the hierarchy must be measured against the unchanging ecclesiology defined by:
– Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus (1870), on the Petrine primacy as instituted immediately and directly by Christ, not by historical accidents.
– Pius IX’s Syllabus Errorum (1864), condemning the subjection of the Church to worldly ideologies (e.g., propositions 19, 39, 55, 80).
– Leo XIII and St. Pius X, who insist that missionary expansion must transmit the same *fides integra* (entire faith), not a localized, adaptive, naturalized pseudo-Christianity.
– The canonical tradition (1917 Code), which presupposes a validly Catholic Roman Pontiff and bishops as guardians of doctrine, not agents of mutation.
This constitutio bears the signature of the man who inaugurated the line of usurpers leading to the present “Church of the New Advent.” It operates in 1959—on the eve of the convocation of Vatican II—as a concrete step in reengineering the visible framework through which the conciliar sect would later exercise its usurped authority.
The act is thus not a neutral “administrative” gesture, but part of the mechanism by which an antichristic structure entrenches itself under Catholic forms. The very calmness of style is the mark of premeditated subversion.
Factual Level: What This Text Does and What It Carefully Conceals
On the factual plane, the document:
– Detaches defined civil regions (Ambatondrazaka, Andilamena, Moramanga) from existing jurisdictions.
– Constitutes a new “diocese,” Ambatondrazakaensis.
– Subjects it as suffragan to Tananarive.
– Assigns pastoral care to the Trinitarians.
– Orders erection of at least an elementary seminary and a chapter (or diocesan consultors).
– Determines sources of the “episcopal mensa” (see 1917 CIC can. 1500): assets, offerings, curial income, Propaganda Fide subsidies.
– Grants execution powers to Marcel Lefebvre.
These are classical elements of pre-1958 canonical reasoning in form. However:
1. The act stands under the authority-claim of John XXIII, whose election, doctrine, and subsequent acts must be weighed against *Cum ex Apostolatus Officio* (Paul IV) and the principles reaffirmed by pre-1958 theologians: a manifest heretic cannot validly hold the papacy nor originate binding jurisdiction in the Church. The very fact that he immediately sets in motion the council which will enthrone ecumenism, religious liberty, and the cult of man retroactively brands his “magisterial” program as incompatible with the integral faith.
2. The document is silent about any doctrinal or moral crisis. Madagascar, like the entire globe, is presented as neutral space awaiting “pastoral care,” not as territory besieged by Freemasonry, communism, syncretism, and modernism, whose dangers were relentlessly exposed by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII.
3. There is no explicit reaffirmation of:
– The obligation of conversion to the one true Church.
– The kingship of Christ over society (Pius XI, *Quas Primas*).
– The condemnation of indifferentism and latitudinarianism (Syllabus, 15–18).
– The rejection of naturalistic and liberal ideas which were already being smuggled into missionary strategy.
The episcopal structure is multiplied; the supernatural mission is anesthetised in diplomatic prose. This is not innocent omission; it is the programmatic veil of the approaching conciliar inversion.
Sanitised Rhetoric as Symptom of Theological Neutralisation
The linguistic layer is revealing. The opening metaphor:
“Sublimis atque fecunda arbor, sanctissimae sane Christi Ecclesiae forma et figura…”
invokes the Gospel tree (Mt 13:31–32), but its application is subtly naturalised. The Church appears primarily as a cosmically expansive organism, shading all peoples, even those “still serving error and idols,” who nonetheless “enjoy her shade and fruits.”
Missing is the traditional precision:
– That outside the Church there is no salvation (*extra Ecclesiam nulla salus*), affirmed by the Fathers, Councils (e.g., Florence), and Popes, understood in its strict and Catholic sense.
– That idolatry is mortal sin and slavery to demons, not just a “stage” to be naturally cooled by ecclesial shade.
