Apostolic Constitution “Cuschenis (Sicuanensis)” of John XXIII briefly: by an administrative act, the occupier of the Apostolic See carves out several provinces from the historic Archdiocese of Cuzco in Peru (Canchis, Canas, Espinar, Chumbivilcas) and erects a new so‑called “prelatura nullius Sicuani,” assigns its boundaries, designates Sicuani as the see, elevates the local church of the Immaculate Virgin to a “prelatic” church, regulates clergy incardination and seminary formation, and orders the transfer of archives and temporal goods according to the 1917 Code of Canon Law—presenting all this as pastoral solicitude for souls and better governance of the “universal Church.”
Territorial Engineering without Faith: The Sicuani Prelature as Symptom of a Looming Revolution
Administrative Formalism Masking the Fundamental Question of Authority
The entire text is an exquisite specimen of late pre‑1958 bureaucratic Latinity pressed into the service of a man who, by doctrine, program, and historical record, stands at the threshold of the conciliar upheaval.
The (ARTICLE) states in effect: “Universae Ecclesiae rebus quam aptissime consulere cupientibus…” – “desiring to provide in the most suitable way for the affairs of the universal Church” – and then proceeds to dissect the Archdiocese of Cuzco and manufacture a “praelatura nullius Sicuani” by pure administrative fiat. The theological scandal does not lie in the mere drawing of boundaries; the Catholic Church has always lawfully adapted diocesan lines. The scandal lies in:
– The silence about the supernatural crisis already poisoning Latin America in 1959: liberalism, socialism, nascent liberationist tendencies, Masonic influence – all condemned repeatedly by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII.
– The presupposition that John XXIII, architect of the coming “aggiornamento,” legitimately exercises the papal power of jurisdiction to alter ecclesiastical territories.
– The reduction of ecclesiastical government to cartography, stipends, and curial competences, as if the essence of *Ecclesia Christi* were a canonically well‑trimmed map, not the defense of the true Faith.
Before asking whether the lines on the map are prudent, one must ask: Quis sedet? (Who is sitting?) A manifest promoter of the aggiornamento that will enthrone religious liberty, collegial democratization, and false ecumenism cannot be treated as the unquestioned Vicar of Christ without colliding head‑on with the perennial doctrine:
– *Cum ex Apostolatus Officio* of Paul IV declares that the promotion of one who has deviated from the faith is “null, void and of no effect,” even if all cardinals consented.
– St. Robert Bellarmine, summarizing the Fathers, affirms that a manifest heretic “cannot be Pope,” for he cannot be head of that of which he is no member.
The (ARTICLE), issued in 1959, must be read in the light of what follows almost immediately: the convocation of Vatican II, the systematic opening to condemned errors listed in the *Syllabus Errorum* of Pius IX (indifferentism, separation of Church and State, “reconciliation” with liberal modern civilization), and the installation of the “conciliar sect” in the place of the visible hierarchy. To accept mechanically this constitution as a neutral pastoral gesture is to ignore the juridical axiom *fraus latet in generalibus* (fraud hides in generalities): under the veneer of canonical normality, the foundations are being slid out from under the visible Church.
Factual Layer: Technocratic Cartography instead of Supernatural Cure
The (ARTICLE) meticulously lists:
– Provinces detached.
– New boundaries aligned to civil divisions.
– Suffraganeus dependence on Cuzco.
– Obligations to erect at least an elementary seminary.
– Provisions for clerical incardination.
– Construction of the “praelatical mensa” from stipends, offerings, civil grants, and a slice of Cuzco’s goods according to canon 1500 C.I.C.
– Transmission of all documents and acts pertaining to the territory.
Everything is “by the book” of the 1917 Code—formally. But Catholic evaluation does not stop at technical correctness; it asks whether such acts are ordered to the *finis ultimus* (ultimate end): the salvation of souls in the integral Catholic Faith, the defense of the Kingship of Christ, and the war against the enemies named by the pre‑1958 Magisterium.
On this decisive level, the text is almost completely mute:
– No insistence on guarding the faithful from liberalism, socialism, naturalism, condemned as “pests” by Pius IX (Syllabus, IV).
– No call to reaffirm the exclusive rights of the true Church over Peruvian society, repudiating the condemned thesis that “the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church” (Syllabus, 55).
– No warning against Freemasonry, which Pius IX explicitly identified as the organizer of a “synagogue of Satan” plotting the destruction of the Church.
– No mention that Christ must reign over public life, as Pius XI thunders in *Quas Primas*: peace is impossible until individuals and states submit to the reign of Christ the King.
– No denunciation of Modernism, which St. Pius X in *Lamentabili sane exitu* and *Pascendi* brands as “the synthesis of all heresies,” especially in its attacks on the fixed meaning of dogma, inspiration of Scripture, and divine constitution of the Church.
