This Latin act of John XXIII, under the title Constitutio Apostolica Oxomensis (Soriana), announces the juridical coupling of the name “Soriana” to the diocese of Osma (Oxomensis) in Spain and elevates the church of St Peter in Soria to the rank of a concatedral, assigning it corresponding rights and obligations, and commissioning the then “Apostolic Nuncio” to implement these measures according to the 1953 Concordat with Spain. The entire text is a perfectly polished piece of canonical-administrative prose which, while externally conservative, manifests the new regime of usurpation already underway: a paramasonic, conciliarized structure using the shell of Catholic legalism to prepare the ecclesiological revolution of Vatican II.

---

Ecclesiastical Cosmetics in the Shadow of Usurpation

Factual Reordering as a Veil for a New Regime of Power

On the purely factual level, the document appears innocuous:

– It recalls that the salvation of souls (*salus animarum*) is the supreme concern of the Church.
– It invokes the authority of John XXIII as “Supreme Pontiff.”
– It cites the 1953 Concordat between the Holy See and Spain as juridical framework.
– It:
– adds the title “Soriana” to the diocese of Osma,
– grants the church of St Peter in Soria the dignity of concatedral,
– allows the diocesan bishop and canons to reside and function liturgically in Soria,
– entrusts execution to the “Apostolic Nuncio” and the Consistorial Congregation,
– threatens canonical penalties for non-compliance.

In itself, the act merely modifies diocesan nomenclature and honors a significant urban center. Such measures, rightly ordered, belong to the legitimate potestas of a true Roman Pontiff, historically used to respond to demographic shifts and pastoral needs.

However, the decisive problem is not the content in isolation, but the subject who promulgates and the historical-theological project to which this act belongs. In 1959 this structure is already in the hands of John XXIII, the initiator of the conciliar revolution, convoker of Vatican II, praised by freemasons and liberal media, and architect of the aggiornamento which Pius IX, Leo XIII, St Pius X and Pius XI had prophetically and explicitly condemned in their anti-liberal, anti-modernist Magisterium.

From the perspective of the unchanging Catholic teaching prior to 1958, several points emerge:

1. The text presupposes the full legitimacy and authority of John XXIII as Roman Pontiff.
2. It operates within a concordatory logic that already bends to modern states, without reaffirming clearly the social Kingship of Christ over Spain as demanded by Pius XI in Quas Primas.
3. It showcases a juridical apparatus which, in continuity of form but rupture of spirit, will soon be weaponized to execute the conciliar subversion: new ecclesiology, new liturgy, new doctrine on religious liberty and ecumenism.

Persona mutata, lex eadem? Non ita est. (The person changed, the law the same? It is not so.) The same canonical gestures, when performed by an antipope and ordered to an apostate program, no longer serve Christ the King but the construction of the neo-church.

Language of Pastoral Solicitude as Cloak for Institutional Usurpation

The rhetoric is carefully chosen. Consider the opening:

Since the good of souls and the salvation of men, whom Christ, the adorable Son of God, descended from heavenly glory to redeem, are among the highest concerns of the Church, therefore We, who by the divine will have undertaken the governance of the same, do not refuse, serving the times, to modify somewhat the institutions of dioceses, if there is surer hope that the safety of the flock will thus be made more secure.

The Latin phrases appear impeccably Catholic: *salus animarum*, Christ’s redemptive descent, the Church’s supreme care for souls. Yet three linguistic traits betray the conciliarist mentality incubating beneath:

1. “servientes temporibus” – serving the times:
– This formula—“serving the times”—signals the essential modernist posture: the Church adjusts itself to the age. Pius IX in the Syllabus (prop. 80) condemned the notion that the Roman Pontiff “ought to come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.” Yet here, under a veil of administrative prudence, the aggiornamento-ethos is already articulated.
– Authentic Catholic reform is servientes Christo, not servientes temporibus. Time is judged by Christ the King, not Christ conformed to time.

2. Bureaucratic abstraction:
– The text is drenched in chancery formalism, obsessing over seals, execution clauses, registries, juridical efficacy. Missing is any explicit recall that episcopal power is ordered to guarding the integral faith against error rampant in the very epoch in question (communism, secularism, nascent conciliar theology).
– As Pius X warned in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi, modernism often hides under formally orthodox or neutral language while altering the orientation of ecclesial life: sociology instead of soteriology, structures instead of dogma.

