The presented document, issued by John XXIII on 20 June 1959 under the title Portalegrensis in Brasilia, is an apostolic constitution that administratively detaches a group of municipalities from the archdiocese of Porto Alegre (Brazil) to erect a new diocese named “Sanctae Crucis in Brasilia” (Santa Cruz do Sul), defines its territory and cathedral, subordinates it as suffragan to Porto Alegre, regulates the initial chapter/consultors, seminary obligations, revenues of the episcopal mensa, and prescribes canonical norms for governance, documents, and execution. It is presented as an act of pastoral solicitude flowing from the alleged Petrine authority of John XXIII and presupposes the entire conciliar-ecclesiological project soon to be launched. In reality, this apparently technical act already manifests the usurper’s claim to jurisdiction, embeds itself in the emerging conciliar sect, and prepares an institutional scaffolding for the post-1958 revolution against the Kingship of Christ and the visible continuity of the true Church.
Jurisdiction Without Faith: The Void Authority Behind a Territorial Decree
From the perspective of integral Catholic doctrine, every juridical act of the Church must rest on two inseparable pillars:
1) Valid and legitimate authority in the Apostolic See;
2) Orientation to the supernatural end: the glory of God, the salvation of souls, and the public reign of Christ the King.
This 1959 constitution, signed by John XXIII, must be read not in isolation, but as an early act of the man who, within a few years, convoked and presided over the conciliar catastrophe that enthroned the condemned principles of Liberalism, Religious Liberty, and false Ecumenism in the structures occupying the Vatican. When the person claiming to legislate stands at the head of a doctrinal revolution condemned by previous popes, the apparent normality of administrative decrees becomes a façade masking the deeper juridical and theological nullity.
Lex orandi, lex credendi (“the law of prayer is the law of belief”): if the “lawgiver” is architect of a new religion, his legislation serves that new religion. This document is a clear sample: a formally tidy canonical act, yet interiorly ordered toward the consolidation of the conciliar project, not the preservation of the immutable Catholic order.
Factual Shell, Subverted Substance: A Technical Act in the Service of a New Ecclesiology
On the factual plane, the text:
– Recites the classic pastoral motivation: to foster knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ (Jn 17:3), to organize ecclesiastical structures so that the faithful “may nourish faith and preserve religion.”
– Cites the request of Armand Lombardi (apostolic nuncio) and consultation with Alfredo Vicente Scherer (archbishop of Porto Alegre).
– Erects the diocese of “Sanctae Crucis in Brasilia” from specified municipalities.
– Fixes Santa Cruz do Sul as diocesan seat, raises St John the Baptist church to cathedral rank.
– Subjects the new diocese as suffragan to Porto Alegre.
– Orders erection of a seminary; mentions sending the best candidates to the Pontifical Pio-Brazilian College in Rome.
– Regulates revenues of the episcopal mensa and standard canonical norms.
– Delegates execution to Lombardi; threatens canonical penalties for non-observance.
At first glance, nothing appears heretical: it is a typical pre-conciliar form. However, Catholic evaluation cannot be reduced to superficial formalism while ignoring the context of authority and intention.
The decisive question is: does a man who inaugurates and embodies a program condemned in substance by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII possess the authority he claims when he restructures dioceses and appoints “bishops” in view of that program?
The authentic Magisterium teaches:
– A manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church nor hold jurisdiction in it, because he is not a member of the Church. This principle is unambiguously articulated by St Robert Bellarmine and classical theologians and codified in the 1917 Code (can. 188 §4).
– The Syllabus of Errors (Pius IX) and the anti-modernist interventions culminating in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi (St Pius X) condemn precisely the modernist evolutionary, historicist, and liberal tendencies that later triumphed in the “conciliar” revolution of John XXIII and his successors.