– That the Church is not merely “form and figure” of a benevolent tree, but the divinely constituted *Societas perfecta*, with juridical and dogmatic boundaries (Syllabus 19, 21, 23).
The tone is bureaucratically serene, suffused with juridical assurance and a saccharine universalism. It is precisely the tone that prepares Vatican II’s language: pious, affective, yet evasive regarding anathemas, justice, and supernatural militancy.
The inscription of Marcel Lefebvre into this apparatus is tragically emblematic: he cooperates in the very administrative consolidation of the nascent neo-church from which he will later partially dissent without ever breaking fully with its false papacy—thus demonstrating the incoherence of those pretending to be traditional Catholics who accept the conciliar anti-popes while lamenting their fruits.
Theological Level: Jurisdiction Without Faith Is Null
The most devastating issue is theological: can an act of jurisdiction emanating from a manifestly modernist usurper be regarded as a legitimate exercise of Christ’s authority?
Integral Catholic doctrine, as synthesized by pre-1958 authorities, provides the criterion:
– *A manifest heretic cannot be pope.* This principle, articulated by St. Robert Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas (on Bellarmine’s premises), and others, is grounded in the axiom: *non potest esse caput qui non est membrum* (he who is not a member cannot be head). A public heretic is outside the Church; therefore, he cannot wield papal authority.
– *Cum ex Apostolatus Officio* (Paul IV) declares null and void any promotion to ecclesiastical office, including the papacy, of one who has deviated from the faith, and all acts flowing from such invalid promotion.
– 1917 CIC can. 188.4: public defection from the faith effects automatic resignation from ecclesiastical office.
The one called John XXIII:
– Intentionally convoked a council to “update” (aggiornare) doctrine and discipline, an intention directly contrary to the condemnations of doctrinal evolution (St. Pius X, *Lamentabili*, *Pascendi*).
– Promoted ecumenical attitudes incompatible with the Syllabus (15–18, 55, 77–80).
– Openly rehabilitated those previously suspected or censured for modernism.
Even if some elements became overt after this 1959 act, the juridical principles do not wait upon long psychological processes: the incompatibility of a modernist program with the papal office is objective. It is therefore at least gravely doubtful—and in fact morally certain—that such a person lacked the authority he claimed.
If he lacked authority, then:
– His erection of new “dioceses” is not exercise of papal jurisdiction but administrative simulation by a human religious corporation.
– The assigned “bishops,” consecrated under later mutilated rites, installed within these structures, are office-holders of the conciliar sect, not successors of the Apostles.
– The faithful are deceived into obedience to a parasitic hierarchy which gradually replaces the Unbloody Sacrifice with a protestantised rite and the integral faith with modernism.
Thus, what appears as the growth of the tree of the Church is in reality the extension of a grafted parasite: *abominationis desolationis* in sacred territory.
Silence on Christ the King and the Social Reign as a Condemnation
From Quas Primas (Pius XI) we know that:
– Peace and order are only possible under the public reign of Christ the King.
– States sin gravely when they refuse to recognize His sovereignty.
– Laicism, religious indifferentism, and the leveling of false religions are a plague to be condemned, not accommodated.
This apostolic constitutio:
– Never recalls the obligation of Malagasy rulers and laws to submit to Christ and His Church.
– Never warns against syncretism or animist cults as demonic.
– Never frames the new “diocese” as an instrument for the confession of Christ’s social kingship, but only as a technical means for “spiritual care” and “administration.”
This omission is not accidental; it is intrinsically linked to the conciliar sect’s embrace of religious liberty and interreligious “dialogue” later enshrined by Vatican II and propagated globally.
By refusing to restate the teaching of Pius XI and his predecessors, the text already prepares its practical deletion. *Silentium de regno Christi* here is complicity.
Symptomatic Level: The Conciliar Logic Encoded in Missionary Structures
Several symptomatic elements reveal the deeper program.
