We are dealing here with the Latin text of the so‑called Apostolic Constitution “Qui cotidie” of John XXIII, by which he reorganizes ecclesiastical circumscriptions in Japan, detaching Nagasaki, Fukuoka, and Kagoshima from Tokyo and erecting Nagasaki as a metropolitan see with its suffragans. The document is couched in the language of pastoral solicitude, mission expansion, canonical precision, and juridical solemnity, seeking to present the administrative restructuring as an act of care for the growth of the Church in Japan.
Administrative Cosmetic Surgery in the Shadow of Imposture
From the outset this text belongs entirely to the pseudo-magisterial production of John XXIII, the first usurper of the Roman See and inaugurator of the conciliar revolution. We are not dealing with the living voice of the perennial Magisterium, but with the bureaucratic decrees of a man whose subsequent acts, especially the convocation of the Second Vatican Council, publicly enthroned the very errors solemnly condemned by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII.
The fundamental thesis must therefore be stated at once:
This constitution, while outwardly “traditional” in form and content, functions as an early juridical mask of the coming apostasy: it extends and consolidates an already compromised hierarchy, mutilated by false ecumenism and diplomatic subservience, and thus helps prepare the paramasonic conciliar structure that will soon repudiate the Kingship of Christ and the integral Catholic faith.
Factual Level: What the Text Actually Does – And Conceals
1. The explicit acts:
– The text:
“Dioeceses Nagasakiensem, Fukuokaënsem atque Kagoshimaensem a iurisdictione metropolitanae archidioecesis Tokiensis eximimus ex iisque novam provinciam ecclesiasticam condimus, Nagasakiensem cognominandam…”
i.e., Nagasaki, Fukuoka, and Kagoshima are removed from the metropolitan jurisdiction of Tokyo to form a new ecclesiastical province with Nagasaki as metropolitan see.
– Nagasaki is elevated:
“quam ad gradum archidioecesis metropolitanae evehimus…”
and Paul Aijiro Yamaguchi, up to then bishop of Nagasaki, is created the first metropolitan archbishop.
– The usual metropolitan rights are granted (use of the pallium, ceremonial cross, etc.) and formal provisions are made for execution and registration through the then Apostolic Internuncio and the Congregation of Propaganda Fide.
– The juridical style heavily insists on:
– perpetuity (“ad perpetuam rei memoriam”),
– efficacy “now and in the future”,
– nullity of all contrary provisions,
– penalties for those who would resist provisions issued as if by a true Roman Pontiff.
2. What is factually omitted:
– No doctrinal exposition of the Catholic faith.
– No explicit confession of the social and royal rights of Christ over Japan as state and society.
– No insistence that the hierarchy’s first task in a non-Catholic land is the public proclamation of the necessity of the one true Church for salvation and the rejection of false religions (cf. the dogmatic teaching of the Council of Florence; Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors 15–18, 21).
– No reference to the grave errors and persecutions of modern secular states or to Freemasonry and its sects, repeatedly unmasked as enemies of the Church by Pius IX and Leo XIII.
– No reminder that the Church has the divine right and duty to direct nations to submit to the law of Christ the King (Pius XI, *Quas Primas*).
These omissions are not neutral. Against the background of pre‑1958 papal teaching and the virulent pagan, masonic, and secular powers in modern Japan and worldwide, such silence already indicates a shift: ecclesiastical expansion is treated as institutional growth, not as the militant extension of the Kingdom of Christ against false cults and anti-Christian powers.
Linguistic Level: Traditional Cadence as a Cloak for a New Ecclesiology
The document imitates impeccably the juridical rhetoric of authentic papal constitutions:
– invocations of sorrow for persecution,
– joy for growth of the Church,
– references to the flock entrusted,
– meticulous canonical formulas,
– threats of penalties for non-compliance,
– solemn prohibitions against tampering with the text.
Examples:
“Qui cotidie moerore afficimur eo quod Ecclesia sancta nonnullis in nationibus ab hostibus christianae religionis vexatur, magnae tamen Nobis est laetitiae prospera eiusdem apud alias condicio…”
Superficially, this sounds like continuity: sorrow for persecution, joy for missionary success. Yet a close reading shows a very carefully “balanced,” almost diplomatic phrasing:
– “nonnullis in nationibus ab hostibus christianae religionis vexatur” – vague “enemies of the Christian religion,” with no doctrinal identification of the errors (naturalism, liberalism, socialism, communism, modernism, Freemasonry) so explicitly denounced by previous Popes.
– “prospera … condicio” and “ingentibus aucta incrementis” – quantitative, naturalistic growth vocabulary, as if ecclesiastical geography and numbers were the central evidence of fidelity and success.
