A short Latin decree issued under the name of John XXIII modifies the Diocese of Osma in Spain by adding the title “Soriana” and elevating the church of St Peter in Soria to the rank of a concathedral, delegating execution to the nuncio and providing the usual juridical formulas for validity and promulgation. Behind this seemingly technical act stands the self-assertion of a usurper installing his authority into the hierarchical fabric on the eve of the conciliar revolution, thereby contaminating the visibility of the Church’s structure at its most concrete level.
Canonical Cosmetics in the Shadow of Usurpation
The text, dated 9 March 1959, is a typical pre-conciliar-style apostolic constitution in form:
– It appeals to the “salvation of souls” as the supreme law.
– It recalls the concordat arrangements between the Holy See and Spain (1953).
– It notes the growth of the city of Soria and, at the request of the apostolic nuncio and the diocesan ordinary, decrees:
– the joining of the title “Soriana” to the Diocese of Osma;
– the elevation of the church of St Peter in Soria to concathedral status, with corresponding rights, honours, and obligations;
– the possibility for the bishop to reside in Soria and for canons/beneficiaries to exercise capitular functions there;
– execution clauses entrusted to the nuncio, with standard stipulations concerning authenticity, derogations, and penalties for non-compliance.
Taken in isolation, such adjustments to diocesan titles and cathedral structures are in themselves part of the normal *iurisdictio ordinaria* of a true Roman Pontiff. For centuries, valid Popes have erected dioceses, altered boundaries, assigned titles, and regulated concathedrals as expressions of the visible, juridical, monarchic constitution of the Church.
However, here we stand at a precise historical and theological fault line: this act is promulgated under John XXIII, the first in the line of conciliar usurpers, whose election, doctrine, and deeds inaugurate the demolition of the very ecclesial order that such decrees outwardly presuppose. The question is not whether diocesan structures may be prudently modified (they can), but whether a manifest architect of the conciliar apostasy can be treated as a legitimate legislator in the Church of Christ.
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, the answer is clear: the text unintentionally reveals the contradiction of a counterfeit authority which, in the same breath, mimics traditional canonical solemnity and prepares the stage for the greatest rupture in ecclesiastical history since the Arian crisis—this time not from outside, but from the pinnacle of the apparent hierarchy.
Factual Layer: A Minor Act Masking a Major Usurpation
On the factual level, the constitution does only three things:
1. Adds “Soriana” to the diocesan title: Osma becomes Osma-Soria.
2. Elevates the church of St Peter in Soria to a concathedral, preserving the dignity of the original cathedral.
3. Grants execution powers to the nuncio, with full canonical force, derogating contrary norms.
These points align externally with earlier papal practices. But several decisive facts illuminate the deeper issue:
– John XXIII convened the so‑called Second Vatican Council and set in motion the replacement of integral doctrine with *aggiornamento*, religious liberty, false ecumenism, and the cult of man—precisely the errors condemned by:
– Pius IX in the *Syllabus Errorum* (1864), particularly propositions 15–18, 55, 77–80, which anathematize the pluralist, liberal, “reconciled with modernity” religion later embraced by the conciliar sect.
– St Pius X in *Lamentabili sane exitu* and *Pascendi*, which denounce the idea of evolving dogma, relativized magisterium, and historicist reconfiguration of the Church—ideas practically enthroned by the very council John XXIII called.
– Catholic doctrine, articulated by St Robert Bellarmine and classical theologians, reaffirms that a manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church; a usurper wielding papal forms does not receive papal authority. A legislative act issued in the name of Peter by one who undermines the faith of Peter is juridically suspect and theologically void.
– Canonical forms remain, but the substance of authority is absent: *forma sine fide mortua est* (the form without the faith is dead).
Thus the “innocent” factual content is not neutral. It is the exercise of pseudo-papal power by one who, by his later public program and its doctrinal fruits, reveals himself as a revolutionary, not a guardian of the deposit of faith.
Linguistic Layer: Traditional Rhetoric as Camouflage
The vocabulary is flawlessly post-Tridentine in style:
– Appeals to *animorum bonum hominumque salus* (the good of souls and salvation of men).
– Invocation of Christ who “descended from heaven for our redemption.”
– Reference to “divine will” by which the author says he administers the Church.
– Emphasis on canonical exactitude, seals, penalties, derogation of contrary norms.
This language would not be out of place in a document of Pius XI or Pius XII. Yet precisely here lies the perverse subtlety.
The text is imbued with:
– An assumption of undisputed legitimacy: the author styles himself *servus servorum Dei*, commands, threatens penalties, and wraps the decree *sub plumbo* as if organic continuity with the papal tradition were intact.
