The document issued by John XXIII on 8 January 1959, titled “Chihuahuensis,” externally appears as a brief Apostolic Constitution erecting a chapter of canons in the metropolitan church of Chihuahua. It prescribes: the establishment of six canons and two prebendaries; one archdeacon and specific dignities (theologian, penitentiary, administrator); concessions regarding choir dress and the so‑called “Pian habit”; norms on cumulative benefices due to a shortage of clergy; a minimal schedule of capitular liturgical functions; reference to statutes to be drawn up by the local ordinary; and the automatic cessation of diocesan consultors once the chapter is erected. It culminates in the usual solemn formulas of perpetuity, nullification of contrary dispositions, and threats of canonical penalties.

Behind this seemingly pious and orderly façade stands the juridical and spiritual self-exposure of an emerging conciliar regime that manipulates authentic ecclesiastical forms while already hollowing out their substance.

---

Glittering Shells: How a Neo-Church Masks Apostasy with Capitular Ornaments

Jurisdictional Masquerade: A Self-Disqualification in the Very Act of Legislating

On the factual plane, the text must be read in light of the immutable doctrine on the Roman Pontiff and the conditions for legitimate authority set forth by the pre-1958 Magisterium itself.

John XXIII inaugurates his “Pontificate” by issuing juridical acts in the name of the same See whose perennial doctrine he will, in practice, soon relativize by convoking a “pastoral council” aimed precisely at “aggiornamento” and at reconciliation with the condemned errors of liberalism and religious indifferentism, in open contradiction to Pius IX’s Syllabus and to Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII.

According to the doctrine synthesized by St. Robert Bellarmine and received in the theological tradition: a manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church because he is not a member; non potest esse caput qui non est membrum (“he cannot be head who is not a member”). When one publicly prepares and then leads a revolution against the received doctrine, against the integral condemnation of modern errors, he places himself, by that very fact, outside the body he claims to rule. The Constitution “Chihuahuensis” bears all the formal external marks of an Apostolic Constitution, yet its author belongs to the same line that will shortly enthrone religious liberty, false ecumenism, and the cult of man, all previously anathematized. A juridical form pronounced by a will that repudiates the very doctrinal foundation of papal power reveals itself as a simulacrum.

The document’s own solemn ending—threatening penalties for those who do not obey “Summorum Pontificum iussa”—is therefore self-condemning: the usurper demands obedience in the name of that very authority which, by his modernist program, he dissolves. This internal contradiction is not an accidental flaw; it is the signature of the conciliar usurpation.

Capitular Structures Without Capitular Faith: The Spiritual Emptiness of the Project

Factually, the text concerns:

– erection of a chapter of canons in Chihuahua;
– specification of:
– six canons;
– two prebendaries;
– dignities: Archdeacon, Theologian, Penitentiary, Administrator;
– regulation of:
– choir dress (violet trimmings, mozetta, biretta, etc.);
– the “Pian” clerical habit;
– permission for canons to hold multiple benefices “propter inopiam sacerdotum”;
– requirement of some capitular Masses on major feasts;
– transfer of diocesan consultors’ role to the new chapter;
– delegation for execution to the Apostolic Delegate.

But the decisive criterion, from integral Catholic doctrine, is not whether there “is” a chapter, but whether such institutions serve the finis primarius (primary end) of the Church: the glory of God, the salvation of souls, the proclamation of the Kingship of Christ, the defense of the faith against error.

Measured by that standard, the text exposes itself by what it does not say.

– There is no exhortation to defend the flock from liberalism, socialism, Freemasonry, and indifferentism, all explicitly condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus, and by Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII.
– There is no doctrinal charge to the “Theologian” canon to safeguard the purity of doctrine against modernism, which St. Pius X called the “synthesis of all heresies” (Pascendi, confirmed by Lamentabili sane exitu).
– There is no indication that the Penitentiary should preach about mortal sin, the Four Last Things, necessity of the state of grace, or the horror of sacrilegious Communion.
– There is silence concerning the public reign of Christ the King over Mexican society, so emphatically demanded by Pius XI in Quas Primas, especially significant in a land marked by the blood of the Cristeros.
– There is no call to resist the anti-Christian state, secret societies, and Masonic infiltration condemned repeatedly by true popes.

Instead, the document devotes disproportionate precision to:

– textile colours;
– hemming, buttons, tassels;
– the allowed use of the “Pian” habit;
– procedural transitions of consultative bodies.

Gravissimum silentium (most grave silence) falls exactly where the pre-conciliar Magisterium is thunderously clear: against liberalism, secularism, religious indifferentism, and international anti-Christian powers. This is not an accident; it is symptomatic. The capitular structure is maintained, but its supernatural militancy is disarmed.

A chapter created under such auspices is not formed to defend the flock against wolves, but to offer a dignified choir of lambs under the coming cult of man.