1. Geopolitical Functionalism
The structure is aligned with “civil regions” and the vocabulary of “development” and “fruit.” The risk—and soon, the reality—is to subordinate ecclesial jurisdiction to political boundaries and human planning in a way that promotes national churches and local experiments, contrary to the universal, supra-political unity of the Church.
The Syllabus (19, 39, 55) condemns precisely the claims of the State or the spirit of the age to shape ecclesiastical order. While the text does not openly submit to the secular power, its entire tone harmonizes with decolonial, diplomatic realignments: the Church as partner of new states, not as sovereign, supernatural society governing them in the name of Christ.
2. Instrumentalization of Religious Orders
The entrusting of the new “diocese” to the Trinitarians, while superficially venerable, functions in this context as outsourcing. The order becomes a managerial instrument inside the conciliar machine. Once obedience within religious families is redirected away from the integral Magisterium to modernist usurpers, their historical charism is weaponized against the faith they once served.
3. Future-proofing a False Hierarchy
The insistence on:
– Seminary (even “elementary”).
– Cathedral chapter or consultors.
– Clear lines of suffraganeity.
creates robust canonical containers which, after 1965, are seamlessly filled with clergy trained in the new religion:
– A new rite of “ordination” (1968) of doubtful or null validity.
– A new “Mass” (1969) that attacks the propitiatory nature of the Sacrifice.
– A catechesis centered on “human dignity,” “dialogue,” and “religious freedom.”
Thus, the 1959 act builds the juridical skeleton into which the later abomination is infused. What was erected under a Catholic exterior becomes, by design, an infrastructure of apostasy.
The Lefebvre Factor: Proto-Conciliar Cooperation and Later Incoherence
The document explicitly notes that the plan was adopted “petito ante consilio a venerabili Fratre Marcello Lefebvre.” He is presented as authoritative consultant for this territorial reconfiguration.
This historical datum unmasks two illusions:
– It shows that a key figure later idolized by those pretending to be traditional Catholics was already collaborating in the administrative gestures of the usurper regime that he would never coherently repudiate.
– It confirms that the conciliar sect’s rise did not descend from the sky at Vatican II; it was built step by step, with the cooperation—whether naive or culpable—of men deeply integrated into its structures.
Lefebvre’s later refusal to break definitively with the anti-popes, his recognition of their alleged authority while resisting selected decrees, his insistence on “give us the old Mass, that is enough” manifests theological inconsistency. The root of that inconsistency is already visible here: acceptance of the putative papal authority of John XXIII in an act that is itself part of the revolutionary process.
Silence on Modernism’s Condemnation: A Self-Accusation
Even more striking, given the date (1959), is the total absence of explicit continuity with:
– St. Pius X’s *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi* against modernism as “synthesis of all heresies.”
– The repeated warnings of Pius XII (e.g., *Humani Generis*) against nouvelle théologie and doctrinal evolution.
An apostolic constitutio dealing with missionary expansion at the threshold of a council, if truly Catholic, would:
– Warn against adapting doctrine to pagan mentalities.
– Condemn naturalistic “development” theories.
– Insist on the inerrancy of Scripture, the immutability of dogma, the necessity of explicit faith in Christ and adherence to the Roman Church.
Instead we find only organizational details. The omission becomes damning in light of what followed: the Council’s embrace of precisely those errors which St. Pius X anathematized.
By its silence, this document shows its real allegiance. It is not an isolated technical decree; it is a cell in the organism of a new religion.
Modernist Ecclesiology Encoded in Juridical Clauses
The closing formulae (“we order that these letters be effective now and in the future… no one may annul… penalties for those who disobey the orders of the Supreme Pontiffs”) are classically styled, yet in the mouth of a usurper they become an ironic inversion.
They presuppose:
– That the faithful owe unconditional obedience to him who occupies the Roman See.
– That any resistance to his acts is quasi-schismatic.
