The document establishes, by an alleged “apostolic” act of John XXIII, a new territorial ecclesiastical unit in Chile: from the Diocese of Iquique a portion of territory (“Departamento civil de Allea,” with a specified exception) is detached to erect the so‑called “prelatura nullius Aricensis,” defining its borders, assigning Arica as its see, designating the church of St Mark the Evangelist as prelatial temple, regulating its dependence on the metropolitan see of La Serena, outlining its temporal goods, seminary obligations, transfer of archives, and executive implementation by Sebastianus Baggio as nuncio. In other words, it is a piece of bureaucratic cartography that presumes an authority it no longer possesses and exemplifies the new geography of a structure already in doctrinal rupture with the integral Catholic faith it claims to administer.

---

Administrative Cartography of Apostasy: The Arica “Prelature” as Symptom of the Conciliar Usurpation

Pretended Apostolic Authority After Doctrinal Rupture

From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, the decisive datum is not the map, but the premise: this constitution is issued by John XXIII, the initiator of the conciliar revolution and of the entire line of antipopes culminating in Leo XIV. The text opens:

“IOANNES PP. XXIII SERVUS SERVORUM DEI … de apostolica Nostra potestate haec quae sequuntur decernimus et iubemus.”

(“John XXIII, servant of the servants of God… by Our apostolic authority We decree and order the following.”)

The entire juridical structure of the act depends on the truth of that claim of “apostolic authority.” Yet, measured by the unchanging doctrine prior to 1958, that claim is gravely contestable.

Key doctrinal points (all verifiable in pre‑1958 sources):

– *Ecclesia est societas perfecta* (the Church is a perfect society) with a divinely instituted hierarchy and immutable faith; its visibility and authority are inseparable from preservation of that faith (cf. Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, especially 19, 21, 23; Leo XIII, various encyclicals).
– A manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church or hold jurisdiction: this is taught as the “most certain” principle by St Robert Bellarmine in De Romano Pontifice, expounded by Wernz–Vidal, and by the theological tradition summarized in the provided Defense of Sedevacantism file.
– When one who claims the papacy publicly inaugurates and promotes the very principles condemned infallibly by his predecessors (collegial democratization of authority, false ecumenism, religious liberty, reconciliation with “progress, liberalism and modern civilization” condemned in Syllabus 80), he fulfills the condition of defecting from the Catholic faith.

This constitution (Iquiqüensis/Aricensis) may appear “doctrinally neutral,” yet juridical acts in the Church are not abstractions: their validity presupposes a true Roman Pontiff. Once that presupposition fails, the act is an empty civil-style decree of a religious corporation, not an act of the Mystical Body of Christ.

Thus the central thesis:

What parades here as a meticulous act of apostolic governance is in fact a sterile bureaucratic fiction issued by a usurping authority embedded in the conciliar project later unleashed at Vatican II, and therefore devoid of true canonical and supernatural weight.

Naturalistic Technocracy Replaces Supernatural Mission

Already in its opening lines the document presents a telling rhetorical move:

“Quibus a Deo catholicorum hominum agmina ducendi eaque pascendi datum est, omnia studia Nostra et sollicitudines in id conferimus ut omnes homines divinae veritatis lumine illustrentur, christiana cum ipsis caritate communicata.”

(“To whom it has been given by God to lead and feed the ranks of Catholics, we direct all Our efforts and cares so that all men may be enlightened by the light of divine truth, shared with them with Christian charity.”)

On the surface, this sounds classically Catholic. But situated historically—in the immediate prelude to the Council convoked by the same John XXIII—it signals the shift:

– Vague universalism: “all men” without clear insistence on their obligation to enter the one true Church, condemned as indifferentism’s gateway by Pius IX (Syllabus 15–18).
– Sentimentalized “charity” language, preparatory to the conciliar cult of dialogue, without explicit subordination of all human society to the *social kingship of Christ* as Pius XI taught in Quas Primas: that peace and order exist only when states publicly recognize Christ’s reign and the authority of His Church.

The constitution, while juridically rearranging territory, completely omits:

– Any assertion of Christ’s royal rights over Chilean civil society.
– Any call for the conversion of the nation and its laws under Christ the King, though Pius XI solemnly taught that rulers and states must publicly acknowledge and submit to Christ’s kingship, and that secularism is a “plague” to be condemned, not accommodated.

Silence, here, is accusation. In a pre‑1958 integral Catholic act restructuring ecclesiastical jurisdictions, one expects some explicit reaffirmation that such measures serve *the reign of Christ in souls and society*. Here we find managerial neutrality: geography without kingship, administration without militancy, *ordo territorii* without *ordo fidei*.