The Language of Ornamented Bureaucracy: A Symptom of Doctrinal Anemia

From a linguistic and rhetorical standpoint, the text is revealing.

1. The tone is juridical-formal, yet curiously evacuated of doctrinal content. Authentic pre-1958 legislation commonly situates institutional dispositions within a strong doctrinal or ascetical framework (e.g., Pius XI in Quas Primas binds a feast to a vigorous teaching on the social Kingship of Christ). Here, the spiritual dimension is reduced to a neutral backdrop.

2. The Constitution is meticulous and almost exuberant regarding external insignia:
– “subcollari violaceo… veste nigri coloris… orbiculis et ocellis violaceis… fasciа serica violacea… rocheto… mozeta…”
This obsessive dwelling on the costume of canons, without any parallel insistence on doctrinal vigilance or sacrificial life, produces the image of a courtlier ceremonialism devoid of crusading Catholic conviction. It is the mentality of a nascent bourgeois clergy, for whom identity is sartorial before being sacrificial.

3. The list of required capitular liturgical celebrations is strikingly minimalist:
– Christmas and Easter;
– Corpus Christi;
– Sacred Heart;
– Assumption;
– Exaltation of the Holy Cross (patronal).
There is no stress on daily choral recitation, no vision of the chapter as the living heart of the Unbloody Sacrifice sustaining the diocese. It is capitular life at reduced pressure, calibrated to a functional, not contemplative or militant, concept of the Church.

The rhetorical effect is clear: the Church is presented as a well-regulated institution of dignitaries and functionaries, not as the divinely constituted, militant society charged to judge, condemn, and overthrow error (cf. the condemnations in the Syllabus and Lamentabili).

Theological Inversion: Canonries Without Confessio Fidei

Now we confront the theological core. The act appears “traditional”: canons, prebends, dignities, penalty clauses. Yet, measured against integral Catholic doctrine, it manifests several grave deficiencies which—considered together with the subsequent conciliar revolution—expose its belonging to a program of transformation.

1. Separation of Ecclesiastical Form from Anti-Modernist Content

Before 1958, authentic capitular life was bound intrinsically to:

– defense of doctrine;
– solemnity of the Most Holy Sacrifice;
– assistance to the bishop in government rooted in immutable dogma;
– resistance to state encroachments;
– fostering of vocations formed contra mundum, not according to the spirit of the age.

In “Chihuahuensis” there is no mandate to guard the deposit of faith against modernist exegesis; no reminder of the condemnations in Lamentabili sane exitu; no word about the need to oppose liberal Catholicism, condemned by Pius IX and Leo XIII.

This silence, in 1959—after more than a century of magisterial struggle against precisely these errors—is itself theologically eloquent. The omission is an implicit revision: what the true Magisterium treated as a life-and-death battle is here set aside as if the danger had evaporated. The document thereby enshrines, at the level of praxis, the very modernist principle condemned by St. Pius X: that doctrine must adapt silently, without explicit contradiction, by simple neglect of prior condemnations.

2. Clericalism as Distraction from Apostasy

The Constitution replaces anti-modernist clarity with a comfortable, decorative “high clericalism”:

– well-dressed canons;
– cumulative benefices;
– diplomatic mentions of shortage of priests without demanding heroic sanctity or doctrinal rigor.

Such a tone perfectly prepares the psychological terrain for the coming conciliar revolution: it preserves the framework of ecclesiastical prestige while evacuating its doctrinal combativeness. The faithful see birettas and mozettas, hear Latin phrases, and presume continuity—while in reality the same authority will soon preside over the demolition of the anti-liberal and anti-modernist ramparts.

This is precisely how the conciliar sect operates: by dressing rupture in traditional forms, so that the sheep are disarmed while the wolves change the faith.

3. Implicit Denial of the Social Kingship of Christ

Pius XI in Quas Primas teaches that:
– peace and order in nations depend upon the public recognition of Christ’s reign;
– states sin when they refuse public submission to His law;
– Catholics must combat secularism, not accommodate it.

“Chihuahuensis” is addressed to a region where the Church had been savagely persecuted by secular, Masonic powers. Yet the Constitution says nothing about:

– the duty of canons to preach the rights of Christ the King against the secular state;
– the obligation to resist legislation contrary to divine law;
– the necessity to restore a confessional social order.

The chapter is configured as a liturgical-administrative body, not as a bastion of Christ’s royal rights over Chihuahua and Mexico. Thus, the document effectively supports the liberal thesis condemned in proposition 55 of the Syllabus (“The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.”), by refusing to reaffirm its contrary—the duty of union under Christ.

This silentium obsequiosum (obsequious silence) concerning the Kingship of Christ, especially after Quas Primas, is a betrayal by omission.

