This Latin text issued by John XXIII declares that, in recognition of the supposed religious merits of the city of Alicante (Lucentum), the diocesan title of Orihuela is extended to “Oriolensis-Lucentina” and the church of St Nicholas in Alicante is elevated to the rank of a concathedral, with associated rights and obligations for the local hierarchy. The entire document is an exercise in ecclesiastical administration that presupposes, without any confession of supernatural truth or mention of the salvation of souls, the legitimacy of a man who inaugurated the conciliar revolution and transformed the visible structures into a paramasonic apparatus directed against the Kingship of Christ.

---

Administrative Cosmetics in the Shadow of Revolution

Canonical Gestures Serving a Illegitimate Authority

From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, the first and decisive datum is this: the text proceeds from John XXIII, the initiator of the conciliar upheaval, dated 9 March 1959, mere weeks after his announcement (25 January 1959) of the council that would dissolve, in practice, the public reign of Christ the King in society and open the way to the condemned liberalism of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

The document’s structure is formally classical: invocation “Servus servorum Dei,” recital of motives, consultation of local authorities, reference to the concordat with Spain, decree by “apostolic power,” and procedural clauses. But:

– It assumes the validity of John XXIII’s pontificate at the very moment when his program, speeches, and entourage manifest a systematic rupture with *Quanta Cura*, the *Syllabus*, *Pascendi*, and *Quas Primas*.
– It mobilizes the machinery of ecclesiastical law to carry out a purely external rearrangement, without a single explicit reference to:
– the *salus animarum* (salvation of souls) as the supreme law;
– the necessity of Catholic Spain to uphold the exclusive social Kingship of Christ;
– the fight against Socialism, Freemasonry, and indifferentism, all explicitly condemned by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII.

Instead of reaffirming that every diocesan and cathedral dignity exists solely to guard and propagate the one true faith (cf. Pius XI, *Quas Primas*: peace and order flow only from submission to Christ’s Kingdom), this act is content with superficial honorific expansion. A paramasonic structure uses venerable canonical forms in order to decorate its new geography of apostasy.

Naturalistic Rhetoric Masking the Silence on Grace and Judgment

The opening lines praise those cities:

“Illae catholicae Ecclesiae urbes, quae ob civium praesertim religiosa incepta longo iam tempore nitent, dignae sane sunt quae celebrentur, iustis tributis honoribus, privilegiis et iuribus factis: quod quidem in maiorem Dei gloriam verti et uberiores inde christianae vitae fructus percipi posse nemo est qui dubitet.”

Translation: “Those cities of the Catholic Church which, especially by reason of the religious undertakings of their citizens, have for a long time shone, are indeed worthy to be celebrated, by due honours, privileges and rights being granted: which indeed can undoubtedly turn to the greater glory of God and result in more abundant fruits of Christian life.”

At first glance, this sounds pious. But dissect the subtext:

– “Religious undertakings” are praised generically, without doctrinal content. No mention of defense against heresy, fidelity to the Roman Catechism, rejection of liberalism, or public confession of Christ as King against secularism.
– The “greater glory of God” and “fruits of Christian life” are invoked formulaically, devoid of any precise supernatural orientation: no reference to confession of the true faith, frequentation of the sacraments (in their traditional, propitiatory sense), penance, or preparation for judgment.
– This neutral, bureaucratic tone avoids all militant, dogmatic clarity which Pius IX and St Pius X demanded when confronting the world of “rights of man,” indifferentism, and modern civilization. Compare:
– Pius IX in the *Syllabus* rejects the idea that the Church should submit to the secular state or renounce its rights (errors 19, 55, 77–80).
– Pius XI in *Quas Primas* condemns laicism as a “plague” and proclaims that rulers and states owe public worship and obedience to Christ the King.

Here, however, we find an antiseptic, administrative language. This is symptomatic: the conciliar sect’s leaders speak like functionaries of an international religious NGO, for whom diocesan borders and titles are management issues, not bulwarks of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church engaged in eschatological combat.