This omission is consistent, not accidental. The paramasonic structure then forming in Rome was already turning from the anti-liberal, anti-masonic teaching of Pius IX and Pius X toward the very “reconciliation with modern civilization” solemnly condemned as an error (Syllabus 80). The cold, technocratic tone of this act fits that trajectory.

The Language of Canonical Formalism Masking Ecclesial Mutation

The document is a model of juridical-bureaucratic Latinity: precise borders, lists of competencies, transfer of archives, canonical references (1917 Code, can. 1500), and strict clauses of execution and nullity.

Examples:

“De praelaturae regimine, religiosarum rerum bonorumque temporalium administratione aliisque huiusmodi, servanda iubemus quae sacri canones praescribunt.”

(“Regarding the governance of the prelature, the administration of religious affairs and temporal goods and other such matters, we order that what the sacred canons prescribe be observed.”)

“Has vero Litteras nunc et in posterum efficaces esse et fore volumus… Quarum Litterarum efficacitati nulla, cuiusvis generis, contraria praescripta officere poterunt, cum per has Litteras iisdem derogemus omnibus.”

(“We will and decree that these Letters be now and in the future effective… No contrary prescriptions of any kind can hinder the efficacy of these Letters, as by these Letters We derogate from all such.”)

Such language is traditional in form. Yet two critical points emerge:

1. The constitution ostentatiously leans on the 1917 Code and on the very concept of “sacri canones” while the same regime is preparing—through Vatican II and the post‑conciliar codification—to empty those canons of their anti-liberal, anti-modernist force and to refashion canon law as the legal dress of a new religion.
2. The exaggerated “perpetuity” formulas (“nunc et in posterum efficaces esse et fore volumus”) ring hollow once the issuing authority proceeds to demolish or relativize previous papal teachings and disciplines that truly bound “in perpetuum.” A usurper who implicitly denies the irreformable teaching of Pius IX and Pius X cannot confer credible “perpetuity” on his cartographic experiments.

The juridical solemnity here thus functions as camouflage: the neo‑church adopts the grammar of Catholic authority while quietly inverting its doctrinal substance. It is the classic modernist tactic described and anathematized by St Pius X in Pascendi and concretely targeted in Lamentabili sane exitu: preserve Catholic forms, evacuate Catholic meaning.

Seminary Provision Without Protection of the Faith

A key passage:

“Cum autem magni momenti sit iuvenes ad sacerdotium vocatos apte conformare et educare, curet Praelatus Ordinarius ut elementarium saltem Seminarium excitet… ex quo electi discipuli in Urbem mittantur, in Pontificium Collegium Pianum Latinum Americanum, ut philosophicis theologicisque studiis imbuantur.”

(“Since it is of great importance to form and educate suitably young men called to the priesthood, let the Ordinary Prelate take care to establish at least a minor seminary… from which chosen students are to be sent to Rome, to the Pontifical Pius Latin American College, to be imbued with philosophical and theological studies.”)

On its face, this echoes the perennial principle: formation of clergy is vital. But nothing is said about:

– The obligation to protect seminarians from condemned errors, especially the modernism anathematized by Pius X in Lamentabili and Pascendi.
– The duty to root formation in Thomistic philosophy and theology as required authoritatively by Leo XIII (Aeterni Patris) and confirmed by Pius X and Pius XI.

Instead, the seminarians are explicitly directed into Roman institutions that, in the years immediately following, would become breeding grounds of the conciliar, ecumenist, evolutionist mentality. With hindsight, this clause reveals itself as an instrument of contamination: the young clerics of Arica are to be inserted directly into the intellectual bloodstream of the approaching revolution.

From the integral Catholic standpoint, this is not a neutral administrative decision but a strategic step in constructing the cadre of the conciliar sect: men doctrinally dissolved in “aggiornamento,” then sent back to propagate the new religion under the veneer of canonical mission.

To erect a “prelature” whose clergy are trained in modernist‑infested establishments is to sow wolves in shepherds’ clothing by decree.

No Mention of the Fight Against Errors: A Chilling Silence

Compare the atmosphere of this constitution with the magisterial tones of Pius IX and Pius X, who constantly:

– Name and anathematize socialism, communism, secret societies, freemasonry (see Syllabus, sections IV and subsequent remarks on “synagogue of Satan” and Masonic machinations).
– Denounce liberalism, religious indifferentism, and state encroachments on the Church.
– Warn against novelist exegesis, denial of Scriptural inspiration, relativization of dogma (Lamentabili sane exitu).