3. Silence as method:
– Not a word on:
– the duty of the diocese and its new concatedral to profess publicly the exclusive truth of the Catholic faith against religious indifferentism (condemned in Syllabus 15–18),
– the obligation of the Spanish civil power to recognize Christ as King in the temporal order, as insisted upon by Pius XI in Quas Primas,
– the fight against modernism, liberalism and secret anti-Christian sects, which Pius IX, Leo XIII, and St Pius X so insistently exposed.
– The omission is not accidental. It is the cultivated “positive” style which refuses to speak against error and thus silently dismantles the Catholic militancy required in an age of apostasy.

Silentium de gravissimis est indictamentum. (Silence about the gravest matters is an indictment.)

Canonical Formalism without Supernatural Combat

From the standpoint of perennial doctrine:

– The Church is a *societas perfecta*, endowed by Christ with proper and perpetual rights (Pius IX, Syllabus, condemnation of prop. 19).
– Bishops are charged:
– to guard the deposit of faith,
– to repress heresy,
– to ensure that worship corresponds to the true propitiatory Sacrifice,
– to assert, against secular powers, the rights of Christ the King and His Church.

This act, however, reduces episcopal and diocesan reality to:

– a shift in geographical prestige,
– pragmatic facilitation of residence and canonical functions in a growing city,
– a mere technical adjustment dressed with severe threats of canonical penalties for anyone who questions the administrative decree.

Thus we observe:

1. Hyper-legalism on secondary matters; silence on primary truths.
– The text solemnly thunders that whoever “despises or in any way rejects” this decree will incur penalties reserved for those who disobey the commands of “Supreme Pontiffs.”
– Yet it utters not a syllable against the real enemies of Christ in Spain and in the world; nothing about the ideological war against the Church; nothing about Freemasonry whose “frauds and machinations” Pius IX unmasked, nor about modernist errors condemned by St Pius X.
– Gravissimum paradoxon: disobedience to a nominal change or concatedral honor is threatened more concretely than disobedience to divine law itself.

2. Instrumental continuity:
– The document exploits the revered forms of pre-conciliar canonical style—Latin, solemn threats, Consistorial Congregation—to generate a sense of doctrinal continuity.
– Yet the same person will within months announce the Second Vatican Council, whose fruits—religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, laicist “human rights” ideology—dismantle systematically the principles earlier Magisterium had defended.
– This is typical of revolutionary technique: maintain institutional decorum while inverting the orientation of power.

When the subject is an antipope heading a conciliar sect, such acts are not neutral: they reorganize territory and authority to secure obedience to a future anti-doctrine.

Ecclesiology in Embryo: Toward the Conciliar Sect

The Osma-Soria measure exemplifies how the neo-church consolidates itself:

– By preserving the names, externals, and structures of diocesan life.
– By ensuring that bishops, canons, and faithful remain inside a juridical network whose highest instance has already defected from integral Catholic principles.

Under true Catholic ecclesiology:

– A diocesan act is meaningful insofar as it:
– strengthens the proclamation of the one true faith,
– deepens sacramental life in the context of the authentic Most Holy Sacrifice,
– consolidates resistance against heresy, naturalism, and state usurpation,
– conforms civil structures to the Kingship of Christ.

Here, instead:

– The new concatedral is established with no admonition regarding:
– the necessity of the traditional Roman Rite as theologically defined propitiatory Sacrifice,
– the imminent danger of liturgical and doctrinal alteration,
– the supernatural end of all ecclesial structures.

This silence prepares acceptance of whatever liturgical and doctrinal novelties will later be imposed by the conciliar revolution: once the faithful are conditioned to equate “obedience” with submission to institutional decrees devoid of explicit doctrinal substance, they are disarmed when the same apparatus imposes genuine deviations in faith and worship.

Qui in parvis fallit, in magnis destruit. (He who deceives in small things destroys in great ones.)

Serving the Times versus the Kingship of Christ

Pius XI, in Quas Primas, teaches with crystalline clarity that:

– Peace, order, and the true good of nations depend on the public recognition of the reign of Christ.
– The denial of Christ’s rights over societies is the root of modern disasters.
– It is illicit to accept laicism and the relegation of Christ to the private sphere.

In the present act:

– The sole rationale given is pastoral expediency and demographic growth of Soria.
– The entire operation is articulated “serving the times,” without a single reminder that:
– the civil order of Spain owes public homage to Christ the King,
– diocesan life must be a bastion against liberalism and indifferentism,
– all ecclesial reorganization is subordinate to the integral reign of Christ over individuals, families, and states.

