PortaLegrensis in Brasilia: Administrative Decree as Preludium to Ecclesial Usurpation
The constitution “PortaLegrensis in Brasilia (S. Crucis in Brasilia)” of 20 June 1959, issued by antipope John XXIII, decrees the detachment of several territories from the Archdiocese of Porto Alegre in Brazil in order to erect a new diocese named “Sanctae Crucis in Brasilia” (Santa Cruz do Sul). It delineates civil and ecclesiastical borders, designates Santa Cruz do Sul and its parish of St John the Baptist as episcopal see and cathedral, regulates canonical dependence as suffragan to Porto Alegre, orders the erection of a seminary, defines the composition of the episcopal mensa, and prescribes the canonical transfer of archives and clergy in conformity with the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
From Catholic Form to Conciliar Subversion: A Decree Masking Impending Revolution
At first glance, this text appears as a standard pre-1958 style canonical act: Latin, juridical precision, reference to *Codex Iuris Canonici*, insistence on seminary, hierarchy, suffragan bonds. Yet precisely this formal correctness—issued by the very initiator of the conciliar revolution—reveals the most sinister dimension: a traditional juridical shell instrumentalized to prepare the infrastructure of the coming paramasonic “conciliar sect.”
The act must be read not in isolation but as part of the historical sequence by which John XXIII, having already been steeped in condemned currents of liberalism and ecumenism, began restructuring diocesan, diplomatic, and intellectual frameworks that the “Council” and the post-1958 usurpers would later occupy and corrupt. The document is not “evil” because it draws boundaries in Rio Grande do Sul; it is catastrophic because it illustrates the technique of the revolution: continuity in form, rupture in substance.
Factual Layer: Technically Correct Canonical Mechanics in the Service of a Counterfeit Authority
On the purely factual level, the constitution:
– Cites Christ’s words about eternal life (John 17:3) as a theological preface to pastoral-structural reorganization.
– Attributes to “John XXIII” the Petrine duty to care for souls through “apt arrangement” of ecclesiastical jurisdictions.
– Following consultation with the Apostolic Nuncio Armando Lombardi and the Archbishop of Porto Alegre, Alfredo Vicente Scherer, and cardinals of the Consistorial Congregation, it:
– Erects the Diocese of Santa Cruz do Sul (Sanctae Crucis in Brasilia).
– Detaches specific municipalities from Porto Alegre.
– Assigns Santa Cruz do Sul as diocesan see; elevates Saint John the Baptist church to cathedral.
– Subjects the new diocese as suffragan to the metropolitan see of Porto Alegre.
– Orders the establishment of at least an elementary seminary, with selection of candidates to be sent to the Pontifical Brazilian College in Rome.
– Regulates the episcopal mensa from curial revenues, offerings, and division of goods per can. 1500 CIC 1917.
– Reaffirms norms for sede vacante, election of capitular vicar, etc., according to the 1917 Code.
– Orders clerical ascription according to benefice/office or locus legitimi domicilii.
– Includes typical canonical execution clauses, derogations, and sanctions for non-compliance.
As an administrative text it largely reproduces the pre-1958 canonical language without open doctrinal deviation. Yet here the decisive distinction emerges: potestas iurisdictionis (power of jurisdiction) in the Church is inseparable from the true faith. A juridically correct formula emanating from a public heretic or from one inaugurating a program later realized in Vatican II lacks the guarantee of Christ and becomes a mere simulacrum of apostolic authority.
From the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine:
– Principium certum: “A manifest heretic cannot be Pope” (Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice; reaffirmed by classical theologians and reflected in the doctrine that those who publicly defect from the faith lose all jurisdiction).
– Public adherence to condemned modernist tendencies and preparation of a council to “update” the Church stand in direct opposition to the constant doctrine reaffirmed by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII.
– Therefore, the source of this constitution, John XXIII, must be judged in light of pre-1958 doctrine, not ex post facto “hermeneutics of continuity” fabricated by the conciliar sect.
The act’s factual correctness is thus turned against itself: it shows that the revolution did not begin with clown liturgies, but with the usurpation of Catholic juridical instruments by men already oriented toward Modernist subversion.