In contrast, this 1959 act:

– Does not recall the grave dangers threatening Chile and Latin America: Marxism, masonic influence, anti-clerical politics.
– Does not admonish rulers to respect the rights of the Church as a *societas perfecta*.
– Does not even allude to the necessity of guarding the faithful from doctrinal corruption.

The text functions as if the supernatural conflict between the Church and its enemies did not exist; as if geography and canon 1500 were more urgent than *fides integra* and *cultus verus*.

Silentium de superbis hostibus Christi—silence about the proud enemies of Christ—is not neutral. It is symptomatic of a mentality already capitulating to the world, laying groundwork for the Council that would magnify “dialogue,” “religious liberty,” and “human rights” while muting condemnation of the very errors unmasked by Pius IX as masonic and naturalistic.

This antiseptic tone is exactly what Pius XI warned against in Quas Primas: laicism and the dethronement of Christ concealed under neutral or benevolent language. Instead of insisting that every territorial and hierarchical measure must serve the universal reign of Christ, the document contents itself with corporate adjustment.

A “Prelatura Nullius”: Empty Shell Without Jurisdiction in the Mystical Body

Canonically, a *praelatura nullius* is a territory withdrawn from a diocese and entrusted to a prelate with quasi-episcopal jurisdiction, not yet erected as full diocese. In true Catholic law, such structures serve missionary, pastoral, or prudential needs, always subordinated to doctrine and unity under the Roman Pontiff.

Here, however:

– The act’s validity depends entirely on John XXIII truly being Roman Pontiff.
– Given the doctrinal trajectory and later conciliar program he inaugurated—directly colliding with the Syllabus, with Lamentabili, with the anti-modernist oath, with Quas Primas—it is theologically untenable to claim he remained a Catholic in the full sense required to be head of the Church. The Defense of Sedevacantism file correctly recalls the consistent theological principle: a manifest heretic cannot be Pope.

Therefore:

– The so-called Arica “prelature” may possess recognition under the civil and paramasonic order of the Church of the New Advent, but it lacks authority within the true Catholic Church.
– Sacramental and jurisdictional acts performed under and within the conciliar sect, according to its counterfeit rites (especially after the mutilation of episcopal consecration and ordination), are at best doubtful and in many cases invalid; they objectively foster idolatry by giving divine honours to a man-centered, dogmatically deformed system.

Consequently:

The “prelature nullius Aricensis” is nullius iuris in the Mystical Body: a titular fiefdom in a parallel religious organization, not a particular Church in communion with the perennial Roman See.

Delegation Mechanisms as Instruments of Systemic Subversion

The constitution entrusts execution to Sebastianus Baggio, with power to subdelegate to any cleric in ecclesiastical dignity:

“Qua[e] per has Litteras decrevimus, effici curabit venerabilis Frater Sebastianus Baggio… quas poterit cuilibet viro delegare, dummodo sit in ecclesiastica dignitate constitutus.”

(“What We have decreed by these Letters shall be carried out by the venerable Brother Sebastian Baggio… powers which he may delegate to any man, provided he is in ecclesiastical dignity.”)

From a purely canonical perspective, such delegation is normal. But historically, men like Baggio became key architects of the post‑conciliar transformation, involved in episcopal appointments that populated dioceses with modernist revolutionaries.

Thus this constitution:

– Entrusts practical implementation not to confessors of anti-liberal Catholicism, but to agents of the emerging conciliar establishment.
– Makes clear that the entire administrative machine is already functioning to consolidate an apparatus that will, within a few years, impose the new liturgy, ecumenism, and doctrinal relativism on these very territories.

The mechanisms of canonical delegation are co‑opted to secure control of territories for the conciliar sect. The solemn threat that anyone who “despises” these decrees incurs penalties reserved for disobedience to “Supreme Pontiffs” is particularly perverse: the usurper cloaks his anti-traditional agenda with the sanctions previously reserved for defense of the true faith.

Theological Inversion: Upholding the Code While Preparing Its Destruction

The document cites and presupposes the 1917 Code of Canon Law, born of the authentically Catholic initiative of Benedict XV and St Pius X, imbued with anti-modernist, anti-liberal principles. Yet the same authority signing this act:

– Convoked a council that would undermine the doctrinal presuppositions of that very Code (collegiality against papal monarchy, religious liberty against confessional state, ecumenism against “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” correctly understood).
– Prepared the way for the 1983 Code, which replaced the Catholic juridical vision with one configured to the “human rights” and “religious liberty” condemned by Pius IX.