Instead, the constitutional act functions as if a healthy papacy were serenely reorganizing dioceses for purely pastoral convenience, precisely while the man signing it is preparing the council that will enshrine almost every error condemned by Pius IX and St. Pius X. This disconnect is not an accident; it is the method of revolution: maintain juridical appearances while subverting doctrine.
Linguistic Layer: Bureaucratic Piety as Cloak for a New Ecclesiology
The language is externally pious, but internally vacuous:
– Formulae like “Universae Ecclesiae rebus quam aptissime consulere cupientes” and threats of penalties for those who “despise” the decrees sound robustly papal, yet they serve an authority which, a few years later, will bless precisely those tendencies condemned by prior Popes.
– The repeated stress on “circumscriptionum divisiones” and “opportunae provisiones” reveals a technocratic mentality: as if cutting and re‑labeling territories were itself a remedy for the crisis.
Note what is not said:
– No doctrinal exhortation on guarding the flock from false teaching.
– No assertion of the exclusivity of Catholic truth over the region, despite the growing penetration of Protestant sects and secularism.
– No invocation of the immutable condemnations of religious liberty, indifferentism, or laicism found in the *Syllabus* and subsequent papal teaching.
– No insistence that the new seminary be a bulwark against Modernism; instead, it orders young men to be sent to the Roman institutions that, in a few years, will be suffocating under progressive teachers and conciliar novelties.
The solemn Latinity, the canonical references, the signatures of curial officials—all this creates the impression of continuity. This is precisely the “hermeneutic of continuity” tactic: use venerable language while preparing to invert its content. The tone is that of a central administration convinced that governance consists in juridical adjustments and material provisioning, rather than in confession of truth and condemnation of error.
Theological Layer: Ignoring the Divine Constitution while Exploiting Its Forms
From the perspective of integral Catholic theology, several points are decisive.
1. Competence presupposes Catholic faith.
The power to erect or alter dioceses is part of the *plenitudo potestatis* of the Roman Pontiff, but it is not magic. It presupposes that he is in fact Pope. The universal tradition summarized by Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas, and applied in documents like *Cum ex Apostolatus Officio*, teaches:
– A manifest heretic is not a member of the Church.
– One who is not a member cannot be the head.
– Juridical acts of a non‑Pope claiming papal authority in the Church are null, regardless of their canonical elegance.
When a man steps forward to launch a council that will enshrine the very doctrines condemned in the *Syllabus* and *Lamentabili*, he publicly aligns himself, in intention and effect, with those errors. The constitution for Sicuani is thus doubly symptomatic: it parades the external forms of authority, while that very authority is being evacuated of its Catholic substance.
2. Silence on Christ’s Social Kingship exposes practical naturalism.
Pius XI in *Quas Primas* insists that the Church must proclaim and demand the public reign of Christ over nations; he denounces secularism and laicism as the root of social ruin. The (ARTICLE), organizing a new ecclesiastical territory within a secularizing republic, never:
– Asserts that civil authorities must recognize the true religion.
– Rejects the thesis that “civil liberty of every form of worship” is harmless (condemned in Syllabus, 79).
– Warns against treating the Church as a mere NGO aligned to civil subdivisions.
Instead, civil provincial borders are taken as the norm for ecclesiastical boundaries, with no word about the duty of the state toward the Church. This tacit acceptance of the liberal order is already a betrayal of the doctrine defended against modern states by Pius IX and Leo XIII. The church’s map is reshaped to fit the world’s map, not the other way around.
3. Seminary formation ordered towards the future conciliar revolution.
The constitution commands that “as soon as possible” an elementary seminary be founded, and its best students be sent to Rome, specifically to the Pontifical Latin American College, to study philosophy and theology.
In a pre‑1958 Catholic context, such a mandate would be a guarantee of sound formation. In 1959, under John XXIII preparing Vatican II, it becomes an order to immerse Peruvian vocations in the very Roman environment that will soon:
– Undermine Thomistic philosophy in favor of historicism and phenomenology.
– Dilute dogma under the pretext of “development” condemned in *Lamentabili* (e.g. the condemned propositions that dogmas are interpretations of religious facts, subject to evolution).
– Infect liturgical theology in preparation for the replacement of the Most Holy Sacrifice with a Protestantized assembly rite.
Thus, what appears as concern for priestly formation becomes, in context, a pipeline feeding souls into the machinery of the coming apostasy. The constitution is structurally oriented toward the “Church of the New Advent,” not toward the defense of the Church of all ages.
4. Use of the 1917 Code as camouflage.
The text carefully cites canon 1500 for division of goods, respects norms regarding incardination, the role of the metropolitan, and curial acts. Yet this very fidelity to the letter of the pre‑conciliar law is weaponized to legitimate an authority that immediately afterwards will trample that same legal and doctrinal order.
