This apostolic constitution issued under the name of John XXIII superficially concerns an administrative modification: the addition of “Ferrolensis” to the title of the diocese of Mondoñedo, the elevation of the church of St. Julian in Ferrol to the dignity of co-cathedral, and the faculty for the local ordinary to reside there. Beneath the appearance of harmless canonical pragmatism, the text reveals the already-operating principles of the conciliar revolution: a technocratic reconfiguration of ecclesiastical structures detached from the supernatural end of the Church, drafted and promulgated by one who, by his doctrine and subsequent acts, manifested adhesion to condemned errors, and therefore could not speak with the authority of the Roman Pontiff.

---

Canonical Engineering without Christ the King: A Symptom of the Coming Usurpation

Factual Reconfiguration Reduced to Territorial Management

On the factual plane, the constitution:

– Recalls the alleged Petrine duty “to govern the Christian people and feed them with immutable truth,” then immediately translates this into a program of structural rearrangements:
– Addition of the title “Ferrolensis” to the diocese of Mondoñedo.
– Promotion of the church of St. Julian in Ferrol del Caudillo to co-cathedral status.
– Confirmation that the diocesan bishop may prudently reside in Ferrol.
– Grounds the change chiefly in demographic and socio-political growth of Ferrol:

“For that city in our age has undergone growth of every kind.”

– Claims to act “for the good of this diocese,” invoking “our supreme and apostolic authority.”

This entire operation is presented as a neutral, almost bureaucratic act. Yet from the perspective of *integral Catholic doctrine prior to 1958*, several elements must be unmasked:

1. The act presupposes the legitimacy of John XXIII as Roman Pontiff. However, the theological principles reiterated by pre-1958 magisterium and classical authors (Bellarmine, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X) state unequivocally that a manifest heretic cannot hold the papal office or exercise jurisdiction in the Church: *non potest esse caput quod non est membrum* (“he cannot be head who is not a member”). This is not private opinion but flows from the very nature of the Church as a visible society of the faithful professing the true faith.
2. The constitution functions as part of the legal-institutional continuity claimed later by the conciliar sect to justify Vatican II, its ecumenism, religious liberty, and liturgical destruction, all under the façade of “ordinary governance.”
3. The text redefines the pastoral mission in terms of adaptability to “conditions of the times,” rather than fidelity to *Quas Primas*, *Syllabus Errorum*, and *Pascendi*.

Thus, a seemingly minor diocesan adjustment becomes one brick in the edifice by which the paramasonic structure occupying the Vatican established the appearance of uninterrupted papal authority, preparing for the doctrinal demolition.

Language of Pragmatism and the Eclipse of the Supernatural End

The linguistic texture of the document is telling. It opens with a reference to Peter and “immutable truth,” but immediately substitutes:

– Sociological and political criteria (“growth of every kind” in Ferrol).
– Administrative convenience.
– Bilateral “Conventions” with a modern state as a decisive frame.

Characteristic features:

– Absence of any explicit mention of:
– The *Most Holy Sacrifice*.
– The primacy of the salvation of souls (*salus animarum suprema lex* in its authentic sense).
– The state of grace, judgment, heaven, hell.
– The rights of Christ the King over civil society, emphatically taught by Pius XI in *Quas Primas*.
– Presence of cold legal formalism:

“We will that these Letters be effective now and in the future; that all contrary prescriptions of whatever kind shall not stand in the way… If anyone, of whatever authority, knowingly or unknowingly acts against what we have decreed, we declare it entirely null and void.”

This tone—juridical maximalism without doctrinal proclamation—mirrors the mentality condemned by Pius IX and St. Pius X:

– The Church is not a technocratic corporation adjusting districts to demographic flows; She is a *perfect society* (Pius IX, *Syllabus* prop. 19 condemned the denial of this) ordered to the reign of Christ and the supernatural end of man.
– When papal documents become formally impeccable but materially emptied of confessional clarity, it is a sign of what St. Pius X in *Pascendi* exposed: Modernists who outwardly preserve institutions while internally subverting faith.

The language of this constitution exemplifies exactly that: invocations of authority deployed to ratify merely horizontal concerns, while the rights of God over nations—so central in *Quas Primas*—are not just underemphasized, but practically absent.

Doctrinal Authority Claimed by One Who Prepares Doctrinal Subversion

The most serious point is theological: jurisdiction and the validity of legislative acts.