But integral doctrine teaches that obedience is conditioned by truth. *Ubi non est fides, non est obedientia* (where there is no faith, there is no obedience). One who uses papal forms to introduce condemned principles cannot be the subject of the obedience defined by Vatican I.
Consequently, the internal coherence of these legal threats further unmasks the conciliar dynamic: a counterfeit authority demands submission on pain of rebellion to the very victims it is about to drag into apostasy.
Contrasting with Pre-Conciliar Missionary Ideal
Pre-1958 Catholic missionary teaching, as seen in Leo XIII, Pius XI, Pius XII, contains constant traits:
– Clarion assertion that the Church is the only ark of salvation.
– Demand for conversion of individuals and nations.
– Condemnation of syncretism, secret societies, liberalism, communism.
– Emphasis that missionaries must transmit intact the same faith, sacraments, and ecclesial discipline as in Rome; no local “updating” or dilution allowed.
Measured against this standard, the 1959 constitutio displays the following deficiencies:
– It treats the erection of a new “diocese” predominantly as organizational optimization, with minimal link to the dogmatic exclusivity of the Church.
– It insinuates, in tone, an idea of the Church’s universality that can be harmonized with later pluralism: the Church as “shade” benefitting even those not converted.
– It reduces the episcopal office to an efficient administrator of territories and structures, preparing the mentality that will readily accept a bishop as manager of “dialogue” and “inculturation,” not as judge, lawgiver, and sacrificer.
Thus what appears as continuity is in fact strategic use of traditional forms to incubate a new ecclesiology.
The Structural Fruit: From Ambatondrazaka to the Neo-Church
Once Vatican II unleashed:
– Religious liberty (Dignitatis Humanae).
– Ecumenism, esteem for false religions.
– Collegiality and democratization.
– Liturgical revolution and the new “Mass.”
– Doctrinal relativization.
the new “diocese” of Ambatondrazaka—like hundreds of similar entities—became one more organ in a planetary organism preaching the denial of what Pius IX’s Syllabus, St. Pius X’s *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*, Pius XI’s *Quas Primas*, and the entire previous Magisterium had solidly taught.
This is not a tragic accident; it is the logical continuation of a process already architected under John XXIII. The 1959 act, while apparently orthodox in wording, is an integral component of the replacement of the Catholic Church’s visible order with a counterfeit hierarchy.
Conclusion: Unmasking the Hollow Authority Behind the Pious Facade
In sum, seen from the standpoint of unchanging Catholic doctrine before 1958, this constitutio is theologically and ecclesiologically bankrupt in three essential respects:
– It presupposes the authority of a man whose program and later acts objectively contradict the anti-modernist Magisterium, rendering his claim to the papacy null and his jurisdictional impositions non-binding.
– It multiplies diocesan structures without reaffirming the exclusive, intolerant claims of the true Church and the public rights of Christ the King, thereby preparing those structures to be vehicles of the conciliar ideology.
– It cloaks a revolutionary reconfiguration of the visible hierarchy under impeccably Roman legal phraseology, thereby deceiving clergy and faithful into subjecting themselves to a paramasonic, naturalistic neo-church soon to enthrone the cult of man.
Where integral Catholic faith demands clarity, this document offers managerial euphemisms. Where the Syllabus and *Quas Primas* demand combat against liberalism and false religions, it offers territorial optimization. Where St. Pius X anathematizes modernism, it maintains strategic silence at the very moment when modernism is marching into the sanctuary.
Therefore, this text, far from being a benign administrative note, must be recognized as one brick in the construction of the conciliar stronghold that usurped the buildings, titles, and external forms of the Church while betraying her faith. To obey such acts as if they were expressions of Christ’s authority is not fidelity but confusion; fidelity today requires the discernment to distinguish between the divine constitution of the Church and the occupying structures that have weaponized it against the truth.
Source:
De diego Suarez – Tananarivensis (Ambatondrazakaënsis) (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025