The gravest accusation: **silence about the supernatural order.** When a so-called apostolic constitution modifies the dignity of a cathedral without once reminding pastors and faithful of:

– the necessity of the true faith for salvation;
– the obligation of Catholic Spain to reject false religious liberty and ecumenism;
– the impending judgment of Christ, “King of kings and Lord of lords”;

this silence is not neutral; it is apostasy by omission. *Qui tacet consentire videtur* (he who is silent seems to consent). The new language prepares the ground for the 1960s explosion of indifferentism, in perfect continuity with the sects condemned by Pius IX as the “synagogue of Satan” animated by Masonic machinations.

Theological Vacuity behind the Concathedral Elevation

The central juridical decisions are:

– Addition of the title “Lucentina” to Orihuela: Oriolensis becomes Oriolensis-Lucentina.
– Elevation of St Nicholas in Alicante to concathedral status.
– Permission for the diocesan bishop to reside in Alicante.
– Authorization for canons and beneficiaries to exercise their offices in the concathedral.

All of this, considered in itself and in a Catholic context, could be legitimate and harmless. The Church has always had the authority to adapt diocesan structures for pastoral needs. Yet, evaluated under the only valid criterion — the immutable pre-1958 doctrine — and considering who uses this power and to what end, the operation becomes transparent:

1. The act functions as a demonstration of jurisdiction by John XXIII at the start of his reign, projecting normality and continuity while he simultaneously prepares an ecumenical council designed to rehabilitate all the errors solemnly condemned by the Magisterium.

2. The composition of the signatories — John XXIII, Copello, Mimmi, and officials — ties the Spanish diocesan structure more tightly into the network that will soon impose:
– religious liberty against *Quanta Cura*;
– collegiality against Vatican I’s dogma on papal primacy;
– false ecumenism against the dogma “outside the Church no salvation” rightly understood;
– liturgical revolution against the sacrificial, propitiatory nature of the Most Holy Sacrifice.

3. No doctrinal safeguards accompany this elevation:
– No demand that the new concathedral uphold the exclusive use of traditional catechetical and liturgical norms.
– No reinforcement of anti-Masonic condemnations in a region historically targeted by liberal and sectarian forces.
– No reminder that diocesan prestige is meaningless unless it defends the one true faith “without spot or wrinkle” (Eph 5), as taught uniformly by the pre-conciliar popes and councils.

Instead, the diocesan restructuring is presented as self-justifying, as if ecclesiastical honour were an absolute good detached from its doctrinal mission. This is positivism: what “Rome” (i.e., the structures occupying the Vatican) decrees is presumed holy because it is decreed, not because it conforms to the received and irreformable faith.

St Pius X, in *Lamentabili sane exitu* and *Pascendi*, exposes precisely this mentality: the idea that ecclesiastical institutions and formulas can be adapted “pastorally” according to new historical needs, while their dogmatic substance is quietly emptied or evolved. By 1959, such modernist currents were already at work; this constitution, with its meticulous legalism and spiritual minimalism, is an early symptom of that disease.

Language of Power without Confession of Truth

Note the authoritative formulas:

“de apostolica Nostra potestate ea, quae sequuntur, decernimus et iubemus”
(“by Our apostolic power We decree and command what follows”)

“Has vero Litteras nunc et in posterum efficaces esse et fore volumus”
(“We will and decree that these Letters be effective now and in the future”)

“Quarum Litterarum efficacitati nulla, cuiusvis generis, contraria praescripta officere poterunt, cum per has Litteras iisdem derogemus omnibus”
(“To the effectiveness of these Letters no contrary prescriptions of any kind can stand in the way, since by these Letters We derogate from them all”)

This is a maximalist assertion of jurisdiction and legislative authority. Yet the same individual would shortly convoke a council that, in practice:

– subordinates the *lex credendi* (rule of faith) and *lex orandi* (rule of worship) to the demands of the world, of separated sects, and of secular authorities;
– proclaims principles of religious liberty and ecumenical “dialogue” in open conflict with the condemnations listed by Pius IX in the *Syllabus* (especially errors 15–18, 55, 77–80);
– inaugurates a continuous “updating” (*aggiornamento*) of doctrine and discipline, exactly in the sense condemned in *Lamentabili* propositions 57–65.