– A soothing, bureaucratic assurance that all is normal, routine, pastoral. No hint that within the same pontificate the calling of a pastoral-supercouncil will relativize dogma, invert the relation of Church and world, and enthrone errors condemned a century earlier.
The rhetoric functions as camouflage:
– By mimicking the solemn style of true papal acts, it seeks to anesthetize consciences.
– By reducing the exercise of “supreme and apostolic authority” to administrative adjustments, it normalizes acceptance of the usurper in the minds of clergy and faithful.
– The invisible message is: “The same Rome, the same authority, the same Church”—a claim refuted by subsequent doctrine, liturgy, and ecumenical apostasy.
Language here is not neutral; it is an instrument of psychological continuity, preparing the flock to accept future revolutionary acts because they are wrapped in the familiar majesty of canonical Latin.
Theological Layer: The Clash with Pre-1958 Catholic Ecclesiology
Measured against unchanging Catholic doctrine—as commanded by the instructions and as taught by the pre-1958 Magisterium—this constitution exposes several theological fault-lines.
1. Presumption of Authentic Papal Authority
The decree assumes that whoever signs as “Ioannes PP. XXIII” is the visible head of the Church with full *potestas iurisdictionis*. But:
– The Catholic principle: *Non christianus, non membrum; non membrum, non caput* (he who is not Christian [by faith] is not a member; not a member, not head). A manifest heretic cannot be Pope, as the Fathers and classical theologians taught.
– Pius IX in the appended anti-masonic and anti-liberal instructions recognizes Freemasonry and liberalism as engines of ecclesiastical subversion. The conciliar project of John XXIII aligns precisely with what earlier Popes denounced: laicism, religious liberty disconnected from truth, and submission of the Church to the spirit of the age.
Thus, the constitution’s theological flaw is not in annexing “Soriana” as such, but in the illicit subject performing the act.
2. Silence about the Supernatural Ends beyond Administrative Lines
The text speaks of the salvation of souls in a formulaic way, but:
– There is no concrete mention of:
– defense of doctrine;
– preservation of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass;
– safeguarding the faithful from liberalism, indifferentism, Socialism, Freemasonry—all condemned in the *Syllabus*, in *Quas Primas*, in anti-modernist decrees.
– There is no exhortation to Catholic Spain to uphold the social Kingship of Christ, though Pius XI taught unequivocally that lasting peace is impossible unless individuals and states publicly recognize and submit to Christ’s kingship (*Quas Primas*: peace is only possible in the kingdom of Christ).
– The constitution treats ecclesiastical geography as an end in itself, not as an instrument for the reign of Christ over public and private life.
This bureaucratic reduction, while mild here, foreshadows the later naturalistic technocracy of the conciliar sect, where diocesan reconfigurations, episcopal conferences, and administrative reforms proliferate while dogma is diluted and the supernatural is eclipsed.
3. Hidden Continuity with Concordat Pragmatism
The text references the 1953 agreements with Spain, but without reaffirming the Catholic doctrine that:
– The State must profess the true religion (condemning proposition 77 of the *Syllabus*).
– The Church possesses rights not from the State but directly from Christ.
The silence is ominous. A genuine Pontiff, adjusting diocesan titles in a Catholic nation, could have invoked and reinforced the duty of that state to recognize Christ’s Kingship and protect the Church. Instead, we see a bare, technocratic nod to conventions—an early symptom of the political quietism and later acceptance of the separation of Church and State condemned by Pius IX (proposition 55).
Symptomatic Layer: How a “Small” Decree Serves the Conciliar Revolution
From an integral Catholic perspective, this document is symptomatic in at least four ways.
1. Normalization of the Usurper’s Signature
Every such constitution, no matter how local or “innocent,” habituates clergy and laity to regard the usurper as true Pope. By:
– commanding the bishop of Osma to adopt the new title;
– imposing canonical penalties on those who disregard “our decrees”;
– invoking perpetual memory (*ad perpetuam rei memoriam*);
it inscribes the anti-pontiff’s name across the juridical life of the Church. Over time, diocesan lists, liturgical books, canonical acts all repeat “John XXIII,” weaving him into the visible continuity that the conciliar sect later uses to prop up its false “hermeneutic of continuity.”
This is the tactic of a paramasonic structure: capture the forms of authority in order to subvert the content.
2. Territorial Adjustments as Preludes to Doctrinal Reengineering
The act seems merely territorial, but:
– The post-1958 revolution uses territorial and institutional reshaping—new dioceses, conferences, councils, commissions—as an infrastructural skeleton for its new religion.
