The Latin text published under the name of John XXIII on 17 February 1959, titled “IQUIQUENSIS (ARICENSIS),” is a juridical act that purports to carve territory from the Diocese of Iquique in Chile and erect the so‑called territorial prelature “nullius” of Arica, define its borders, designate Arica as its see, assign Saint Mark’s as its prelatial church, regulate its temporal goods and seminary formation, and submit it as suffragan to the metropolitan of La Serena, all “by apostolic authority.” It presents itself as an innocent administrative reorganization done “ut omnes homines divinae veritatis lumine illustrentur” (“that all men may be enlightened by the light of divine truth”). In reality, this brief is an early, programmatic symptom of the usurpation and instrumentalization of ecclesiastical structures for a project already divergent from integral Catholic faith, replacing the supernatural Kingship of Christ with a bureaucratic, geopolitical machinery of the coming conciliar revolution.
Territorial Engineering as Preludium to Ecclesiastical Revolution
The document bears all the formal marks of a pre‑conciliar apostolic constitution, yet it is signed by John XXIII, that is, the first in the line of usurpers installed after 1958, whose entire public program culminated in the convocation of Vatican II, the opening to condemned errors, and the dismantling of the traditional order. From the standpoint of the unchanging doctrine of the Church, clearly expressed by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII, this raises an immediate, non‑negotiable question: what is the nature of an act issued by one who openly prepared and then presided over the inauguration of a *conciliar sect* hostile to the very principles earlier papal magisterium had defined as binding?
The text itself is short and technical. Precisely for that reason it is revealing. Behind the appearance of canonical normality, several features manifest the emerging logic of post‑1958 *paramasonic structure*:
– The act is purely structural and managerial, with no real doctrinal or spiritual content.
– It treats the Mystical Body as an administrative grid, adaptable to national borders and diplomatic needs.
– It assumes as legitimate and authoritative the signatory whose subsequent acts (aggiornamento, council, ecumenism) contradict the solemn condemnations of *Lamentabili sane exitu*, *Pascendi*, the *Syllabus*, and *Quas Primas*.
An act of governance detached from the integral profession of faith is not neutral; it is the juridical skeleton of apostasy.
Factual Level: Beneath Harmless Administration, a False Principle of Authority
On the surface, the constitution does three main things:
– Detaches the civil department of “Allea” (with a small exception) from the Diocese of Iquique.
– Erects the territorial prelature “nullius dioecesis” of Arica with specified borders (Peru to the north, Bolivia to the east, Iquique to the south, Pacific to the west).
– Provides for:
– The prelatial seat in Arica.
– Saint Mark’s as prelatial church with corresponding honors.
– Economic endowment (division of goods, curial revenues, offerings).
– Obligation to establish at least a minor seminary and send selected students to the Pontifical Latin American College in Rome.
– Transfer of relevant acts and documents.
– Execution by Sebastianus Baggio, Apostolic Nuncio.
None of these points, taken in isolation, would constitute doctrinal deviation if executed by a true pope in continuity with the perennial magisterium. The Church has always erected dioceses and prelatures to ensure more effective pastoral care.
However, the decisive problem is not cartography but legitimacy and intention:
– The document presupposes that John XXIII holds the power of the Roman Pontiff.
– The same person will, within months, call the council that becomes the matrix of:
– Religious liberty as condemned in Proposition 15–18, 77–80 of the *Syllabus of Errors* (Pius IX).
– Collegialist and democratizing tendencies condemned by St. Pius X in *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*.
– Ecumenism that relativizes the unique salvific authority of the Catholic Church, directly contrary to the dogmatic teaching that “the Catholic Church is the only true Church” (Syllabus, 21).
From the pre‑1958 doctrinal standpoint, a manifest promoter of these deviations cannot be assumed as a legitimate Roman Pontiff, because:
– A manifest heretic or public promoter of condemned doctrines cannot head the Church whose head must profess and defend the faith.
– The Church’s own classical theologians (e.g., summarized in the provided Defense of Sedevacantism file) affirm that a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church and thus cannot be her head (*non potest caput esse quod non est membrum*).