Thus we have a juridical paradox:

– On paper, John XXIII wields absolute papal language to modify titles and buildings.
– In doctrine and policy, he relativizes the perennial Magisterium and opens the gates to that very “modern civilization” that Pius IX and St Pius X identified as the organized enemy of the Church, often animated by Masonic sects.

This combination — strong positivist assertion in minutiae, relativization in essentials — is the mark of the conciliar sect. It preserves the external shell of authority to introduce a new religion inside.

Symptom of the Conciliar Program: Church as Cultural Ornament of the State

The constitution carefully notes that these changes respect the concordat between the Holy See and Spain (agreement of 27 August 1953, referenced as observed). This is not accidental:

– The so-called Holy See of John XXIII presents itself as a partner of the Spanish State, recognizing and rewarding cities for their “religious undertakings,” but abstains from any explicit reminder that:
– the State must recognize the Catholic religion as the only true religion;
– error has no rights as such;
– Catholic public law, as defended by Pius IX and Pius XI, demands the full social Kingship of Christ.

Pius XI in *Quas Primas* explicitly condemns laicism and demands that rulers honour Christ publicly, warning that denying His rights destabilizes all authority. Pius IX, in the *Syllabus*, condemns the separation of Church and State (55), the equal status of all religions (15, 77–79), and the notion that the Pontiff must “reconcile himself” with liberal civilization (80).

By contrast, this 1959 text treats Church–State relations as a diplomatic and ceremonial context for distributing ecclesiastical honours. It is precisely this reduction of the Church to a cultural-religious institution within the secular order — instead of the divinely instituted *societas perfecta* possessing innate rights superior to the State in spiritual matters — that would soon justify the betrayal of confessional Catholic nations and the embrace of religious liberty.

The constitution’s long procedural clauses about not violating its decrees, the nullity of contrary acts, the penalties for disobedience, are thus bitterly ironic: **the same system that threatens canonical penalties for resisting the redistribution of titles simultaneously demolishes the doctrinal walls that protect souls from error and damnation.** It is juridical severity in the service of theological laxity.

Instrumentalizing Honours While Undermining the Episcopate

The act grants:

– to the bishop, the right to reside in Alicante;
– to canons and beneficiaries, permission to exercise their offices in the concathedral.

Again, in a Catholic order, such provisions would serve closer oversight of the flock, greater solemnity of the liturgy, and stronger preaching of the faith. But in the conciliar context unfolding from 1959 onward, they instead serve:

– to embed local clergy more directly under the supervision of hierarchs who will implement liturgical and doctrinal subversion;
– to transform cathedral chapters from guardians of orthodoxy into rubber stamps for “pastoral innovations,” ecumenical gestures, and eventual profanation of the Holy of Holies by the new rites.

The tone of the text is revealing:

“Canonicis et Beneficiariis collegii Oriolensis, qui ibidem muneris causa versantur, concedimus ut propria Canonicorum officia in concathedrali templo facere ac tueri possint.”

“Conceding” the exercise of proper canonical offices appears benevolent; in reality, under the conciliar regime, such structures are gradually emptied of substance. Chapters, once defenders of rite and doctrine, are neutralized, turned into ornaments, their canonical prestige exploited to persuade the faithful that nothing essential has changed — while everything essential is being overturned.

This is the mechanism condemned in *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*: modernists maintain terms, institutions, and external forms, but infuse them with a different meaning. Here, “cathedral,” “chapter,” “apostolic authority” are kept; the immutable doctrine and sacrificial worship they must serve are silently set aside in favour of the oncoming neo-church.