Thus, when John XXIII—architect of the “aggiornamento” that opened the door to religious liberty, collegiality, and ecumenism—claims in this constitution:
“Nobis, quibus divinitus tamquam Petro iniunctum est ut fidelium gregem ducamus…” (“To Us, to whom, as to Peter, it has been divinely entrusted to lead the flock of the faithful…”)
this is not a harmless pious phrase. It is a juridical assertion of Petrine authority by one who, by doctrine and deeds, stands on collision course with the prior Magisterium. If he lacks the office, the act is, in strict canonical-theological logic, devoid of binding force, regardless of its internal elegance.
Bureaucratic Piety and the Silence on Supernatural Combat
The rhetoric imitates the supernatural tone of genuine papal documents yet betrays itself by its narrow horizon:
– The only supernatural note is a brief citation of Jn 17:3.
– There is no mention of:
– the absolute necessity of the true Faith for salvation;
– the danger of heresy and modernist infiltration;
– the reign of Christ the King over society, as Pius XI thunders in Quas Primas that peace and order are impossible until nations publicly recognize Christ’s Kingship;
– the threats of Freemasonry and liberalism, so forcefully unmasked by Pius IX in the Syllabus and subsequent condemnations;
– the need for rigorous doctrinal formation against contemporary errors.
Instead, we find sterile canonical logistics: boundaries, consultors, mensa, archives. A diocese is erected ostensibly for the care of souls, but no warning is raised against the greatest plague of that epoch: the systemic penetration of Modernism in seminaries, universities, and episcopates, which St Pius X had justly called “the synthesis of all heresies”.
Silence here is not neutral; it is symptomatic. In an age when impiety, laicism, naturalism, and paramasonic forces progressively subjugated civil governments and corrupted clergy, a genuine successor of Pius IX and St Pius X would situate every structural reform within an explicit crusade against these errors. Instead:
– The constitution assumes an intact Catholic order, as if the “modern world” problem had been resolved.
– The selection of seminary and Pio-Brazilian College is presented as sufficient guarantee, yet those very Roman institutions soon became vectors of conciliar ideology.
This disjunction between pious formula and practical blindness reveals a naturalistic, administrative mentality: as if the Church could be protected and expanded through geography and bureaucracy alone, detached from clear dogmatic militancy. That mentality is precisely what Pius XI opposes when he insists that peace and order depend on the public acceptance of Christ’s Kingship, not on technique or diplomacy.
Theological Incoherence: Claiming Infallible Jurisdiction While Dismantling Prior Condemnations
Apostolic constitutions involve the supreme lawgiver’s authority. Here John XXIII:
– Exercises what is presented as universal ordinary jurisdiction;
– Issues a perpetual decree (“ad perpetuam rei memoriam”);
– Declares acts contrary to this document “prorsus irritum atque inane” (utterly null and void);
– Threatens canonical penalties against those disregarding “Summorum Pontificum iussa”.
Yet this same John XXIII:
– Prepares a council which would:
– refuse to condemn Communism explicitly;
– enthrone religious liberty in direct opposition to the constant teaching reaffirmed by Pius IX (Syllabus, propositions 15, 77-80 condemned);
– develop ecclesiology and liturgy along historicist and anthropocentric lines already anathematized as modernist tendencies.
– Promotes a policy of “dialogue” and “opening to the world” that stands in stark contrast with the intransigent defense of doctrine demanded by St Pius X in Pascendi and by Pius XI in Quas Primas and Mortalium Animos.
Here arises a blatant contradiction:
– On one side, a legal voice demanding strict obedience and invoking penalties for disobedience.
– On the other, the same voice preparing to neutralize past condemnations and to embrace those very errors once proscribed.
Lex contradicens lex: non est lex. A lawgiver who uses authority to erode the foundations of that authority reveals that his acts cannot be read in continuity with the pre-1958 Magisterium. In such a context, a new diocese is not neutral; it becomes an organ integrated into the emerging conciliar structure—a node of transmission for a new religion under Catholic labels.