Therefore, the factual account of “John XXIII erects a new territorial prelature” is not merely descriptive; it rests on an unproven and contradicted premise: that John XXIII is pope and that these territorial manipulations are acts of Christ’s Vicar rather than bureaucratic gestures of a structure already deviating towards the *abomination of desolation*.
Bureaucratic Latin as Cloak of Rupture
The linguistic form of the constitution consciously mimics older papal documents:
– Expressions like “ad perpetuam rei memoriam”, “de apostolica Nostra potestate”, “religiose serventur” are formulae traditionally used when the Church, in the person of a true pope, exercises divinely received jurisdiction.
– The motive clause, “ut omnes homines divinae veritatis lumine illustrentur”, evokes missionary zeal.
Yet, examined in context, this language becomes an empty shell:
1. There is a complete absence of:
– Any reminder of the necessity of the *Most Holy Sacrifice* as propitiatory.
– Any insistence on the state of grace, the reality of mortal sin, judgment, hell.
– Any explicit subordination of civil and national arrangements to the social Kingship of Christ, as Pius XI demanded in *Quas Primas*.
2. The text’s “pastoral” aim is framed in generic natural terms:
– “Better pastoral care” is equated with technical adjustments: borders, titles, revenues, seminary pipelines.
– There is no articulation that salvation depends on adherence to the one true faith and to the Roman Pontiff as defined by Vatican I.
Such silence is not accidental. It reflects the mentality that will soon openly proclaim “aggiornamento,” dialogue, and institutional adaptation to the world. The document trains the eye to accept ecclesial reality as a function of:
– State borders.
– Diplomatic convenience.
– Administrative rationalization.
This is the language of an emerging ecclesial technocracy, not of the militant Church that Pius IX and St. Pius X set against Freemasonry and Modernism. The polished Latin functions as a veil over a profound inversion: from supernatural militancy to ecclesiastical management.
Theological Level: Jurisdiction Severed from the Integral Profession of Faith
From the perspective of unchanging Catholic theology prior to 1958, several principles must govern our judgment:
– *Potestas iurisdictionis* (power of jurisdiction) in the Church comes from Christ and is intrinsically ordered to guarding and transmitting the deposit of faith (*depositum fidei*).
– A public rejection or systematic undermining of previously defined doctrine excludes one from legitimate authority. The Church has always held that a manifest heretic cannot be pope or retain jurisdiction.
– Ecclesiastical circumscription (dioceses, prelatures) are means to salvation, not autonomous legal constructs; their legitimacy is inseparable from adherence to Catholic dogma.
Measured against these principles, the constitution “Aricensis” is theologically bankrupt in three key respects:
1. It presupposes and normalizes the authority of a future architect of doctrinal revolution.
– Pius IX condemned the idea that the Roman Pontiff can reconcile himself with “progress, liberalism, and modern civilization” understood as emancipation from revealed truth (*Syllabus*, 80).
– The line inaugurated by John XXIII does precisely that. The constitution thus operates as part of a juridical continuum in which a false magisterium is built on the external forms of the true one.
2. It reduces the Church’s visible structure to a malleable administrative network detached from confessional clarity.
– No demand is made that this new prelature explicitly affirm and defend the syllabus against modern errors, the condemnations of Modernism, or the Kingship of Christ over Chilean public life.
– Instead, the new entity is seamlessly embedded in a system that, within a few years, will promote religious liberty and ecumenism against prior teaching.
3. It entrusts formation and governance to organs already contaminated with the conciliar agenda.
– The text orders seminarians to the Pontifical Latin American College in Rome. Very shortly, such Roman institutions will become breeding grounds of the conciliar ideology, liturgical revolution, and moral loosening.
– To create a new prelature and structurally bind its clergy to such centers is to ensure that the faithful of that region will be catechized into what Pius X denounced as *Modernismus, omnium haereseon collectum* (“Modernism, the synthesis of all heresies”).
Theologically, we witness *forma sine fide* (form without faith): the canonical apparatus of a prelature raised by an authority that is, in doctrine and in subsequent acts, alien and opposed to the integral Catholic faith.
Symptomatic Level: An Early Node in the Conciliar Network of Control
It would be naïve to treat this constitution as a neutral prelude. Its architecture illustrates several characteristic features of the coming *neo‑church*:
1. Geopolitical Harmonization with the Secular State
The text meticulousy aligns ecclesiastical borders with republican frontiers and civil units:
– The prelature is defined by reference to the Republic of Peru, Bolivia, Chilean civil divisions, and the Pacific.