From Local Constitution to Global Apostasy

One might object: this is “only” an administrative constitution; does it suffice to expose “theological and spiritual bankruptcy”? Yes, precisely because:

– Catholic doctrine teaches that the pope’s mission is primarily doctrinal: to confirm the brethren in the faith, to guard the deposit (Vatican I, *Pastor Aeternus*). Every official act must be coherent with this mission.
– When a so-called supreme authority uses the full solemnity of apostolic language for trivialities, while simultaneously preparing to contradict the prior Magisterium in grave matters, he reveals the inversion of ends: **form without truth, power without fidelity.**
– The harmless exterior is thus a mask. It normalizes obedience to an authority that is already orienting itself against the unchangeable teaching condemned evolutionism of dogma, religious liberty, and ecumenism.

The conciliar sect operates through such incremental acclimatization:

– maintain Latin formulas in 1959;
– announce a “pastoral” council;
– preserve canonical style and signatures;
– then, step by step, reinterpret everything in the light of a new gospel of man, dialogue, and pluralism.

This constitution, dated in the first year of John XXIII, stands as an early brick in the wall of that new construction. It harnesses the prestige of canonical solemnity to bind the faithful and clergy more closely to structures that will soon wage war, not against the world, but against the very Catholic faith solemnly defended by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII.

Contrast with the Immutable Catholic Criterion

According to the unchanging Magisterium:

– The Church is a *perfect society*, endowed with inherent rights and duties, independent of the State, tasked solely with leading souls to eternal salvation (Pius IX, *Syllabus*, errors 19, 55 refuted).
– Dogma cannot evolve into its opposite; truth does not bend to the “spirit of the age” (*Lamentabili* 57–65 condemned).
– Religious indifferentism, equalization of sects, and unrestricted liberty of cult and opinion are condemned as destructive (Pius IX, *Quanta Cura*; *Syllabus* 15–18, 77–79).
– Christ must reign socially and politically; secularism is a plague (*Quas Primas*).

Measured against this criterion, this constitution is bankrupt not because it changes a diocesan title, but because:

– it never once recalls these principles;
– it treats ecclesiastical dignity as an object of human honour, prestige, and local pride, rather than as an instrument for asserting Christ’s absolute dominion over individuals and nations;
– it demands submission to its minutiae while preparing disobedience to the universal and irreformable doctrine of preceding popes.

This is the essence of the conciliar revolution: the authority of Peter’s chair claimed for acts and policies that corrode the faith defined by Peter’s successors. An act like “Oriolensis (Lucentina)” is thus not neutral; it is part of a programming of consciences to accept whatever comes from the “Holy See,” even when what comes is the abomination of desolation in the holy place.

Conclusion: A Hollow Decree in Service of the Neo-Church

What presents itself as a benign juridical favour to a “distinguished city” is, under the light of integral Catholic faith:

– an exercise of usurped or abusively employed authority;
– an example of juridical maximalism wedded to doctrinal minimalism;
– a symptom of naturalistic, diplomatic, and bureaucratic mentality blind to the supernatural warfare for souls;
– a small but real step in binding clergy and faithful to the conciliar sect’s hierarchy, which soon after will devastate the liturgy, relativize dogma, and enthrone man in place of Christ the King.

Where the true popes taught that all ecclesiastical structures and privileges are ordered exclusively to the confession of the one, immutable faith and to the preparation of souls for judgment, John XXIII and his collaborators deploy that same juridical language as a façade for a program condemned in advance by the very Magisterium they pretend to inherit.

A constitution that cannot even once explicitly confess the integral Catholic mission of a cathedral, that flatters civic “religious initiatives” while remaining silent about modernist apostasy, and that asserts absolute force for its administrative clauses while the conciliar machine prepares to trample the *Syllabus* and *Pascendi*, stands as a clear manifestation of theological and spiritual emptiness. It is litmus-paper revealing that the structures occupying the Vatican no longer speak with the voice of the Bride of Christ, but with the calibrated voice of a new religion whose god is human prestige and worldly peace, not the crucified and reigning King who demands “that all nations serve Him.”

---

Source:
Oriolensis (Lucentinae)   (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025