Thus, the constitution’s solemn threats:
“Quae Nostra decreta in universum si quis vel spreverit… sciat se poenas esse subiturum…”
must themselves be inverted against their author’s project. The authentic prior Magisterium already decreed penalties against those promoting modernist novelties; no subsequent usurper can weaponize pre-conciliar canonical language to force obedience to a conciliarized hierarchy.
Linguistic Mask: Traditional Formulas as Camouflage for a New Order
The language is classical Latin, with familiar solemn legal structure:
– Invocation of Christ’s words (Jn 17:3);
– Reference to Petrine mandate;
– Mention of consultation with cardinals and local ordinary;
– Precise territorial definitions;
– Clauses of derogation and nullity;
– Emphasis on the perpetuity and inviolability of the act.
However, from a critical doctrinal standpoint, this formal continuity serves as camouflage:
1. Appropriation of the Petrine Voice:
The constant “Nos,” speaking as if in full continuity with Pius IX and St Pius X, is used by one whose later program breaks that continuity in essence. This is a linguistic usurpation: a revolution expressed in a classic idiom.
2. Technocratic Tone:
The rhetoric is bureaucratic, focusing on:
– administrative clarity,
– procedural correctness,
– canonical precision.
This technocratic tone, devoid of doctrinal urgency, mirrors the mentality condemned in Lamentabili: treating the Church as a sociological institution subject to historical evolution rather than as a divine, immutable society governed by revealed truth.
3. Absence of Militant Catholic Vocabulary:
Missing are the key accents of the earlier Magisterium:
– no denunciation of liberalism, socialism, Freemasonry (explicity exposed in the Syllabus);
– no reference to the duty of states to recognize the Catholic religion exclusively;
– no insistence on the intolerance of error as a principle of public order;
– no warnings about doctrinal vigilance in formation, precisely where modernism was incubating.
This silence, combined with a tidy administrative lexicon, is a symptom: the Church is linguistically presented as peacefully adapting structures, while in reality her visible institutions are being prepared for a paradigm shift.
Seminary and Formation: Manufacturing the Clergy of the Conciliar Sect
A striking passage orders the new “bishop”:
“Seminarii saltem elementarii quam primum aedificandi… ex quibus qui optimi fuerint Romam mittantur ut in Pontificio Collegio Piano Brasiliano, philosophiae et sacrae theologiae operam dent.”
On its face, this appears laudable: local seminary, best candidates sent to Rome. But:
– The decisive question is: what doctrine will be taught?
– Only a few years later, Roman and local seminaries will be permeated by:
– historical-critical exegesis undermining the inerrancy of Scripture, explicitly condemned in Lamentabili;
– “living tradition” and evolution of dogma, also condemned;
– ecumenical relativization of the dogma “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”;
– liturgical reform dismantling the sacrificial and propitiatory character of the Most Holy Sacrifice, in direct contradiction to Trent.
Hence, this constitution does not just allocate territory; it forges the pipeline through which young men of the region will be inducted into what becomes the conciliar pseudo-clergy. The text does not warn them against modernism; it sends them into its very laboratories.
A diocese erected under such auspices becomes a factory for post-conciliar functionaries, not a bastion of integral Catholic faith.
Subordination to a Compromised Metropolis: The Suffragan Network of Apostasy
The new diocese is made suffragan to Porto Alegre:
“Statuimus insuper ut condita dioecesis… metropoli Portalegrensi… subiciantur.”
Again, structurally normal. But:
– When a metropolitan see itself soon aligns with conciliar novelties,
– When its occupant participates in or accepts the doctrinal and liturgical revolution,
– Every suffragan see becomes structurally integrated into that same deviation.
Pre-1958 ecclesiology insists that hierarchy and jurisdiction are instruments for guarding and transmitting immutable doctrine. When doctrine is subverted, the same structures become channels of corruption. The text’s proud insistence on obedience to “Summorum Pontificum iussa” is thereby turned on its head: the metropolitan and suffragan network now enforces acceptance of the neo-church’s decrees against those clinging to Tradition.