Symptomatic Exposure: A Prototype of the Conciliar Method

From the symptomatic angle, the Constitution is an almost textbook example of how the later Church of the New Advent would function:

1. Maintain External Continuity:
– Latin text,
– traditional canonical forms,
– structural elements like chapters and dignities.

2. Erase Doctrinal Militancy:
– no mention of the anti-modernist magisterium;
– no evocation of the great pre-conciliar condemnations;
– no call to defend the faithful from already rampant errors.

3. Shift Emphasis to Governance and Image:
– codified attire;
– regulated ceremonies;
– efficient administrative transitions.

4. Prepare for “Pastoral” Reorientation:
– once traditional forms are emptied of fighting, confessional content, they can be re-purposed to serve ecumenism, religious liberty, and anthropocentrism.

This legislative style is precisely what enabled the gradual mutation condemned by earlier popes as impossible: the transformation of the visible structures of authority into instruments of undermining the very faith they were constituted to protect.

When one reads, near the end:

We will that these Letters be now and in future firm, valid and effective… If anyone, of whatever authority, acts contrary… we declare such acts null and void.

one must answer with the authentic principle of the Church:

– an act that serves a program of reconciling with condemned errors carries within itself the mark of nullity, not because of lack of parchment, seals, or signatures, but because error non habet ius (error has no right) and because authority is given ad aedificationem, non ad destructionem (for building up, not for destroying).

Usurped Threats and Real Penalties: Who Truly Incurs Sanctions?

The Constitution concludes by threatening canonical penalties against whoever would despise these decrees. Yet:

– Pre-1958 doctrine (e.g., Bellarmine, Wernz-Vidal, the authoritative exposition of canon 188 §4 of the 1917 Code) teaches that public defection from the faith severs jurisdiction ipso facto.
– A line of “pontiffs” inaugurating and promoting doctrines and practices incompatible with the unequivocal condemnations of the Syllabus, Lamentabili, Pascendi, Quas Primas, and the dogmatic teaching of Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus) places itself under those very anathemas.

Thus, the true perspective is inverted:

– It is not those who question the juridical value of such acts who incur penalties;
– it is those who, cloaked in ecclesiastical office, abuse the appearance of papal authority to introduce or prepare a new religion who fall under the condemnation of the Church’s perennial Magisterium.

The use of solemn formulas in “Chihuahuensis” becomes, therefore, a tragic irony: an usurped seal affixed to the first layer of a future edifice of apostasy.

The Chihuahua Chapter as a Microcosm of Neo-Ecclesiastical Disorientation

Concretely, what is the foreseeable fruit of such a Constitution when integrated into the conciliar revolution that follows?

– Canons, legitimized by this 1959 act, are absorbed into the structures that will soon:
– accept the new rite, which deforms the theology of the propitiatory sacrifice;
– embrace religious liberty and ecumenical practices condemned by all prior popes;
– tolerate, if not promote, indifferentism and collaboration with anti-Christian powers.

Without an integral, explicit anti-modernist mandate, the chapter becomes a respectable choir preserving the solemnity of an institution whose faith has been altered. The very structures that should have resisted become instruments of habituation: the faithful see continuity of dress and ceremony, and thus do not perceive the rupture of doctrine.

This is the deepest scandal: not the existence of canons, but their deployment as a cosmetic veil over a mutation of religion.

Returning to the Only Legitimate Criterion: Integral Pre-1958 Doctrine

Against this background, one must reaffirm:

– The only standard for judging any ecclesiastical act is *the unchanging Catholic theology before 1958*, expressed in:
– the ecumenical councils in their perennial sense;
– the condemnations of liberalism, naturalism, modernism;
– the constant teaching on the uniqueness of the Catholic Church, her rights over states, her duty to oppose error.

Measured by that lens:

– “Chihuahuensis” is not condemned for restoring a chapter as such—capitular institutions belong to Catholic tradition.
– It is condemned because it:
– parades tradition while muting the very doctrinal militancy that tradition demands;
– reinforces a hierarchy that will immediately proceed to the conciliar betrayal;
– exemplifies a methodology of continuity in form, revolution in substance.

Authentic Catholic restoration does not consist in multiplying titles, vestments, and chapters under a modernist regime, but in adherence to the full anti-modernist, anti-liberal, Christocentric doctrine of the pre-conciliar Magisterium and in rejecting the authority-claims of those who subvert it.

Ubi fides antiqua neglegitur, ibi potestas deficit (where the ancient faith is neglected, there authority fails).

In this light, “Chihuahuensis” stands not as a luminous act of Catholic governance, but as an early tessera in the mosaic of that paramasonic structure which, keeping the letters and ornaments of Rome, prepared the enthronement of a new, man-centred religion in place of the Kingdom of Christ the King, so magnificently proclaimed by Pius XI and so systematically betrayed by his successors in the conciliar line.

---

Source:
Chihuahuensis   (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025