The tone is curial and administrative, not apostolic and dogmatic. The language conceals more than it reveals:
– It never confesses with clarity that all non-Catholic religions in Japan are false and lead to perdition unless the adherent converts.
– It never states that the end of mission is the public, social subjection of nations to Christ: *Oportet illum regnare* (“He must reign”) – over laws, schools, governments.
This stylistic choice is emblematic of the emerging conciliar mentality: smooth Latinity, canonical precision, and diplomatic vagueness masking the retreat from militant doctrinal clarity. It is the embryo of that *hermeneutica nebulosa* — a foggy hermeneutics that will soon be baptized as “aggiornamento” and “pastoral language.”
Theological Level: Juridical Acts of a Man Publicly Preparing Revolt
Measured against the integral Catholic doctrine as taught consistently before 1958, this constitution reveals several deep problems.
1. Authority and the manifest modernist trajectory
Catholic theology (cf. St. Robert Bellarmine, *De Romano Pontifice*; the teaching summarized in the provided Defense of Sedevacantism) holds:
– “Non christianus nullo modo potest esse Papa; manifestus haereticus non est christianus.” (A non-Christian in no way can be Pope; a manifest heretic is not a Christian.)
– A manifest heretic placed in the See of Peter is not a true Pope; his acts lack the guarantee of Christ’s promise.
John XXIII:
– Soon after such apparently harmless documents, convoked the council that unleashed:
– religious liberty condemned in the Syllabus (55, 77–80),
– false ecumenism and the recognition of sects and false religions as “means of salvation,”
– the denial in practice of the social Kingship of Christ denounced in *Quas Primas*.
Thus, even if this 1959 text in isolation seems doctrinally “neutral,” it proceeds from, and serves, a subject whose subsequent public program contradicts defined doctrine. Ex fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos (“By their fruits you shall know them”). The very same figure who here solemnly reorganizes dioceses will a few years later become the architect of the revolution against the Catholic state, against intolerance of error, and against the integral faith.
Therefore:
– Either one pretends that a legitimate Vicar of Christ can formally launch a global aggiornamento which in practice enthrones errors condemned as “heretical,” “insane,” and “pernicious” by his predecessors;
– Or one concludes, following the perennial theological principle, that such a man cannot be received as a true Supreme Pontiff.
On an integral Catholic reading, the latter follows: the authority claimed in this constitution is vitiated at the root. The bureaucracy stands; the apostolicity is absent.
2. Naturalistic and geopolitical ecclesiology
The constitution:
– Praises the “progress” and “amplification” of ecclesiastical structures as a sign of divine favor:
“…quippe quae, divino numine afflante, et progrediatur, et amplificetur, et ingentibus aucta incrementis, populis fiat causa salutis.”
– But is silent on:
– the necessity of adherence to defined dogma,
– the condemnation of religious indifferentism (Syllabus 15–18),
– the exclusive salvific role of the Catholic Church as a visible, doctrinally precise society.
The equation is subtle but deadly: more dioceses = sign of grace; administrative restructuring = pastoral fruitfulness. This is ecclesiological positivism. The Church is treated as a network of structures whose vitality is measured in geographical and canonical terms rather than:
– adherence to *integrum depositum fidei* (the entire deposit of faith),
– preservation of the true Most Holy Sacrifice and valid sacraments,
– open condemnation of public error.
Pius XI in *Quas Primas* made clear that:
– Peace is only possible in the Kingdom of Christ;
– States and societies must publicly recognize and submit to Christ the King;
– The plague of laicism and religious equality is to be fought, not accommodated.
Here, in a missionary context of a nation dominated by false religions and secular power, the constitution installs higher ecclesiastical prestige without even a vestigial call for Japan to repent and bow to Christ’s law. This silence is not an oversight; it is proto-conciliar diplomacy preparing for the later cult of “dialogue” and “religious freedom.”
3. The abuse of spiritual threats to enforce a compromised order
The text ends with juridical menace:
“Quae Nostra decreta in universum si quis vel spreverit vel quoquo modo detrectaverit, sciat se poenas esse subiturum iis iure statutas, qui Summorum Pontificum iussa non fecerint.”
“He should know he will incur the penalties established for those who do not obey the orders of the Supreme Pontiffs.”
But:
– Here “Supreme Pontiff” is a man who will publicly bless a council demolishing the Syllabus, ignoring *Quas Primas*, and opening doors to the “rights” of error.
– The threat weaponizes the traditional language of obedience to bind consciences to a structure that is already moving toward doctrinal self-destruction.
From the perspective of the unchanging doctrine:
– Lex iniusta non est lex (an unjust law is no law).