John XXIII is presented as “Servus servorum Dei,” exercising “our supreme and apostolic authority.” However, the pre-1958 magisterium, which remains the immutable norm, lays down principles incompatible with the subsequent conciliar agenda that he inaugurated:

– *Syllabus Errorum* (Pius IX) condemns religious indifferentism, the compatibility of the Church with liberal principles, and the reconciliation of the Roman Pontiff with “modern civilization” understood as laicist apostasy (prop. 80).
– *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi* (St. Pius X) condemn the evolution of dogma, democratization of doctrine, and the subjection of the Church to modern critical and political fashions.
– *Quas Primas* (Pius XI) affirms that peace, order, and true progress are only possible in the social and political reign of Christ the King; all “neutral” states are a rebellion against divine right.

Yet the one who signs this constitution will:

– Convocate a council that:
– Tolerates and promotes religious liberty in the condemned sense.
– Abandons the confessional state.
– Replaces the militant Church with a dialoguing assembly.
– Become a symbolic father of the very errors anathematized by his predecessors.

According to the doctrine summarized in the provided Defense of Sedevacantism file and classical theology:

– A manifest heretic loses office *ipso facto*; his acts of jurisdiction are null.
– Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code declares that public defection from the faith vacates ecclesiastical office without declaration.
– *Cum ex Apostolatus Officio* of Paul IV underscores that one who has deviated from the faith before or at election cannot validly obtain the papacy.

Once the conciliar program and public teaching of John XXIII (and his successors in the neo-church) are examined in light of pre-1958 doctrine, the claim “supreme and apostolic authority” becomes untenable. This constitution thus exemplifies *ab initio* the problem: an antipope clothing himself with the legal mantle of Peter while preparing to assault the very doctrinal foundations guaranteeing that mantle.

Subordination of the Church to Political and Concordatory Calculus

The text explicitly situates its measures within the framework of:

“Solemn Conventions… between the Holy See and Spain”

and justifies changes by reference to Ferrol’s temporal growth.

This reveals multiple deviations from the integral doctrine:

1. The Church’s authority over diocesan structures is treated as parallel and harmonized with state agreements, rather than flowing solely from Christ’s mandate, to which civil power must conform. Yet Pius IX, in the *Syllabus*, condemned:
– The thesis that the Church’s rights depend on civil concession (prop. 19, 25, 26).
– The idea that civil government may direct or limit ecclesiastical matters (props. 20, 44-47).
2. The social kingship of Christ, reaffirmed by Pius XI, demands that public acts—even seemingly administrative ones—confess His rights, not merely reflect demographic and diplomatic convenience.

But here:

– No explicit assertion that the state of Spain, the city of Ferrol, and its authorities are bound to recognize the reign of Christ the King.
– No warning against secularization, Freemasonry, socialism, or indifferentism, all heavily denounced by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Pius XI.
– Silence about the plague of naturalism that these same predecessors identified as the chief enemy—the very naturalism that Vatican II and its usurper-“popes” later institutionalized.

This silence is not accidental; it is symptomatic. Where the pre-1958 papacy used every document, including concordats and territorial adjustments, to reaffirm Catholic doctrine against error, here we see a juridical act acclimating the faithful to a Church that negotiates, rearranges, and adapts, but no longer openly fights.

Absence of Supernatural Criteria: The Gravest Indictment

One must pay attention not only to what is said, but to what is omitted. In this constitution, we find no:

– Call to deeper participation in the *Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary*.
– Exhortation to frequent confession, Eucharistic devotion, Marian piety according to pre-1958 norms.
– Reminders of the Four Last Things, the necessity of remaining in the state of grace, the horror of heresy, or the snares of modernist thought.
– Affirmation that the diocesan rearrangement should intensify preaching of dogma, catechesis, and discipline in line with Trent and the anti-modernist magisterium.

Instead, the justification is horizontal: growth of the city, pastoral suitability, legal formalities. The entire supernatural order is presupposed—but precisely Modernism works by “presupposing” what it slowly evacuates.

St. Pius X condemned this tactic: they conserve formulas, alter the sense. Here the Petrine language is conserved; the militant, anti-liberal, anti-modernist spirit is absent. This omission, in the context of what John XXIII would soon do, is itself a sign of the spiritual bankruptcy of the conciliar project in embryo.

Symptom of the Conciliar Sect’s Method: Continuity of Forms, Revolution of Substance

When one examines this constitution as a symptomatic piece of the larger process, its function within the conciliar revolution becomes clear:

1. Continuity of legal forms:
– Use of solemn chancery style.
– Threats of canonical penalties for those who would oppose the decree.
– Invocation of “supreme authority” and the formulaic *ad perpetuam rei memoriam*.