This reveals the deeper problem:
– Potestas iurisdictionis (power of jurisdiction) is not a neutral technicality; its legitimacy depends on Catholic Faith.
– When structures are commandeered by an anti-traditional program, the appearance of continuity hides a substantial rupture.
Contradiction with the Kingship of Christ and the Condemnation of Liberalism
Pius XI, in Quas Primas, teaches unequivocally:
– Peace and social order are possible only when individuals and states publicly recognize Christ’s social Kingship.
– Secularist laicism and neutral public order are condemned as rebellion against Christ.
– The Church must demand public acknowledgment of the true religion.
In the constitution Portalegrensis in Brasilia, there is:
– no reminder that the new diocese must strive for the public recognition of the Catholic Faith in civil law;
– no indication that the state’s duties toward the Church, condemned errors of “separation” and religious indifferentism (cf. Syllabus, 55, 77-80), remain binding.
Instead, civil territorial divisions are simply received as a neutral framework:
“ut ad praesens per civilem legem finiuntur.”
This positivist acceptance of civil demarcation without asserting the rights of Christ the King and His Church reflects the creeping liberal mentality: the Church adapts to civil arrangements instead of claiming her superior divine rights. While a purely technical boundary reference is not in itself an error, its isolation from any reaffirmation of Christ’s rights is, in context, symptomatic of capitulation.
Abuse of Perpetuity Clauses in Service of a Passing Revolution
The constitution insists that its provisions be “nunc et in posterum efficaces” (effective now and in the future), and that no contrary prescriptions hinder its effect, with all contrary acts declared null.
Here we see a tragic irony:
– A man on the threshold of a doctrinally subversive council claims perpetuity and absoluteness for an act embedded in his supposed pontificate.
– The conciliar sect later appeals to such acts to assert formal continuity: “Look, dioceses were erected in Latin with traditional forms; therefore our line and reforms are Catholic.”
But integral doctrine clarifies:
– Perpetuity clauses presume a legitimate pontificate and communion with all prior defined teaching.
– Once the claimant’s doctrinal program proves incompatible with that teaching, the appeal to perpetuity becomes self-discrediting.
Quod est contra ius divinum, ipso iure nullum est (what is against divine law is null by the law itself). If the “pontiff” instrumentalizes papal authority to erode the very doctrinal foundations guarded by his predecessors, his legislative acts cannot be read as secure expressions of the same authority.
Conclusion: Administrative Normality as the Veil of Ecclesial Subversion
Taken in isolation, Portalegrensis in Brasilia might appear as a minor, orthodox territorial reorganization. Evaluated, however, from the uncompromising standard of pre-1958 Catholic doctrine:
– It presupposes the legitimacy of John XXIII’s claim to the papacy while his subsequent actions and program align with previously condemned principles.
– It extends and consolidates a hierarchical network that will, within a few years, serve as the infrastructure of the conciliar sect.
– It cloaks revolutionary authority in the dignified language of tradition, using canonical severity (nullity clauses, penalties) to demand obedience, while omitting any militant stand against modernist and liberal errors.
– It promotes seminary structures and Roman formation that history shows would become hotbeds of doctrinal corruption.
Thus the document, though externally orthodox in phraseology, belongs integrally to the architecture of that paramasonic, liberal-ecumenical neo-church which betrays the Kingship of Christ, dilutes dogma, and subverts the very principle of immutable Tradition.
The true Catholic response is not naive submission to such administrative acts as if they were guaranteed by divine authority, but rigorous discernment according to the perennial Magisterium: the Faith, the sacraments, and jurisdiction exist only where the integral Catholic doctrine is professed and defended without compromise. Structures erected to house another gospel—however Latin their decrees—cannot bind conscience against the unchanging teaching of the Church of all ages.
Source:
S. Crucis in Brasilia, Constitutio Apostolica detractis quibusdam territoriis ab Archidioecesi Portalegrensi in Brasilia, nova dioecesis constituitur, « S. Crucis In Brasilia » Cognominanda, die 20 m…. (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025