The text is an apostolic constitution of John XXIII (March 9, 1959) which, invoking papal authority, modifies the title of the diocese of Mondoñedo (Mindoniensis) to include “Ferrolensis,” elevates the church of St. Julian in Ferrol del Caudillo to the dignity of a concathedral, and grants the diocesan ordinary the possibility of residing there, all presented as prudent pastoral adaptation to contemporary conditions and as a benefit for the faithful. It is a short juridical act, couched in traditional Latin, by which the new regime of authority in Rome quietly normalizes itself through apparently innocuous administrative measures.
Administrative Cosmeticism as a Seal of the New Religion
This seemingly minor constitution is a paradigmatic example of how the conciliar sect consolidates its usurped authority: through small, “neutral” structural acts that presume, rather than prove, the legitimacy of John XXIII and the post-1958 establishment. Beneath the layer of canonical Latin and references to the cura animarum lies the decisive rupture: a man who cannot be simultaneously a manifest architect of aggiornamento and the guardian of the *fides immutabilis* (unchanging faith) claims for himself the same binding force as St. Pius X or Pius XI.
From the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine, the core problem is not the geographic adjustment itself (which in a Catholic order could be entirely legitimate), but the underlying claim of jurisdiction by an authority objectively bound to a program condemned by the pre-conciliar Magisterium. The act functions as a juridical “signature” of a new orientation: it is precisely through such normalizing decrees that the neo-church covers the spiritual coup d’état.
Factual Level: A Harmless Decree Masking a Illegitimate Authority
The constitution can be summarised in its key provisions (all claims verifiable directly in the Latin text provided):
– It recalls that, like Peter, the author is called to govern the Christian people and to feed them with unchangeable truth.
– It references the 1953 Concordat between the Holy See and Spain as framework.
– It reports the request of Hildebrand Antoniutti (nuncio) that:
– the name of the diocese Mindoniensis be joined with “Ferrolensis,” due to the growth of the city of Ferrol;
– the church of St. Julian in Ferrol be raised to the dignity of concathedral.
– It states that, after hearing Bishop Jacinto Argaya Goicoechea, and “supplying” any necessary consent, John XXIII decrees:
– the diocese and its ordinary shall bear the compound title “Mindoniensis-Ferrolensis;”
– the church of St. Julian in Ferrol del Caudillo is erected as concathedral with due honors;
– canons and beneficiaries there may exercise their offices legitimately;
– the diocesan bishop may reside in Ferrol for the good of diocesan governance.
– It invests the nuncio with execution and orders copies to be sent to the Consistorial Congregation.
– It asserts the perpetual validity and effectiveness of the decree and annuls any contrary provision, threatening canonical penalties against those who would disregard the will of the “Supreme Pontiff.”
All of this is, at a purely descriptive level, exact and verifiable in the text itself and the AAS reference (AAS 51 [1959], 612–613).
Yet here the fundamental thesis emerges: **the decree’s entire binding force depends on the assumption that John XXIII truly possesses the papal authority he invokes; if, according to the perennial principles recalled by theologians and canonists, a manifestly modernist “pope” cannot be head of the Church, then this act, like all his others, is canonically null, regardless of its content.**
Language of Continuity as a Cloak for Subversion
The rhetorical structure is carefully crafted to invoke a maximal aura of continuity:
– The text opens by assimilating John XXIII to Peter:
We, who like Peter, Prince of the Apostles, have been called to govern the Christian people and feed them with unchangeable truth…
– It appeals to pastoral solicitude, “needs of nations,” and the increase of spiritual benefits for the faithful.
– It uses the solemn register of traditional canonical formulae: *de Nostra summa et apostolica auctoritate decernimus et iubemus*; clauses of nullity against anyone acting contrary to the decree; references to the Consistorial Congregation and Apostolic Chancery.
On the linguistic level, this produces a deliberate illusion: *lex continuitatis* without *fides continuitatis*. The words echo the style of Pius IX or Leo XIII, but the person and his program are inseparable from the aggiornamento that will soon destroy precisely that “unchangeable truth” to which he appeals.
Key symptom:
– Repeated insistence on formal authority, threats of penalties, and demand for obedience, in a context where the doctrinal credentials of the claimant are already gravely compromised by his known orientation towards council, ecumenism, and accommodation with modernity.
Here we see the inverted logic characteristic of the conciliar revolution: *auctoritas* is invoked not as the organ of *veritas*, but as a shield allowing gradual mutation of doctrine and of the very notion of Church while preserving external forms.
Theological Level: Authority Severed from the Deposit of Faith
The decisive question is: are we dealing with a true exercise of the authority of Christ in His Church, or with a usurped power cloaking itself in the vocabulary of Tradition?
Pre-1958 Catholic doctrine provides exact criteria, which are verifiable:
– *Quas Primas* (Pius XI, 1925) proclaims that true peace and order are only possible when individuals and states publicly recognize and obey the reign of Christ the King, and that the Church must be free and independent in fulfilling her divine mission, without servile submission to secular powers.
