The constitution Portus Moresby, issued by the usurper John XXIII in 1959, is a juridical act that reorganizes territories in Papua by carving out from the then Apostolic Vicariate of Port Moresby a new Apostolic Vicariate (“Insulae Yule”) and a new Apostolic Prefecture (“Daruensis”), redefining boundaries between Port Moresby and Samarai, and entrusting the new circumscriptions to specific missionary congregations, while clothing the whole in traditional curial legal form and threats of canonical penalties for non-compliance.
Behind this apparently administrative text stands the emerging program of the conciliar sect: replacing the Kingship of Christ and the organic, supernatural order of the Church with a paramasonic, colonial managerial network preparing the way for the post-1958 revolution.
Territorial Engineering in the Shadow of Imposture
John XXIII (Angelo Roncalli), whose election post-1958 we must consider in light of the unbroken preconciliar principles on heresy and office—*a manifest heretic cannot be pope; a non-Catholic cannot be head of the Church* (Bellarmine, Wernz-Vidal, John of St. Thomas)—signs here as “Servus servorum Dei” while inaugurating, in practice and by subsequent acts, the demolition of that very order he pretends to serve.
This constitution:
– Asserts pastoral solicitude for “the faithful, especially those far away,” while remaining absolutely silent on:
– the necessity of the *integral* Catholic faith;
– the exclusive truth of the Church against sects and paganism;
– the Kingship of Christ over nations (solemnly taught by Pius XI in *Quas Primas*);
– the danger of liberalism, naturalism, and secret societies condemned in the *Syllabus of Errors*.
– Reorganizes missionary jurisdictions as if they were administrative districts of a neutral NGO.
– Entrusts the territories to religious institutes (Montfort Missionaries, Missionaries of the Sacred Heart) without any doctrinal warning against modernist infiltration and adaptation.
The whole operation is a prelude to the conciliar revolution: a seemingly harmless map adjustment masking a shift from a militant, supernatural mission to a diplomatic, humanistic management of “territories” and “populations.”
From Supernatural Mission to Colonial Administration of Souls
On the factual level, the text:
– Divides the Apostolic Vicariate of Port Moresby into:
– Apostolic Vicariate “Insulae Yule” (with specified sub-districts).
– Apostolic Prefecture “Daruensis” (with political borders).
– Adjusts boundaries between Port Moresby and Samarai based on civil districts.
– Grants to the new Vicariate and Prefecture “those rights, privileges, honors” pertaining to their rank, and imposes “burdens proper to their office.”
– Delegates execution to Romolo Carboni, Apostolic Delegate, with the usual legal formulas: derogation clauses, nullity of contrary acts, authentication of copies, threat of penalties for disobedience.
At first glance, such acts resemble legitimate pre-1958 missionary policy. But judged by the unchanging doctrine, several points reveal the deeper pathology of the conciliar sect:
1. Absence of any explicit reaffirmation that:
– Conversion means entry into the one true Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
– Paganism, syncretism, Protestantism, and sects are intrinsically false and damnable.
– The Church holds, by divine right, authority independent of civil power (condemning the liberal thesis in the *Syllabus* 19, 55).
2. The vocabulary and structure treat:
– The Church’s expansion primarily as technical jurisdictional management, not as the triumphant advance of the *Regnum Christi* subjugating error.
– The civil districts as the primary reference framework, subtly subordinating ecclesiastical vision to secular cartography.
3. The entire approach omits:
– The language of combat against Freemasonry and the “synagogue of Satan” denounced by Pius IX.
– Any identification of modernist poison condemned by St. Pius X in *Lamentabili sane exitu* and *Pascendi*.
The omission is not innocent. When an alleged supreme legislator, writing in 1959, ignores the modernist crisis so incisively exposed by St. Pius X and the Masonic assault highlighted by Pius IX, while advancing serene bureaucratic territorial reforms, he manifests that naturalistic blindness which is already a betrayal of the Faith.
Linguistic Cloak: Pious Phrases Hiding a Programmed Mutation
The language imitates authentic papal style: references to pastoral solicitude, the salvation of souls, the use of solemn threats against disobedience. Yet beneath the surface, several linguistic features signal the sickness of the conciliar mentality in embryo.
1. Sentimental universalism:
– The preamble stresses a generalized desire to “serve the needs of the faithful, especially those far away,” but never:
– Speaks of uprooting idolatry.
– Demands public rejection of false cults.
– Proclaims the duty of civil authorities to recognize the true Church and Christ the King.
