The document attributed to John XXIII, titled “Changanacherrensis et Aliarum,” is a Latin apostolic constitution dated 10 January 1959, by which the author:
– Elevates the Syro-Malabar Diocese of Changanacherry (Changanacherrensis) to the rank of an archdiocese.
– Creates a new ecclesiastical province of the same name.
– Assigns Palai (Palaiensis) and Kottayam (Kottajamensis) as suffragan dioceses.
– Grants the new archbishop ordinary metropolitan rights and insignia (including the pallium under specified conditions and the right to carry the cross within the province).
– Entrusts execution to Valerian Gracias, then of Bombay, and annuls any contrary norms.
All this is framed as an act of pastoral care for the Chaldean–Malabar faithful and as a continuation of the reorganisation initiated by Pius XII.
This seemingly technical rearrangement of jurisdictions, signed by John XXIII at the threshold of the conciliar upheaval, is in fact a symptom and instrument of a new, humanly fabricated “church order” detached from the immutable notion of ecclesiastical authority and catholic unity, and thus stands condemned as an act without true pontifical authority and without binding force before God.
The Pseudo-Apostolic Engineering of an Oriental Province
Formal Validity versus Real Authority: The Central Contradiction
At first glance, the document is composed in the solemn, traditional juridical style: *Servus servorum Dei*, references to the *regnum caelorum*, evocation of missionary growth, invocation of apostolic authority, explicit derogations of contrary norms, canonical execution clauses. Superficially, it imitates the perennial form of Roman legislation.
However, from the perspective of integral Catholic faith, one must recall an axiom confirmed by the pre-1958 Magisterium and classical theology: *nemo dat quod non habet* (no one can give what he does not have), and more specifically in ecclesiology: *A manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church whose member he is not* (cf. St. Robert Bellarmine, as cited in the Defense of Sedevacantism file: a manifest heretic, by that very fact, ceases to be pope and loses jurisdiction).
John XXIII (Angelo Roncalli) stands historically as:
– The inaugurator of the conciliar revolution that exalted religious liberty, false ecumenism, and the cult of man later condemned in substance already by Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors (esp. propositions 15–18, 55, 77–80).
– A figure whose theological and diplomatic past is saturated with modernist sympathies, ecumenical relativism, and alliances with anti-Catholic forces—elements completely irreconcilable with the intransigent condemnations of Modernism in *Lamentabili sane exitu* and *Pascendi*.
Thus, although the text outwardly respects canonical form, it is the promulgation of an usurper. It therefore lacks true *auctoritas* as defined by the pre-conciliar Magisterium. The juridical shell is intact; the supernatural content—papal jurisdiction rooted in the confession of the true faith—is absent. The constitution is, in the strict sense of Catholic theology, an act of the conciliar sect, not of the Roman Pontiff.
The document thus becomes paradigmatic: a smooth continuation of structure, serving as a bridge between the true Catholic order and the future paramasonic superstructure of the “Church of the New Advent.”
Instrumentalizing the Oriental Churches for the Conciliar Agenda
The text claims to serve the “utilitates fidelium christianorum chaldaici-malabarici ritus” by:
“…novam nonnullarum dioecesium ordinationem esse faciendam, eo sane consilio ut fidelium christianorum chaldaici-malabarici ritus utilitatibus inserviret.”
Translated: “…a new arrangement of some dioceses was to be made, with the purpose of serving the needs of the Christian faithful of the Chaldean-Malabar rite.”
This formula sounds orthodox and pastoral. Yet several elements betray the deeper agenda:
1. The act is presented as a continuation of Pius XII’s reorganisations, thereby cloaking the new regime in inherited legitimacy. This rhetorical device—adhering externally to prior papal initiatives while interiorly reorienting their meaning—is a standard tactic of Modernism, explicitly unmasked by St. Pius X as the method of those who corrupt under the appearance of continuity.
2. The constitution strengthens a local Eastern hierarchy precisely at the moment when the conciliar project seeks:
– To relativize the Roman primacy into a “primacy of honour” balanced by autocephalous structures and synodality.
– To create a polycentric, federated “communion of churches,” adaptable for ecumenical dialogue with schismatics.
3. The emphasis on ritual and administrative “utility” exists in a vacuum: there is not a single word recalling:
– The absolute necessity of the one true Catholic faith for salvation.
– The obligation of public submission of nations to Christ the King, as taught by Pius XI in *Quas Primas* where he affirms that peace and order are impossible without recognition of the reign of Christ over states.
– The dangers of indifferentism, rationalism, liberalism, Freemasonry, explicitly condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus and by Leo XIII.
– The doctrinal integrity of these Eastern communities against Protestant, modernist, and Hindu syncretistic influences.
Instead, the act reduces the Church’s mission here to an administrative, almost technocratic optimization of structures. The supernatural is assumed as decorative vocabulary (“Regnum caelorum… granum sinapis”) but not operative as doctrinal criterion.
This silence is decisive. *Quod tacitum est consentaneum est*—what is systematically omitted, where it ought to be asserted, reveals the true orientation.