– The *Syllabus of Errors* (Pius IX, 1864) condemns:
– religious indifferentism;
– liberalism and the idea that the Church must reconcile herself with “modern civilization” understood as emancipation from revealed truth (prop. 80);
– subjection of ecclesiastical structures to political manipulation (multiple propositions in sections V–VI).
– *Lamentabili sane exitu* and *Pascendi* (St. Pius X, 1907) condemn Modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies,” denouncing any notion of dogma evolving from religious experience, any democratization of Church authority, the reduction of revelation to history, etc.
– The theological tradition summarized by St. Robert Bellarmine and others, and juridically reflected in can. 188 §4 of the 1917 Code, affirms that a manifest heretic cannot retain jurisdiction in the Church and that public defection from the faith results in the automatic loss of office.
Against this background:
1. The constitution’s authority stands or falls with John XXIII’s status. If he is architect and promoter of a council and program that will enthrone:
– condemned ecumenism;
– religious liberty in the sense rejected by the *Syllabus*;
– liturgical revolution that attacks the doctrine of the *Most Holy Sacrifice*;
– an ecclesiology of “people of God” and collegiality undermining the divine constitution of the Church,
then he objectively aligns himself with the very tendencies St. Pius X declared excommunicated for their Modernism.
2. The text claims to “feed with unchangeable truth” while inaugurating a pontificate that prepares the most radical mutation of doctrine and worship in history. This is not a minor inconsistency: **it is the appropriation of divine titles to legitimize a human, naturalistic project.** The act is theological theater.
3. The decree’s pastoral pretext – responding to demographic growth of Ferrol – is not evil in itself, but is weaponized to habituate the faithful to accept as papal any act emanating from the usurped center, no matter how trivial, thereby implicitly recognizing the authority that will later promulgate the conciliar apostasy.
From the standpoint of integral doctrine, *auctoritas* is inseparable from *veritas*; the man who uses the chair of Peter to open the door to a “church” reconciled with condemned liberalism cannot be simultaneously the organ by which Christ binds diocesan titles upon souls. *Persona haeretica, caput non est* (a heretical person is not head).
Symptomatic Level: How the Conciliar Sect Uses Micro-Decisions to Solidify Its Macropolitics
We must read this constitution not in isolation, but as symptom of a larger pathology:
– The conciliar sect does not begin its assault with open doctrinal self-negation. It begins with:
– continuity of vestments, language, and canonical forms;
– diplomatic acts (concordats, appointments, territorial adjustments);
– gestures of “pastoral modernization” that seem neutral.
– Each such act functions psychologically and juridically to:
– accustom bishops and faithful to recognize the new figure as Pope;
– reinterpret the Church as a mutable, bureaucratically adjustable institution, preparing acceptance of far more drastic changes.
In this specific case:
– The reference to the 1953 concordat and the mention of “Ferrol del Caudillo” show the delicate triangulation between political powers and ecclesiastical structures. In pre-conciliar doctrine, concordats were used to defend the rights of the Church; under the emerging neo-church, the same mechanisms become channels of mutual legitimization in a project of controlled adaptation.
– The insistence that those who resist this minor decree will incur penalties “established by law for those who do not obey the commands of the Supreme Pontiffs” is revealing. It is the language of coercion mobilized to protect not so much the order of diocesan life as the claim of John XXIII to be unquestioned pontiff.
Thus, an apparently marginal territorial act becomes an instrument in a broader strategy: **to bind consciences to the person and structure that will soon enthrone a new religion.**
Reduction of the Church to a Territorial-Administrative Corporation
Another significant omission: the constitution does not speak of:
– holiness of the clergy;
– defense of the true faith against rampant errors already condemned by St. Pius X;
– safeguarding of the *Most Holy Sacrifice*;
– salvation of souls in terms of conversion, state of grace, judgment, heaven, and hell.
Instead, it reduces the rationale for its act to:
– demographic growth of a city;
– pastoral convenience;
– bureaucratic harmony between title and civil prominence.
This is the mentality condemned by the pre-conciliar Magisterium:
– The Church is not a human administrative network but a *societas perfecta* founded by Christ, with immutable divine constitution.
– Territorial adjustments are legitimate only as means to the supernatural end: the salvation of souls in the one true faith and in public recognition of Christ’s Kingship.
Here, the silence is thunderous:
– No affirmation that the diocese, under the new arrangement, must be more zealous in defending Catholic doctrine against liberalism.
– No warning against secret societies and Masonic influences, which Pius IX and Leo XIII denounced as the chief enemies of Church and society.
– No exhortation that the concathedral be a center of perpetual adoration, catechesis, and militant proclamation of Christ’s rights over civil society.
The constitution exemplifies a subtle but deadly shift: *ab ordine supernaturali ad ordinem naturalistico-administrativum* (from the supernatural order to a naturalistic-administrative order). What previous Popes used as a marginal instrument to strengthen Catholic faith is here used as a self-referential demonstration of authority devoid of doctrinal content.