– The use of concathedrals and rebalancing of sees often corresponds to political, sociological, or ecumenical considerations, not supernatural criteria.
– When a usurper reorganizes diocesan life, he is effectively positioning reliable collaborators to implement the coming changes in liturgy, catechesis, and discipline.
In this sense, the elevation of Soria’s church is part of the gradual alignment of structures to the soon-to-be unleashed conciliar agenda.
3. Subtle Undermining of the Papal Monarchy
While the document appears to affirm the papal monarchy, the historical context reveals its instrumentalization:
– John XXIII prepares an ecumenical event that will relativize papal doctrinal firmness into “dialogue,” dilute condemnations like the *Syllabus*, and reinterpret documents such as *Quas Primas* through democratic and secular lenses.
– The same signature that here speaks in the voice of traditional authority is later used to inaugurate a process that implicitly denies the immutable, exclusive authority of the Roman Pontiff as defined by Vatican I.
Thus, the constitution exemplifies the method: affirm structures, then infect them with a new theology. *Simulatio continuitatis ut facilitate ruinae* (a simulation of continuity to facilitate collapse).
4. Silence about the Enemies Within
St Pius X unmasked Modernism as the synthesis of all heresies and insisted that errors especially within the clergy must be hunted down, named, and expelled. The provided Lamentabili text explicitly condemns the historicist, evolutionist mentality that the conciliar sect later enthrones.
This constitution, while of narrow scope, is entirely silent about:
– the growing influence of Modernist clergy;
– the threats of Masonic and liberal forces in Spain and Europe;
– the necessity of guarding the diocesan flock from doctrinal contagion.
This silence is not accidental; it is a sign of a different spirit. Where Pius IX, Leo XIII, St Pius X, and Pius XI used even administrative acts to reaffirm the supernatural mission and to warn against liberalism and secret societies, the conciliar usurper speaks like an ecclesiastical technocrat, rearranging titles while the wolves walk in.
The Absolute Primacy of Christ the King versus Administrative Opportunism
Integral Catholic doctrine, unchangeable and binding, teaches:
– Christ is King of societies as well as individuals; states and dioceses must publicly submit to His law (*Quas Primas*).
– The Church is a perfect society, independent of secular power and ideologies (*Syllabus*, propositions 19–21, 39–42).
– No reconciliation with “progress, liberalism, and modern civilization” understood as emancipation from Christ is possible (*Syllabus*, 80).
Against this:
– The document under John XXIII implicitly aligns with a diplomatic logic tied to modern concordats and political equilibria, without reasserting the non-negotiable rights of Christ the King.
– It reduces the visible exercise of papal power to a technical adaptation “serving the times,” a phrase easily inverted into *servire saeculo*, serving the world, which is precisely what the Church must not do.
A truly Catholic act of diocesan reconfiguration is legitimate only if it is ordered explicitly and effectively to the reign of Christ in doctrine, worship, and moral life. Here, we see only the shell of that intention, empty of concrete supernatural content and issuing from a man whose later program subverts Christ’s kingship by enthroning religious liberty, collegiality, and ecumenism.
Exposure of Spiritual Bankruptcy: The Form without the Faith
Judged by the sole legitimate standard—unchanging Catholic doctrine prior to 1958—this constitution manifests:
– Theological incoherence: it claims the authority of Peter while belonging to the line that betrays the faith of Peter.
– Spiritual sterility: it speaks the language of “salvation of souls” but is entirely naturalistic in effect, touching only external structures without reinforcing supernatural truth, sacramental life, or the social kingship of Christ.
– Instrumental traditionalism: it uses venerable canonical solemnities not to defend the deposit of faith but to normalize a regime that, within a few years, will systematically dismantle the Mass, blur the priesthood, relativize dogma, and fraternize with heresy and unbelief.
– Complicity in the conciliar project: each acceptance of such acts as unquestionably papal becomes one more thread in the web by which the conciliar sect binds consciences to its counterfeit magisterium.
Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief) has its juridical counterpart: *lex regiminis, lex fidei* (the law of governance is the law of faith). When governance is exercised by one who promotes condemned doctrines, his acts—however correct in appearance—are tainted. The external reconfiguration of a diocese cannot be abstracted from the internal apostasy of the authority that commands it.
Therefore, from the perspective of integral Catholic faith, this document is not an innocuous administrative footnote but an early, localized manifestation of the larger usurpation: the conciliar sect occupying the forms, seals, and chancery style of the Roman Pontificate while preparing the devastation of doctrine, liturgy, and the very notion of Christ’s sovereign rights over Church and society.
Source:
Oxomensis (Sorianae) (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025