Thus, in 1959, John XXIII appears to be guardian of codified tradition, but he is in fact the engineer of its future subversion. The Arica constitution thereby embodies the modernist method condemned by Pius X: affirm in practice what you plan to dissolve in principle, retain the shell while destroying the substance.

Simulant, dissimulant, innovant sub specie traditionis (they simulate, they conceal, they innovate under the appearance of tradition).

Subordination to a Future Neo-Hierarchy

The act subjects the new structure to the metropolitan of La Serena:

“Censemus praeterea ut sive Praelatus Ordinarius Aricensis, sive eadem praelatura suffraganei sint et obnoxii tum Serenensi Metropolitae tum eiusdem nominis archiepiscopali Ecclesiae.”

(“We further decree that both the Ordinary Prelate of Arica and the same prelature are suffragans and subject to the metropolitan of La Serena and its archiepiscopal church.”)

Under an integral Catholic order, such metropolitan relations are theological: they express graded participation in the one jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. Here, however, once the “Pope” himself is a doctrinal usurper, such subordination integrates the Arica entity into a chain of command that culminates not in Peter’s See, but in the abomination of desolation sitting in the Temple.

Thus:

– Every later “bishop” named for these sees via the post‑conciliar rites and criteria is an official of the conciliar sect.
– Every faithful deceived into obedience to this chain is drawn away from the true hierarchical structure of the Church, which cannot contradict its own perennial teaching.

The problem is not that order and suffraganeity are evil in themselves, but that they are here instrumentalized to reinforce adhesion to an antichristic structure.

Contrast with Authentic Pre‑1958 Papal Governance

To see the bankruptcy of this constitution, one must contrast it with genuine pre‑1958 papal acts:

– When Pius XI or Pius XII erected ecclesiastical jurisdictions, they were the same men who vigorously defended the uniqueness of the Catholic Church, condemned errors by name, and upheld Christ’s public kingship.
– Their administrative acts were organically coherent with their doctrinal magisterium.

Here, the same John XXIII who signs this constitution:

– Will soon summon a Council explicitly oriented toward “updating,” in continuity not with the Syllabus and Lamentabili, but with the very ideas those documents condemn.
– Will become the father-figure of a neo-church openly extolled by his successors as a new Pentecost.

Therefore, even if one bracketed later history (which one must not), the absence in this act of any militant reaffirmation of anti-modernist doctrine, combined with its author’s subsequent deeds, exposes its inner nature: an apparently orthodox shell emitted by a juridically and theologically compromised source.

The deeper one reads the Arica constitution in the light of its author’s trajectory, the clearer it becomes that this is not a quiet page of canonical housekeeping, but one stone in the edifice of a counterfeit ecclesial order.

Conclusion: From Territory to Theology—Why the “Neutral” Decree Condemns Itself

From the standpoint of the integral Catholic faith:

– The Church’s acts are not mere technicalities; they are extensions of her divine mandate to teach, sanctify, and govern.
– When one who openly prepares and then sponsors a program at odds with infallibly defined doctrine issues acts of governance, those acts are tainted at their root.
– The Iquiqüensis/Aricensis constitution offers:
– No confession of Christ’s social kingship.
– No reaffirmation of the Syllabus against liberal errors.
– No warning against modernism in seminary formation.
– No militant assertion of the exclusivity of the Catholic Church as the única arca salutis (only ark of salvation).
– Only meticulously drafted provisions for a “prelature” destined to be absorbed into the conciliar sect.

Thus:

What is missing damns it more than what is said. Under the pretext of shepherding souls, the constitution consolidates territory and personnel under an authority which, by its doctrine and subsequent acts, manifestly deviates from the Catholic faith, and therefore lacks the jurisdiction it claims to exercise.

The Catholic faithful, especially in lands like Arica where this constitution was implemented, must understand:

– Jurisdictional reshuffling performed by an apostate hierarchy does not bind consciences in the order of the true Church.
– The only secure path is adhesion to the unchanging magisterium prior to the conciliar revolution, reception of valid sacraments from clergy who reject the neo‑church and its usurper line, and refusal to grant supernatural obedience to structures born of and serving post‑1958 modernism.

Pascite qui in vobis est gregem Dei (“Feed the flock of God which is among you”): this command binds only those who remain in the faith of Peter. Where that faith is betrayed, the most “canonical” decrees are but ink upon the veil of Babylon.

---

Source:
Iquiquensis (Aricensis)   (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025