Appeal to “Unchangeable Truth” While Preparing the Great Mutation
The most striking sentence is the claim to feed the Christian people with *incommutabili veritate* (unchangeable truth).
Measured by pre-1958 doctrine, this is untenable:
– John XXIII calls a council with the explicit intention, expressed in his speeches, to “open the windows,” to adopt a “pastoral” mode that refuses to condemn errors—a posture irreconcilable with the constant teaching that the Church must condemn heresies for the protection of souls.
– The council he inaugurated will lead to:
– an ecumenism that treats false religions as paths of “partial communion”;
– doctrines on religious liberty incompatible with the *Syllabus* and *Quas Primas*’ insistence that states must recognize the true religion;
– a liturgical reform reducing the *Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary* to a communal meal, thereby obscuring propitiation and priestly sacrifice;
– a new ecclesiology which assimilates the Church to a democratic assembly and blurs the borders of membership.
Thus, when this constitution demands obedience under threat of canonical sanction, it is not Christ’s unchangeable truth defending its rights; it is the emerging paramasonic structure practicing the habit of being obeyed in order to later impose its doctrinal and liturgical revolution.
The contrast with Pius IX and St. Pius X is brutal:
– They employed similar solemn formulas to anathematize modern errors and to protect the deposit;
– John XXIII employs them to adjust a diocese while silently preparing the enthronement of those very errors.
Jurisdiction and the Principle: A Manifest Heretic Cannot Legislate for the Church
The canonical and theological tradition, as reflected in the sources summarized in the provided Defense of Sedevacantism, leads to a clear principle:
– *Non potest esse caput Ecclesiae qui non est membrum eius* (he who is not a member of the Church cannot be its head).
– A manifest heretic, by divine law, loses authority; canon 188 §4 sees public defection from the faith as tacit resignation.
– The Church’s classical theologians understood that the Pope is subject to the deposit of faith; if he publicly professes or promotes a religion incompatible with that deposit, his acts cannot bind.
Applied here:
– If John XXIII, by his program and subsequent unfolding of the conciliar revolution, stands as initiator of a new religion substantially at odds with the integral pre-1958 Magisterium, then his claim to “supreme and apostolic authority” in this constitution is invalid.
– Consequently, the juridical operations (renaming, concathedral erection, delegation of powers) lack true canonical force in the Church of Christ, even if civil structures and the neo-church apparatus treat them as valid.
This does not mean that every geographical fact or title becomes metaphysically toxic; it means:
– These acts belong to the legal order of the conciliar sect, not to the indefectible juridical order of the true Church.
Why This “Small” Text Matters: Gradualism of Apostasy
One might object that such a constitution is too insignificant to warrant strong words. That objection misunderstands both the nature of authority and the method of revolution.
– Doctrinal coups rarely begin with explicit denials; they begin with:
– redefinition of who is obeyed;
– habituation to compliance;
– maintenance of appearances to prevent resistance.
This document is instructive precisely because it:
– Uses all external marks of continuity—Latin, solemn formulas, references to Peter, AAS publication—to cloak a person and regime already pointed towards rupture.
– Demands unconditional obedience in a matter where it never once recalls the higher obedience due to the integral Catholic faith defined before 1958.
– Shows how the conciliar sect’s *modus operandi* is not crude destruction, but *substitutio sub specie continuitatis* (substitution under the appearance of continuity).
In such a context, integral Catholics are obliged:
– not to be seduced by formal continuity of style;
– to measure every claim of authority by the immutable doctrine of prior Popes and Councils;
– to recognize that an authority which uses its power to prepare doctrinal treason cannot be the vicarious organ of Christ.
Conclusion: The Mask of Tradition at the Service of the Neo-Church
The apostolic constitution “Mindoniensis (Ferrolensis)” is:
– on its face: a formal, verifiable juridical act concerning diocesan nomenclature and a concathedral in Ferrol;
– in its essence: a small stone in the edifice by which the usurping conciliar establishment entrenches itself as if it were identical with the Catholic Church.
Viewed under the light of Pius IX’s *Syllabus*, Pius X’s *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*, and Pius XI’s *Quas Primas*, the pattern is clear:
– The text invokes “unchangeable truth” while serving a project that will mutilate dogma, worship, and the social Kingship of Christ.
– It claims canonical obedience for a man whose program aligns with the very errors solemnly anathematized by his predecessors.
– It exemplifies the neo-church’s tactic: preserve the forms, betray the substance, and use minor decrees to habituate souls to follow a hierarchy that no longer guards the deposit of faith.
For those who hold the integral pre-1958 Catholic doctrine, the proper response is neither anarchic lay self-rule nor submissive acceptance of the conciliar sect’s administrative acts, but the unwavering confession that true authority in the Church is inseparable from fidelity to the faith once delivered to the saints. Wherever that fidelity is formally abandoned, decrees—however elegant their Latin—bind only within the walls of the new, alien structure which has occupied the visible edifices, not within the indefectible Mystical Body of Christ.
Source:
Mindoniensis (Ferrolensis) (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025