In light of *Quas Primas*, this silence is striking. Pius XI bluntly teaches that societies must publicly recognize Christ and that the calamities of the world arise from “removing Jesus Christ and His most holy law from public life.” The Portus Moresby text does not echo, but effectively neutralizes this teaching through quiet omission.
2. Technocratic-legal tone:
– Borders, districts, sub-districts, delegated authority; it reads like a colonial administrative order.
– The vocabulary, though cloaked in ecclesiastical Latin, is functionally that of a civil service. The supernatural is presumed rather than confessed.
This reflects the very error condemned by St. Pius X: treating the Church as a historical-social product subject to managerial evolution (*Lamentabili* 52–55). The Church here acts like an NGO aligning to civil units, not like the sovereign, supernatural *societas perfecta*.
3. Empty threats:
– The document ends with a severe formula: whoever despises or opposes these decrees will incur “the penalties established by law against those who do not carry out the orders of the Supreme Pontiffs.”
– Yet the entire conciliar-sect project is one systematic despising of the pre-1958 popes’ orders: against modernism, liberalism, false ecumenism, religious freedom.
Thus the rhetoric of obedience is perversely inverted: penalties are invoked to enforce structures that will later serve precisely to propagate what Pius IX and Pius X anathematized. *Abusus iuris est defectus iustitiae* (abuse of law is the failure of justice).
Theological Hollowing: Jurisdictions Without the Kingship of Christ
Measured against the integral Catholic doctrine, the theological content—and more critically, the omissions—are gravely symptomatic.
1. No assertion of the exclusive truth of the Catholic Church:
The *Syllabus* (21) condemns the proposition that the Church lacks power to define that the Catholic religion is the only true one. Missionary constitutions, especially in pagan territories, historically manifested that exclusivity. Here, silence reigns. This is consistent with the conciliar sect’s future embrace of “religious liberty” and “dialogue.”
2. No reference to the public Kingship of Christ over nations:
Pius XI in *Quas Primas* explicitly demands:
– Public recognition of Christ by rulers.
– Structural ordering of laws and education to the divine law.
– Condemnation of laicism as a “plague.”
The Portus Moresby constitution, governing a region under rapidly changing colonial and post-colonial regimes, does not:
– Demand Catholic civil order.
– Call civil authorities to submit to Christ the King.
– Warn against secularization.
Instead, ecclesiastical lines are drawn docilely along secular districts, symbolically accepting the liberal fragmentation condemned in the preconciliar magisterium. *Silence here is doctrinal complicity.*
3. No denunciation of modernism or Masonic influence:
By 1959:
– The errors condemned by St. Pius X (*Lamentabili*, *Pascendi*) had not disappeared; they had penetrated seminaries and missionary institutes.
– Pius IX had unmasked Masonic sects as the driving force behind attacks on the Church.
This constitution:
– Entrusts territories to religious congregations without a word about safeguarding doctrine against modernism.
– Ignores the problem of secret societies and liberal powers shaping decolonization and policy in Oceania.
Such omissions, in an official act of global missionary structuring, are not neutral. They attest to an orientation that has accepted coexistence with condemned errors, preparing the “neo-church” that will later speak of “reading the signs of the times” instead of condemning them.
4. Canonical formalism detached from sacramental and doctrinal reality:
Pre-1958, jurisdictional texts presupposed:
– Valid, Catholic hierarchy.
– Catholic doctrine integrally professed.
– Sacraments validly conferred according to traditional rites.
But once the line of usurpers begins (John XXIII onward), their juridical acts lack the metaphysical basis of authority. According to the principles reiterated in the Defense of Sedevacantism file:
– *A manifest heretic loses the pontificate ipso facto.*
– *Canon 188.4 of 1917 CIC* affirms tacit resignation by public defection from the faith.
– A non-Catholic cannot be head of the Church.
Consequently:
– These territorial rearrangements, though formally styled as papal, proceed from a structure already turning away from the integral Faith.
– The acts are thus, at best, doubtful; at worst, usurpations preparing the administrative chassis of the conciliar sect that would install the *abominatio desolationis* in place of the Most Holy Sacrifice.
Symptom of the Conciliar Revolution: Preparation of a Neo-Church Infrastructure
This constitution is a snapshot of the transition from the true pre-1958 Church to the “Church of the New Advent”:
1. Geographic expansion without doctrinal intensification:
Authentic Catholic action:
– Extends ecclesiastical territories to impose the *lex Christi* more perfectly;
– Connects new jurisdictions with clearer preaching against heresy, paganism, liberalism.