This inversion illustrates a central modernist tactic: employ Catholic forms to introduce anti‑Catholic content. The crime is not in using the 1917 Code per se, but in invoking it while simultaneously preparing to discard its doctrinal foundations.
Symptomatic Layer: A Microcosm of the Conciliar Sect’s Method
The Sicuani constitution reveals several systemic features of the post‑1958 paramasonic structure:
1. Continuity of administration, rupture of faith.
– Outwardly: the act could have been signed by a truly Catholic Pope a generation earlier—same formulas, same curial style.
– In reality: it is signed by the man whose program leads directly to the betrayal of the *Syllabus*, the toleration and even glorification of religious liberty, ecumenism with heretics and infidels, collegial dilution of papal authority, and the liturgical demolition culminating in the new rite.
Thus the faithful are anesthetized: they see canonical acts identical in form to those of Pius XII, and are led to presume continuity, while a mortal discontinuity in doctrine is being prepared.
2. Integration of ecclesiastical structures into secular grids.
The new boundaries are conformed to civil provinces. While such alignment is not evil in itself, in this context it exemplifies the church’s capitulation to the secular order. The Syllabus condemned the notion that the State is the source of all rights and that Church structure is subject to civil regulation. Here, without protest, the ecclesiastical map becomes a shadow of the civil. Over time, this mentality is precisely what enables the conciliar sect to accept pluralistic, laicized democracies as normal, and to silence doctrine about the obligation of states toward the true religion.
3. Complete neglect of the war against Modernism.
Issued only two years after the solemn re‑affirmation of the anti‑Modernist oath and condemnations by Pius XII, the constitution behaves as if:
– St. Pius X had not branded modernism as the synthesis of all heresies.
– No infiltration of seminaries and universities was underway.
– No need existed to admonish the new prelature to guard doctrine, reject liberal exegesis, or uphold the immutability of dogma.
This deafening silence exposes an implicit rejection of the pre‑1958 magisterial battle line. The document’s “neutrality” is not neutrality; it is complicity by omission.
4. Assertion of penalties as hollow thunder.
The conclusion threatens penalties against anyone who would despise or impede execution of the decrees. But in Catholic theology, censures derive their moral force from a legitimate authority defending divine law. When they are invoked by one who has effectively embraced a program against the prior magisterium, they become juridical theater. The conciliar sect constantly uses the threat of “disobedience” to impose novelties contrary to tradition. This constitution is an early rehearsal of that posture: absolute obedience demanded to acts issued by a power already turning against the faith that justifies obedience.
The Gravity of What Is Left Unsaid: A Pastoral Act without Christ as King
The most damning feature of this document, read in continuity with integral Catholic doctrine, is not what it does administratively, but what it obstinately omits.
– No proclamation that salvation is found only in the Catholic Church, contrary to condemned indifferentism (Syllabus, 16–18).
– No recall that the Church is a *societas perfecta*, endowed with its own rights independent of the State (Syllabus, 19), especially urgent in a region historically subject to secular and Masonic pressure.
– No call to oppose socialism, liberalism, and revolutionary sects which Pius IX and Leo XIII denounced as deadly to both Church and society.
– No reminder that bishops and prelates are first guardians of dogma and the Most Holy Sacrifice, not regional managers of incomes and archives.
– No word about Last Things, the state of grace, the horror of mortal sin, or the danger of heresy.
Such total naturalistic silence in an official act concerning the pastoral care of souls is itself a symptom of apostasy. A Prelature erected as a purely administrative organism, severed from any explicit militant affirmation of the Kingship of Christ and condemnation of His enemies, is perfectly suited not to protect the faith, but to receive and distribute the conciliar poison that will soon flow from Rome.
Conclusion: The Sicuani Constitution as a Smooth Prelude to the Abomination
Judged by the sole legitimate standard—unchanged Catholic doctrine before 1958—the Apostolic Constitution “Cuschenis (Sicuanensis)” is not simply a neutral technical act. It is:
– An exploitation of traditional canonical forms by one preparing to enthrone condemned novelties.
– A manifestation of practical naturalism and political conformism, fitting the Church into secular frameworks without asserting Christ’s social reign.
– An ominous silence on Modernism and its errors, at the very moment when vigilance should have been maximal.
– A channel by which vocations are directed into Roman institutions soon to be transformed into laboratories of the conciliar revolution.
Where the true Papacy defends, defines, and condemns, this text merely reorganizes and threatens disobedience, while serving an authority that is about to subvert the very order it pretends to administer. In this, it stands as a small but perfect microcosm of the conciliar sect’s method: preserve the solemn forms of Catholic governance in order to lead souls, structures, and nations, quietly and efficiently, away from the Kingdom of Christ the King toward the kingdom of man.
Source:
Cuschensis (Sicuanensi) (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025