– This pattern corresponds to the modernist tendency to accommodate the Church to national frameworks and international diplomacy, rather than to assert the supranational and suprapolitical sovereignty of Christ’s Kingdom.
Pius XI in *Quas Primas* explicitly warned that the calamities of nations flow from excluding Christ and His law from public life and state structures. Here, instead of recalling the duty of Chile to recognize Christ the King, the constitution quietly assumes the secular order as the unquestioned horizon and adjusts the Church to it.
2. Centralization and Technocratic Obedience
The entire execution is entrusted to Sebastianus Baggio and the Roman apparatus, with strong language:
– “Has vero Litteras nunc et in posterum efficaces esse volumus… quae per eas decreta sunt ab iis quorum res est religiose serventur.”
– Severe penalties are threatened for any who would “despise or resist” these decisions.
This language of juridical absolutism, when emanating from a true Pontiff, protects the faith. When used by a structure drifting into apostasy, it becomes an instrument of suppressing resistance to error. It anticipates the conciliar practice of:
– Demanding unconditional submission to new “pastoral” structures and doctrines contradicting past teaching.
– Punishing those who cling to integral Catholic doctrine as if they were disobedient, while sparing and promoting modernists.
3. Seminary Formation as Vehicle of Doctrinal Subversion
The requirement that a minor seminary be erected and chosen students be sent to Rome is outwardly laudable. Yet in historical perspective:
– Within a few years, those Roman faculties will propagate the very modernist principles condemned in 1907 and 1864.
– The priests returning to Arica will not be defenders of *Quas Primas* and the *Syllabus*, but spreaders of ecumenism, religious liberty, and liturgical subversion.
Thus this constitution positions the new prelature as an early receptor of conciliar indoctrination in Latin America, consolidating the paramasonic project described by pre‑1958 popes as the work of the *synagoga Satanae* (Pius IX, in his warnings against Masonic sects).
4. Continuity of External Forms to Mask Doctrinal Rupture
The deliberate choice of classic chancery style, seals, notaries, solemn clauses, and threats of penalty serves one purpose: to persuade the faithful that nothing essential has changed.
But the previous magisterium teaches that:
– Truth does not evolve into its opposite.
– Ecclesiastical authority cannot command against prior solemn teaching.
– The Roman Pontiff is not an absolute monarch of a religious NGO, but the guardian bound by what his predecessors definitively taught.
When those external forms are commandeered by a man whose program directly contravenes prior condemnations, they become tools of deception. The erection of Arica under John XXIII is significant precisely because it is “normal”: it illustrates how the conciliar sect entrenched itself by gradual occupation of structures, using legitimate‑looking acts to consolidate illegitimate authority.
Silence on the Social Kingship of Christ: The Gravest Omission
One omission is particularly damning: total silence about the duty of public recognition of Christ the King and the subordination of state laws to divine law.
Pius XI in *Quas Primas* (1925), a document given in the same format, declared that:
– Peace and order are impossible unless individuals and states recognize and submit to the reign of Christ.
– The Church must assert her liberty and independence from secular power to guide souls to salvation.
– States have an obligation to publicly honor Christ and shape legislation according to His law.
In the 1959 constitution:
– Nothing is said about the moral and religious situation of Chile.
– Nothing is said about the need to resist secularism, Freemasonry, socialism, or liberalism, all explicitly condemned in the *Syllabus* and subsequent papal letters.
– The new prelature is described as if its whole mission were to operate as a compliant partner of the secular republic, neatly bounded by national frontiers, feeding seminarians into Roman institutions already preparing to embrace modern errors.
This silence is the loudest voice of the document. It is a practical denial of what *Quas Primas* affirmed: that ecclesial structuring must serve the establishment of the visible and juridical reign of Christ over societies, not their smooth integration into naturalistic states.
Contrasting Pre-1958 Doctrine with the Conciliar Trajectory Encoded Here
To expose fully the spiritual bankruptcy implicit in this constitution, it suffices to juxtapose its logic with magisterial principles prior to 1958:
– Pius IX, *Syllabus of Errors*:
– Condemns the separation of Church and State (55).