Language and Rhetoric: Traditional Cadence as Tactical Camouflage
The language of the constitution is intentionally “classically” Roman:
– Invocation of John 17:3.
– Self-designation as *Servus Servorum Dei*.
– Concern for *aptam dispositionem Ecclesiarum* as a means to nourish faith.
– Formal consultation with nuncio, archbishop, cardinals.
– Adoption of standard derogatory and executory clauses.
This diction ordinarily signifies the living voice of the true Church: lex orandi, lex credendi, lex regendi. But in 1959, in the mouth of John XXIII, it functions as rhetorical anesthesia.
Key observations:
1. The text is entirely horizontal in its operative portion:
– It speaks of territorial delineation, ecclesiastical administration, seminary logistics, curial incomes.
– There is no emphasis on salvation from sin, no grave reminder of heresy, no echo of the militant Church combating liberalism, socialism, Freemasonry, and Modernism—precisely those enemies unmasked by Pius IX in the Syllabus and by St Pius X in *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*.
– The only theological framing is a generic reference to “eternal life” and “faith,” immediately instrumentalized as justification for bureaucratic subdivision.
2. The tone is meticulously “balanced,” avoiding any word that would condemn the reigning modern world:
– No denunciation of laicism, indifferentism, socialism, Freemasonry—yet Brazil in the 1950s was penetrated by all these errors.
– Silence here is not accidental; it typifies a new style that will explode at Vatican II: friendly to states, reticent to condemn, allergic to the “negative” clarity of the Syllabus.
3. The document’s solemn ending threatens canonical penalties for disobedience:
– “Quae Nostra decreta in universum si quis vel spreverit vel quoquo modo detrectaverit, sciat se poenas esse subiturum…”
– The usurper demands obedience with the full gravity proper to true pontifical authority, while simultaneously preparing a council that will relativize dogma, exalt religious liberty, and enthrone human dignity above the Kingship of Christ—precisely condemned by Pius XI in *Quas Primas*, where peace is taught to be possible only in the public Kingdom of Christ.
Thus the linguistic aristocracy of the text is not innocent: it is an ideological mask. It maintains pre-1958 form to lull the faithful into trusting the one who, within a few years, would convoke a “pastoral council” unleashing the doctrinal disarmament foretold and condemned by St Pius X.
Theological Dimension: Juridical Acts Without Catholic Faith Are Void of Ecclesial Legitimacy
The deepest bankruptcy of this constitution does not lie in any explicit heretical phrase within its lines, but in its theological presupposition: the tacit claim that John XXIII is the Roman Pontiff, endowed with supreme, full, immediate, and universal jurisdiction. This claim must be tested against the immutable teaching prior to 1958.
Several unchanging principles apply:
– Ecclesia Christi est societas perfecta: the Church is a true and perfect society, with its own innate rights and sovereignty, subordinate to no civil power (Pius IX, Syllabus, props. 19, 55 condemned).
– The Pope is bound to guard, not innovate, the deposit of faith; he cannot introduce doctrinal novelties or relativize prior definitions.
– “A non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope. A manifest heretic is not a Christian.” (summarizing Bellarmine and the classical tradition).
The constitution’s internal logic presupposes:
1. That the one signing it is the orthodox successor of Pius XII.
2. That the structures it erects are ordered toward the same end as those envisioned by earlier pontiffs: defence of the faith, condemnation of error, education of clergy in Thomistic doctrine, resistance to liberalism and naturalism.
But history—and the subsequent acts of John XXIII—demonstrate:
– Convocation of a “council” explicitly intended as aggiornamento, not dogmatic clarification.
– Systematic sidelining of anti-modernist safeguards instituted by St Pius X.
– Rehabilitation of theologians and currents previously condemned.
– Adoption of ecumenical and religious liberty orientations contrary to the Syllabus and to *Quas Primas*.
– Opening of the conciliar process that will yield religious liberty, false ecumenism, collegiality, and the cult of man.
Therefore, the theological verdict is inexorable:
– Even if this 1959 text, taken materially, mirrors earlier diocesan erection decrees, its formal authority is contaminated at the source.