By omitting this, the text implicitly normalizes a purely horizontal, almost technocratic view of ecclesiastical governance—precisely the mentality that will soon:

– accept “religious freedom” in contradiction to the constant pre-1958 Magisterium,
– embrace “dialogue” instead of the missionary imperative to convert all nations to the one true Church,
– sink into ecumenical relativism and glorification of “human rights” detached from Christ’s sovereign rights.

What is presented as pastoral prudence is thus part of a larger pattern: the gradual replacement of supernatural, Christocentric categories with temporal, sociological rationales.

Threats of Authority from One Who Dismantles Authority

The text concludes with solemn clauses:

We will that these Letters now and in future be effective and obtain their full effect… If anyone, of whatever authority, knowingly or unknowingly acts contrary to what We have decreed, We declare such action utterly null and void… Whoever shall 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 commands of Supreme Pontiffs.

From the standpoint of integral Catholic doctrine, serious questions arise:

– The authority to bind under such penalties presupposes:
– orthodoxy in faith,
– continuity with previous dogmatic teaching.

St Robert Bellarmine and the classical theologians, as well as canonical principles later codified (e.g. 1917 Code, can. 188 §4), affirm in substance:

– A manifest heretic, or one who publicly deviates from the faith, cannot hold papal office, nor truly exercise jurisdiction in the Church.
– Juridical acts demanding obedience, when emanating from a power ordered to the destruction or perversion of doctrine and worship, are devoid of binding force.

Thus, when an antipope invokes the spectre of penalties for noncompliance with minor administrative decrees, while simultaneously setting in motion the processes that will dissolve:
– the confessional state,
– the integrity of the Roman Rite,
– the exclusivity of the Catholic Church as the ark of salvation,

his threats are a caricature of authority, a parody of the real majesty of the papal office as exercised by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII.

Potestas quae destruit fundamentum fidei non est a Deo. (A power that destroys the foundation of the faith is not from God.)

Systemic Symptom: Incremental Transformation Behind a Catholic Facade

Seen in the light of the conciliar catastrophe that followed:

– This constitution is a micro-symptom of a macro-apostasy.
– It exhibits:
– retention of pre-conciliar language and juridical forms,
– insertion of modernist key-notions (“serving the times”),
– total silence on condemned errors each year gaining ground in clergy and academia,
– meticulous defense of institutional decrees, not of divine rights.

This is how the conciliar sect—the abominatio desolationis (abomination of desolation) standing in the holy place—solidified its control:

– By endlessly repeating the vocabulary of salvation of souls while:
– ceasing to preach sin, hell, judgment,
– tolerating or promoting doctrinal confusion,
– preparing the overthrow of the traditional liturgy,
– dissolving the intransigent condemnation of liberalism, socialism, Freemasonry documented in the Syllabus, in Leo XIII’s anti-masonic teaching, and in Lamentabili.

The Osma-Soria adjustment is a brick in that edifice: the secular eye sees only harmless architecture; the supernatural eye sees jurisdiction, territory, clergy, and faithful being attached, step by step, to a counterfeit center.

Conclusion: Between Catholic Form and Anti-Catholic Finality

From the perspective of the integral Catholic faith:

– If this act were promulgated by a true Pope, firmly upholding the anti-liberal, anti-modernist Magisterium, it would be a legitimate, indeed banal, adjustment in diocesan structure.
– In the hands of an antipope whose project culminates in Vatican II and the new religion, it becomes:
– an instrument to lock dioceses into obedience to a usurped authority,
– a manifestation of the method by which the conciliar sect preserved external forms while transplanting a different spirit and doctrine.

Thus its deepest bankruptcy lies not in the letter’s administrative provisions, but in:

– the contradiction between invoked pastoral solicitude and the historical role of its signatory in preparing doctrinal and liturgical ruin,
– the refusal to ground every ecclesial reorganization explicitly in the exclusive Kingship of Christ and the unchanging condemnations of liberalism, indifferentism, and modernism,
– the abuse of the Church’s juridical solemnity to demand obedience to a structure that would soon wage war against the very teachings of Pius IX, Leo XIII, St Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII.

Forma manet, fides evacuatur. The shell remains; the faith is emptied.

The duty of those who remain faithful to the pre-1958 Magisterium is therefore:

– to discern such documents in light of the integral doctrine of the Church,
– to refuse to confuse canonical cosmetics with Catholic fidelity,
– to hold fast to what the true Popes taught: that salvation, peace, and legitimate ecclesial authority exist only under the sovereign, public, and exclusive reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His unchanged doctrine, not under a conciliatory adaptation to “the times” nor under the decrees of those who inaugurated the conciliar apostasy.

---

Source:
Oxomensis (Sorianae)   (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025