2. Mutation of underlying theology:
– A notion of pastoral governance fundamentally oriented to adaptation and aggiornamento.
– Progressively weakened insistence on the exclusive truth of the Catholic faith and the obligation of states to submit to Christ the King.
– Implicit subordination of ecclesiastical decisions to diplomatic accords.

3. Preparation of the faithful for Vatican II:
– Familiarizing them with a “papacy” that legislates as usual, while its bearer openly promotes principles contrary to *Syllabus*, *Pascendi*, and *Quas Primas*.
– Making resistance psychologically harder: the machinery looks the same; the spirit has changed.

This is the method of the conciliar sect: retain the shell, empty the content. Use harmless-seeming acts (diocesan titles, co-cathedrals) so that when the great betrayals arrive—religious liberty, false ecumenism, the new rite that mutilates the theology of sacrifice—they appear as developments of the same authority, not as the usurpations of an antichurch.

Jurisdiction, Heresy, and the Nullity of Acts of a Manifest Deviator

From the perspective of classical canon law and theology (as summarized in the Defense of Sedevacantism file):

– *Canon 188.4 (1917)*: public defection from the faith produces automatic resignation of ecclesiastical office.
– Bellarmine and others: a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church and cannot be its head; such a person has no jurisdiction.
– *Cum ex Apostolatus Officio*: if someone has deviated from the faith before election, any promotion to the papacy is null.

Once John XXIII’s role in launching the conciliar program is viewed in continuity with the doctrines condemned by Pius IX and St. Pius X, his claim to “supreme apostolic authority” must be rejected. Consequently:

– The authority invoked in this constitution is only apparent.
– The threatened penalties against those who would “despise or in any way reject” the decree are devoid of true canonical force, because they do not proceed from a true Roman Pontiff.
– The conciliar sect later leans on the supposed legal continuity of such acts to justify its own usurpation; but a chain whose first necessary link is broken does not bind.

The gravity here is not primarily the geographical rebranding of a Spanish diocese; it is the exploitation of legal forms by one who inaugurates a devastating doctrinal rupture, thereby exposing the faithful to the illusion that the Church herself has changed.

Contrast with Pre-1958 Magisterium: The Missing Militant Voice

Compare this constitution with the style and content of authentic papal acts before 1958:

– Pius IX, in documents touching on Church-state relations, constantly:
– Reasserts the exclusive truth of the Catholic religion.
– Condemns liberal principles and secret societies.
– Leo XIII, even in concordats and administrative provisions, anchors decisions in:
– The rights of the Church as a divine society.
– The obligation of rulers to protect the true faith.
– St. Pius X, reorganizing dioceses or disciplines, explicitly:
– Connects changes to the fight against modernism and the deepening of Catholic life.
– Pius XI in *Quas Primas* insists:
– Peace and social order are impossible without the public reign of Christ the King.
– States sin gravely if they refuse to recognize and honor that reign.

By contrast, this constitution:

– Does not explicitly demand that civil authority recognize Christ the King.
– Does not warn against modern errors.
– Does not present the measure as part of the Church’s militant resistance to apostasy.
– Presents itself as a neutral optimization of ecclesiastical geography.

This stylistic and material shift is theologically revealing. It signals the transition from a papacy that governs as vicar of Christ the King to a pseudo-papacy that manages as president of a religious administration embedded within modernity.

Conclusion: A Small Stone in the Architecture of Apostasy

Taken in isolation, the constitution “Mindoniensis (Ferrolensis)” might appear innocuous. From the vantage point of the unchanging pre-1958 magisterium, and in light of what its signatory and his successors in the neo-church would do, it stands as:

– An assertion of papal authority by one who prepared to betray the doctrinal conditions of that authority.
– A juridical act symptomatic of the new style: apparently traditional form, internally secularized criteria, and the omission of militant Catholic doctrine.
– A component of the illusion of continuity by which the conciliar sect claims historical and canonical legitimacy.

Authentic Catholic faith judged by prior infallible doctrine cannot accept the authority of an antipope nor the deceptive continuity of a conciliar structure which, starting from John XXIII, systematically dethrones Christ the King, exalts religious liberty and humanism, and destroys the visible marks of the Church. This constitution, by its silence, its pragmatism, and its misuse of papal language, exposes the spiritual and theological bankruptcy at the root of that enterprise.

---

Source:
Mindoniensis (Ferrolensis) Dioecesi Mindoniensi eiusque Antistiti appellatio Iungitur « Ferrolens1s », cuius Civitatis Templum Princeps ad dignitatem Concathedralis evehitur, die IX m. Martii A.D. 195…   (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025