– It functions to consolidate the network of diocesan sees and seminaries that—shortly thereafter—would be infiltrated by the conciliar pseudo-doctrine, catechetical perversion, and sacramental corruption (especially after the sacramental “reforms” of the late 1960s).
In other words: the decree is structurally Catholic but strategically anti-Catholic. It is the careful alignment of chess pieces before the open declaration of war against Tradition.
Silence as Accusation: No Mention of Modernist Threats, No Militant Spirit
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, what the document does not say is even more damning than what it does.
Compare its absence of supernatural and polemical clarity with pre-1958 magisterial practice:
– Pius IX, in the Syllabus, thunders against indifferentism, liberalism, socialism, and the Masonic sects, unmasking them as the engines of apostasy.
– Leo XIII in *Humanum Genus* exposes Freemasonry as the sworn enemy of Christ and His Church.
– St Pius X in *Pascendi* and *Lamentabili* ruthlessly dissects Modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies,” imposing an anti-modernist oath.
– Pius XI in *Quas Primas* insists: peace and social order are only possible under the public reign of Christ the King; secularist laicism is a plague.
– Pius XII, despite weaknesses, still defends objective Catholic dogma and condemns relativism.
Against this background:
– The 1959 constitution speaks of territorial reorganization without a single word about the pressing need to defend the faithful in Brazil against liberal Catholicism, communism, syncretism, or Protestant proselytism.
– It orders the sending of seminarians to the Pontifical Brazilian College in Rome—precisely the type of institution which soon would transmit conciliar errors instead of Thomistic orthodoxy.
– It zealously threatens penalties against anyone who does not accept the decree, yet never once threatens, laments, or even hints at the infinitely greater peril of doctrinal corruption and loss of faith.
This calculated silence perfectly matches the modernist strategy condemned by St Pius X:
– Avoid direct confrontation with dogma while gradually neutralizing its defensive organs.
– Replace forthright condemnations with pastoral, administrative, “neutral” language.
– Pretend continuity by preserving external forms (Latin, canonical citations) while preparing a new substance.
Silentium de Deo iudice, de inferno, de haeresi, de regno sociali Christi (silence about God as Judge, about hell, heresy, and the social kingship of Christ) is itself a betrayal, especially in official acts that erect future centers of teaching and governance.
Symptomatic Level: A Microcosm of the Conciliar Method
This constitution illustrates in miniature the essential marks of the conciliar revolution:
1. Instrumentalization of Catholic Structures:
– The decree multiplies diocesan and seminary structures that appear entirely loyal to Tradition.
– These structures would become instruments of the “Church of the New Advent” once the pseudo-council began to redefine doctrine, liturgy, and spirituality.
– The very seminary prescribed here, if obedient to later conciliar directives, would cease to be a school of Catholic priesthood and would instead manufacture functionaries of a neo-church.
2. Use of Pre-Conciliar Canon Law to Legitimize Post-Conciliar Apostasy:
– Juridical rigor here is not ordered toward defense of the faith but toward securing universal submission to a power that would soon turn against the faith.
– The formulae of derogation (“Quarum Litterarum efficacitati nulla… contraria praescripta officere poterunt”) anticipate the conciliar tactic of abrogating prior disciplinary norms and gradually undermining doctrinal defenses.
3. Absence of Anti-Modernist Spirit:
– Nowhere does the text echo the vigilance mandated by *Pascendi*.
– No mention of the Oath Against Modernism; no reminder that seminaries must form priests according to Thomistic doctrine as required by Leo XIII and St Pius X.
– The seminarians are directed to a Roman institution which, under the same usurped authority, will be reprogrammed to propagate “renewal” and “dialogue.”
4. Demand for Absolute Obedience to a Non-Absolute Authority:
– The text concludes by threatening penalties against those who would “despise” or “reject” these decrees.
– Yet, according to classical doctrine (as synthesized, for example, in the sedevacantist reading of Bellarmine and canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code), once one publicly defects from the faith, all jurisdiction is lost *ipso facto*.
– Thus the demand for unconditional obedience to this 1959 act is the prelude to demanding obedience to Vatican II, the new rites, false ecumenism, and religious liberty.