Here, jurisdictional multiplication occurs without:
– Sharpening the denunciation of error;
– Deepening Eucharistic, sacramental, or Marian doctrine;
– Reaffirming anti-modernist oaths or the rejection of condemned novelties.
This is pure structuralism: building a network in which later the new liturgy, false ecumenism, and the cult of man can be diffused more efficiently.
2. Submission to civil-democratic categories:
Defining ecclesiastical territories according to civil districts, while sometimes practically tolerable, becomes in the conciliar context:
– An outward sign of inward capitulation to the liberal separation condemned in proposition 55 of the *Syllabus* (“The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church”).
The Portus Moresby text breathes precisely this separation: the Church moves on her map; Christ does not claim the public law of the territory.
3. Instrumentalization of religious institutes:
By assigning the new jurisdictions to specific congregations, the constitution:
– Entrusts the front lines of mission to communities that, in the following years, will often be vehicles of aggiornamento, inculturation, and dilution of doctrine.
– Fails to bind them explicitly to the anti-modernist magisterium of St. Pius X.
*Praeparatio concilii* (preparation of the council): the same institutes coordinated by the same paramasonic structures will later propagate the new rites and teachings. The legal act here is the skeleton of an antichurch.
Silence as Condemnation: What is Not Said Damns What Is Done
The gravest accusation against this constitution is not what it states, but what it obstinately leaves unsaid.
1. No mention of:
– State of grace.
– Necessity of the Most Holy Sacrifice for salvation.
– Eternal damnation for perseverance in idolatry or heresy.
– Obligation to reject false cults.
When a supposed supreme legislator reorganizes missionary lands and never once names the Four Last Things, never calls pagans to abandon their idols, never proclaims one true Church, he behaves not as successor of the anti-modernist popes, but as a functionary of a religious agency.
2. No condemnation of errors raging at that time:
– No renewal of the anathemas against “evolution of dogma” (*Lamentabili* 58, 64–65).
– No warning against religious indifferentism and liberal freedoms condemned in *Quanta Cura* and the *Syllabus* (15–18, 77–80).
The text is chronologically after all these condemnations, yet conceptually before them—as if the magisterial war against liberalism and modernism had never occurred. This is the hallmark of the conciliar mentality: *damnatio memoriae* of the anti-liberal, anti-modernist magisterium.
3. Threat of canonical penalties against those resisting an illegitimate orientation:
The irony is stark:
– The constitution threatens penalties for those who “despise or in any way reject” its decrees.
– Yet the conciliar usurpers themselves despise and reject the solemn condemnations and doctrinal decisions of true popes—precisely the acts that bind in conscience.
Thus, the document’s final lines expose its inner contradiction: an authority that nullifies its own foundation while demanding submission. *Lex iniusta non est lex* (an unjust law is not law); *potestas separata a veritate est violentia* (power separated from truth is mere violence).
Conclusion: A Harmless Shell Concealing Ecclesial Subversion
Viewed in isolation, Portus Moresby appears to be a minor, “neutral” administrative act. Viewed through the lens of unchanging Catholic doctrine before 1958, it is:
– An expression of an authority already deviating from its mandate by silence on condemned errors.
– A juridical contribution to the infrastructure that the conciliar sect will soon use to spread:
– the desacralized rites,
– the cult of man,
– false ecumenism,
– religious indifferentism,
– and the denial in practice of Christ’s social Kingship.
By omitting explicit affirmation of the unique salvific necessity of the Catholic Church, by conforming ecclesiastical structures to secular schemes without demanding submission of those schemes to Christ the King, and by ignoring the ongoing modernist and Masonic assault unmasked by Pius IX and St. Pius X, this constitution stands as a small but telling piece of the larger betrayal.
The integral Catholic response is not to admire the administrative precision of such texts, but to:
– Reassert the perennial doctrine:
– *Unus Dominus, una fides, unum baptisma* (one Lord, one faith, one baptism).
– Outside the Catholic Church, no salvation.
– Christ must reign socially and politically, not merely in private consciences.
– Reject the authority claims of those who, beginning with John XXIII, systematically undermined what their predecessors solemnly taught.
– Cling to the unaltered doctrine, sacraments, and hierarchy of the pre-1958 Church, outside of which the neo-church’s “jurisdictions” are little more than paramasonic grids laid over the ruins they themselves engineered.
Source:
Portus Moresby (Insulae Yule et Daruensis) (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025