Linguistic Cosmetic: Traditional Form Serving a New Ecclesiology
The rhetoric of the constitution offers an instructive linguistic dissection:
– The opening praises the expansion of the Church as mustard seed blossoming among all nations, affirming that there is no nation untouched by Christian preaching. On the surface this echoes traditional missionary triumphalism; in the late 1950s context it simultaneously prepares for the conciliar trope: the Church as a vague “People of God,” already latently present in all cultures, easily harmonizable with non-Catholic religions.
– The language of “utilitas fidelium” (utility of the faithful) and structural rationalization, without parallel insistence on doctrinal militancy against error, represents a shift from *Ecclesia militans* to social-administrative management.
– The text showcases punctilious concern for:
– Pallium concessions.
– Precedence, ceremonial cross, canonical formalities.
– The meticulous derogation of contrary norms and threat of canonical sanctions against those who “spreverit vel detrectaverit.”
Yet it is entirely mute about:
– The preservation of the Holy Sacrifice and sacramental integrity.
– The safeguarding of Eastern Catholics from latitudinarian ecumenism.
– The infiltration of Modernism and secret societies that pre-conciliar popes tirelessly denounced.
This disproportion reveals a pharisaical inversion: concern for juridical appearances masks the emerging *novus ordo* of belief. As St. Pius X unmasks in *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*, modernists often conserve formulas while emptying them of content.
Here, solemn canonical verbiage is pressed into service as a legitimizing veneer for the authority of one who, in light of perennial doctrine, could not hold the papacy.
Theological Incoherence: Usurped Jurisdiction and Oriental Obedience
From authentic Catholic teaching (as synthesized in the Defense of Sedevacantism):
– *A manifest heretic cannot be pope.* Bellarmine and the classical theologians explain that a public heretic is already outside the Church and thus cannot govern her. The Church does not depose a true pope; she recognizes that a manifest heretic never truly or no longer holds the office.
– Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code:
– States that public defection from the faith effects automatic loss of ecclesiastical office “ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione.”
These principles, converging with the dogmatic teaching that the Church is one in faith and must be visibly distinct from heresy, mean concretely:
– The Eastern hierarchs who formally accept and serve an antipope are not exercising obedience to the Roman Pontiff, but submission to a parallel structure. Their “metropolitan” dignity under such a head strengthens their integration into the conciliar sect, not their rootedness in the pre-conciliar Catholic Church.
– The constitution claims to act “de Nostra apostolica auctoritate” (by Our apostolic authority). From the integral Catholic perspective, this phrase is objectively false: the man who utters it does not possess that authority, hence cannot validly reconfigure ecclesiastical provinces. The act is canonically styled but metaphysically void—*inane haberi iubemus* ironically boomerangs upon its own pseudo-legislator.
This is not mere formalism. True jurisdiction is not a bureaucratic function; it flows from Christ through a visible head who professes the integral faith. Severing jurisdiction from faith, as this entire conciliar line does, is precisely the ecclesiological nihilism condemned by Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius X.
From Integral Mission to Territorial Administration: A Naturalistic Descent
The constitution’s theology of mission is reduced to spatial expansion and administrative efficiency. It celebrates that no nation remains untouched by the “splendida veritatis fax,” yet entirely omits:
– The dogma *extra Ecclesiam nulla salus* in its authentic, pre-1958 sense.
– The duty of Eastern Catholics to reject schism, heresy, and non-Christian religions as false paths.
– The call to publicly order civil life according to Christ the King, as Pius XI demands in *Quas Primas*, where he condemns laicism and religious indifferentism as a “plague” dismantling Christian society.
Instead, the text remains within the safe domain of:
– Jurisdictional cartography.
– Protocol of insignia.
– Obedience to the signatory and his delegates.
This is characteristic of that transitional phase: dogma is not yet openly denied, but it is anesthetized—its demands no longer articulated. The supernatural mission is reduced to ecclesiastical management. This silent naturalization of the Church’s life prepares the explosive documents that will soon enthrone:
– Religious liberty against the Syllabus.
– Ecumenism against the dogma of the one true Church.
– Collegiality and democratization against the monarchic papacy.
The constitution fits seamlessly into this gradient: it trains whole Eastern communities to recognize the authority of the future conciliar revolutionaries by habituating them to an already compromised head.
Coercive Tone without Supernatural Content: Legalism in Service of Apostasy
A particularly revealing section threatens sanctions against anyone who would contradict the provisions:
“Quae Nostra decreta in universum si quis vel spreverit vel quoquo modo detrectaverit, sciat se poenas esse subiturum iis iure statutas, qui Summorum Pontificum iussa non fecerint.”
Translation: “Whoever despises or in any way refuses these Our decrees in general, let him know that he will incur the penalties established in law for those who do not observe the commands of the Supreme Pontiffs.”
This threat presupposes that:
– The signatory is a true Supreme Pontiff.
– The act itself participates in the authority of Christ.