In sum, the constitution is a symptom of the transitional phase: the abomination of desolation still clothed in Roman brocade.
Christ the King Versus Territorial-Technocratic Catholicism
Pius XI in *Quas Primas*—a genuine papal encyclical of 1925—teaches with crystalline clarity that:
– Society’s ills stem from the exclusion of Christ and His law from public and private life.
– True peace and order are possible only when individuals and states recognize and submit to the reign of Christ the King.
– The Church must publicly assert her rights and condemn secular apostasy; laicism is a plague, not a “sign of the times” to be embraced.
Measured against this non-negotiable standard, the 1959 constitution is gravely deficient:
– It treats diocesan reorganization as a purely internal, structural matter, without linking it explicitly to the restoration of Christ’s social kingship in Brazil.
– It does not affirm the duty of civil authorities to recognize the true Church, nor warn against liberal or Masonic interference in ecclesiastical boundaries and appointments.
– By its silence, it accommodates the modern notion of a religiously neutral state, which Pius IX and Pius XI explicitly condemn.
This is not a minor oversight. The evaporation of the doctrine of the Social Kingship of Christ from such official acts is a precondition for the later enthronement of “religious liberty” and the cult of human rights at Vatican II. When ecclesiastical decrees cease to breathe the spirit of Christ’s kingship, they become administrative documents of a religious NGO, not acts of the militant Church.
Jurisdiction, Apostolicity, and the Nullity of Modernist Structures
Given the unchanging doctrine prior to 1958 and the manifest trajectory inaugurated by John XXIII and consummated by his successors in the conciliar sect, the following must be asserted:
– Apostolic jurisdiction is intrinsically tied to the profession and defense of the Catholic faith. It cannot coexist formally with the betrayal of that faith, nor can it be validly exercised by one who uses his office to undermine, relativize, or “update” dogma.
– When a claimant to the Roman See launches a program that contradicts the Syllabus, *Pascendi*, *Quas Primas*, and the universal magisterium, he thereby reveals that he is not a guardian but an adversary of the deposit of faith.
– The diocesan structures, seminaries, and episcopal appointments flowing from such an authority, ordered to a new religion of ecumenism, anthropocentrism, and sacramental deformation, are not innocent continuations but instruments of subversion.
Therefore, while the Diocese of Santa Cruz do Sul as conceived in 1959 might appear as a simple canonical subdivision, in reality it is:
– A node in the emergent network of the “Church of the New Advent,”
– Destined to be governed by men formed in the anti-doctrine of Vatican II,
– Used to propagate pseudo-sacraments (especially after the post-1968 rites) and catechesis detached from the integral Catholic faith.
Ubi fides non est integra, ibi nec iurisdictio ecclesiastica legitima (where the faith is not integral, there is no legitimate ecclesiastical jurisdiction). The appearance of continuity cannot redeem a structure harnessed to systemic apostasy.
Conclusion: Beneath Latin Formalism, the Architecture of the Neo-Church
The apostolic constitution “PortaLegrensis in Brasilia (S. Crucis in Brasilia)” must not be naively admired as an exemplar of Catholic governance. It is a precise illustration of how the conciliar sect’s founding usurper operated:
– Preserve the solemn Latin, the references to canons, to diocesan discipline, to seminaries, to suffragan bonds.
– Omit any militant condemnation of the very errors tearing Christendom apart.
– Lay down perfectly “canonical” structures which, a few years later, will be handed over to a new religion under the guise of a council and “reform.”
– Demand absolute obedience now to secure docile acceptance of the future revolution.
The theological and spiritual bankruptcy lies not in the cartographic adjustments, but in the betrayal encoded in the person and program behind them: the use of the Petrine form to inaugurate an anti-Petrine agenda. Against this masked usurpation, only the immutable doctrine of the pre-1958 magisterium, the unambiguous condemnations of Modernism, and the universal teaching on Christ the King remain as the criterion.
Everything that cannot be squared with that doctrine stands condemned, no matter how elegantly it is phrased in Latin or how meticulously it cites the 1917 Code.
Source:
Portalegrensis in Brasilia (S. Crucis in Brasilia) (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025