– Condemns the idea that civil authority can define the rights of the Church (19–21, 44–47).
– Condemns the myth that the Pontiff must reconcile with liberalism and modern civilization understood as autonomy from revelation (80).
– St. Pius X, *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*:
– Condemns the evolution of dogma, the historicization of doctrine, and subjugation of faith to historical‑critical methods.
– Demands strict ecclesiastical vigilance over teaching, discipline, and structures to prevent modernist infiltration.
– Pius XI, *Quas Primas*:
– Declares that the absence of Christ’s social reign is the root of modern calamities.
– Calls for explicit public subjection of nations to Christ the King.
– Pius XII:
– Upholds and presupposes this same doctrinal continuity, warning against false “new theologies.”
The Arica constitution:
– Takes for granted a Chile constructed on secular principles without calling it to conversion.
– Reduces the Church’s presence to another administrative unit within that framework.
– Prepares its clergy in institutions soon to propagate doctrines explicitly contrary to the above teachings.
– Demands absolute obedience to its provisions without reaffirming the binding condemnations of liberalism and modernism, which would be the primary doctrinal defense for a new ecclesiastical circumscription.
Therefore, even if the act looks externally compatible with tradition, in the actual historical and doctrinal context it functions as an element in the mutation from the Catholic Church to the *Church of the New Advent*, the *neo‑church* whose subsequent fruits — liturgical demolition, ecumenical relativism, the cult of “human rights” over divine rights — reveal the root already present: an authority claiming papal power while orienting structures towards a different religion.
On Obedience: Why Submission to Such Acts Is Not Virtuous but Pernicious
The constitution ends with grave-sounding threats:
“Quae Nostra decreta… si quis vel spreverit vel quoquo modo detrectaverit, sciat se poenas esse subiturum iis iure statutas, qui Summorum Pontificum iussa non fecerint.”
(“Whoever should despise or in any way reject Our decrees… let him know that he will incur the penalties established in law for those who do not obey the orders of the Supreme Pontiffs.”)
Under a true pope, such language protects the flock. Under a usurper and within a system tending to error:
– Blind “obedience” becomes the means by which the faithful are dragged into liturgical profanation, doctrinal confusion, and submission to heretical novelties.
– Authentic Catholic theology has always recognized that obedience is subordinated to faith: *Non est obediendum in malo* (one must not obey in evil).
– When a structure uses papal forms to enforce compliance with a trajectory that undermines what prior authentic popes taught infallibly or authoritatively, resistance is not rebellion but fidelity.
The constitution “Aricensis,” by demanding unconditional subjection to the decrees of John XXIII while that same authority prepares the betrayal of the prior magisterium, exemplifies this perversion of obedience. It habituates pastors and faithful to accept as sacred any directive emanating from the occupied structures, thereby disarming their sensus fidei and paving the way for the later acceptance of the new “Mass,” religious liberty, and interreligious syncretism.
Conclusion: A Small Stone in the Architecture of the Abomination
At first glance, the erection of a territorial prelature in northern Chile seems an insignificant canonical adjustment. Seen, however, in the light of pre‑1958 doctrine and with knowledge of what followed, it must be judged as follows:
– It is an act whose juridical form imitates Catholic tradition while its author and subsequent concatenation of deeds align with a project condemned by the true Magisterium.
– It silently redefines the Church as an institution harmonized with secular nation‑states, prepared to be reprogrammed by conciliar ideology.
– It demands absolute obedience without reaffirming the doctrinal foundations that alone can make such obedience Catholic.
– It illustrates how the conciliar revolution advanced not only through grand manifestos, but through a thousand seemingly banal administrative acts that extended the control of a counterfeit authority over territories, clergy, and seminaries.
Measured by the immutable standard of the papal condemnations of liberalism, modernism, and secularism, this constitution does not strengthen the reign of Christ the King in Chile; it strengthens the bureaucratic web of the *conciliar sect* that will dethrone Him in practice. In that sense, its theological and spiritual weight is not constructive but corrosive: another carefully cut stone in the edifice of the *abomination of desolation* standing where it ought not.
Source:
Iquiquensis (Aricensis) (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025