But viewed according to the unchanging criteria:
– The line beginning with John XXIII is the very line that systematically subverts the solemn condemnations of Modernism, Liberalism, and false ecumenism.
– Therefore, this language becomes spiritual blackmail: Eastern faithful are threatened with penalties for reluctance to integrate structurally into an authority that will shortly unleash doctrinal devastation.
This inversion of obedience is a mark of the conciliar sect: it demands submission to revolution in the name of traditional formulas. It drapes apostatic transformation in the vestments of Roman continuity. Pre-1958 papal teachings insisted that obedience is bounded by faith; no one may bind consciences to novelties contrary to the deposit. Here, obedience is detached from doctrinal content and attached to institutional survival. That is juridical positivism in cassock: an error condemned by the Church wherever authority is absolutized against divine law.
Silence on Modernism, Apostasy, and Masonic Subversion
In light of the 19th–early 20th-century Magisterium (Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X; see especially the Syllabus and *Lamentabili*), a genuine papal constitution, especially one touching the orientation of entire rites and provinces, would:
– Exhort bishops and clergy to guard the flock against:
– Liberal Catholicism.
– Rationalist exegesis.
– Naturalistic and syncretic tendencies.
– Secret societies, particularly Masonic influences, which Pius IX explicitly identifies as the organized power behind modern anti-Church warfare.
– Reaffirm the divine constitution of the Church:
– Her indefectibility in dogma.
– The duty of rulers and nations to recognize her authority.
Instead, this text:
– Is totally silent on the menace of Modernism, despite appearing only two years after Pius XII’s death, in a period already seething with heretical ferment.
– Is mute on the infiltration of lodges and liberal networks within ecclesiastical structures, though pre-conciliar popes repeatedly unmasked these forces.
– Takes as self-evident the beneficence of its own act, without anchoring it in the anti-modernist disciplines of St. Pius X.
This silence is not accidental. It is programmatic. By default, the constitution normalizes an environment in which the gravest condemned errors are no longer named, and thus, in praxis, are tolerated. Such studied amnesia is a direct betrayal of the mandate of Peter to confirm the brethren in the faith, not in institutional re-mapping.
Oriental Ornament in a Neo-Church Cathedral
The choice to “crown” Changanacherry as metropolitan and tighten the network of local Oriental jurisdictions must also be read as symbolic:
– It furnishes the future conciliar sect with a richer mosaic of “autonomous churches,” ideal for:
– Ecumenical narratives: proximity to Eastern schismatics.
– Interreligious theatre: Eastern-rite Catholics as mediators with Hinduism and other religions.
– Dilution of Roman clarity: shifting focus from the one visible center of unity to a plurality of liturgical-patriarchal expressions, easily reinterpreted in a relativistic ecclesiology.
– By wrapping this project in strictly traditional canonical style, the document disarms resistance among clergy and faithful attached to pre-conciliar forms, lulling them into accepting the authority of the very regime that will later weaponize these structures against the integral faith.
Thus, archdiocese and province created here are not merely “administrative facts.” They are bricks laid in the edifice of the neo-church: outwardly Catholic, inwardly reoriented, ready to serve the cult of dialogue and religious freedom eventually enthroned by the same line of usurpers.
Conclusion: An Empty Shell of Authority and a Step in the Systemic Revolution
Measured by the unchanging Catholic doctrine prior to 1958:
– The constitution’s teaching and aims are not formally heretical in content; its object is jurisdictional organisation.
– However, its legitimacy depends entirely on the authenticity of its source as Roman Pontiff and on its coherence with the anti-modernist, anti-liberal, anti-ecumenist stance of the pre-conciliar Magisterium.
Once these two criteria are applied:
1. The signatory belongs to the line that inaugurates the conciliar revolution, contradicting the Syllabus, *Lamentabili*, *Pascendi*, and *Quas Primas* in doctrine and spirit. Such a figure cannot be acknowledged as true Pope without annihilating the Church’s indefectibility.
2. The document implicitly consolidates submission of Eastern Catholics to an authority that will impose religious freedom, ecumenism, and doctrinal relativism, thereby rendering this “elevation” an incorporation into the future abomination, not into the inviolable Catholic order.
Therefore:
– The act is devoid of true binding force before God.
– It exemplifies the tactic of the paramasonic neo-church: preserving solemn legal and liturgical externals while hollowing out their supernatural substance.
– It must be rejected as a pseudo-apostolic piece of the structural mutation of the Church into a conciliarly engineered federation, alien to the clear, exclusive, militant Catholicism defined and defended by the pre-1958 Magisterium.
True Catholics must discern here not a benign administrative measure, but a carefully polished stone in the edifice of systemic apostasy—an act that speaks in the idiom of Tradition while serving the program of its dissolution.
Source:
Changanacherrensis et aliarum Dioecesis « Changanacherrensis » in ordinem Archidioecesium redigitur. Nova Praeterea Provincia Ecclesiastica Constituitur, eiusdem nominis, die VIII m. Ianuarii A.D. 195… (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025