– Authority exists to guard the deposit of faith. When used to prepare its dissolution, it loses its moral claim.
Thus the constitution’s solemn penalties become a tragic parody: a usurper invoking the spectre of papal censures to ensure compliance with his ecclesiastical engineering, which will soon feed the conciliar sect that betrays the Kingship of Christ in public life.
Symptomatic Level: How a “Harmless” Decree Prepares the Conciliar Revolution
This constitution must be read as symptom and instrument of a deeper process.
1. Institutional continuity as camouflage
The 1959 date is crucial:
– Still under the halo of Pius XII’s memory.
– Before the explosion of Vatican II.
– The text imitates the style of authentic papal governance: Propaganda Fide, Latin, canonical formulas, pallium, threats to dissenters.
By maintaining external continuity:
– The usurper consolidates global acceptance of his person and acts.
– New episcopal careers and metropolitan sees are created in absolute personal dependence on this authority.
– A full generation of hierarchy in Japan (and elsewhere via similar acts) will derive their legitimacy, promotions, and canonical identity from John XXIII and then from his conciliar successors.
Once that network is firmly constituted:
– The same bishops, molded in the new obedience, will “receive” the decrees of Vatican II, implement the pseudo-liturgy, propagate false ecumenism and religious liberty, and silence any resistance.
– The faithful will be disarmed: they will see the same names, same dioceses, same legal titles, and thus presume the same Church, even as doctrine, worship, and morals are inverted.
This constitution is therefore not neutral: it is a brick in the wall of the coming neo-church.
2. The shift from supernatural militancy to diplomatic coexistence
The document mouths sorrow for persecution “in some nations,” yet never:
– names atheistic communism,
– names Freemasonry and liberal secularism,
– recalls the Syllabus’ condemnation of the separation of Church and State (55),
– affirms the Church’s innate rights above the state (19, 39–42).
Instead, it:
– celebrates that “prosperity” is found “in other places,” with missionary growth treated in natural terms, as if the mere erection of provinces were itself victory.
Contrasting with:
– Pius XI, *Quas Primas*: demands that rulers publicly honor Christ and that laws be conformed to His commandments; he stigmatizes laicism as “plague” and directly links public apostasy to social ruin.
– Pius IX, Syllabus: condemns the notion that “the State ought to be separated from the Church” and that all religions should enjoy equal rights.
Where earlier Popes thrust the sword of doctrine into the heart of liberalism and indifferentism, this text slides into the language of discreet geography and administrative optimism. This is exactly the mentality that will culminate in the conciliar sect’s exaltation of “religious freedom” and “dialogue” as supreme values, against *the explicit pre-conciliar Magisterium*.
3. The capture of missionary territories for the neo-church
By 1959:
– Japan is a spiritually devastated, religiously confused land: Shintoist nationalism, Buddhist sects, secularization, and strong masonic-liberal influence from the post-war order.
– Authentic Catholic mission would require:
– fearless preaching of one true faith,
– denunciation of idols and false cults,
– insistence on the social reign of Christ,
– condemnation of secret societies attacking the Church, as Pius IX warned against the “synagogue of Satan” rallying around masonic sects.
Instead:
– The constitution calmly organizes an ecclesiastical province without a single admonition to nation or rulers.
– The very structure thus erected is perfectly suited to integrate into the coming conciliar program of interreligious “dialogue,” pacifist rhetoric, and saccharine humanitarianism.
In other words:
– The Japanese hierarchy structured here becomes the local transmission belt of post-1958 apostasy: same territorial lines, new doctrine, same canonical labels, new religion.
The Silence That Screams: What Is Not Said as the Gravest Indictment
The gravest accusation against this document is not some explicit, crude heresy. It is the chilling absence of everything the true pre-1958 Magisterium insisted upon in analogous contexts.
According to the given framework and the authentic tradition:
– Silence about the sacraments as propitiatory, about the state of grace, about the last things (death, judgment, hell, heaven), about the absolute necessity of supernatural faith and baptism, is itself a sign of a naturalistic and humanistic deviation.
In this constitution:
– No mention of the Most Holy Sacrifice as the heart of missionary life.
– No warning against the errors devouring the modern world.
– No call for public penance, no invocation of the imminent judgment of Christ the King.
– No assertion of the duty of Japanese society to abandon idols and submit to the only true God and His Church.
The Church of all ages spoke otherwise:
– The Fathers condemned idols and demanded conversion.
– Missionary saints preached that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, and that false worship must be renounced, not integrated.
– Pius XI insisted: “States must recognize Christ as King; otherwise there will be no lasting peace.”
– Pius IX unmasked Freemasonry and liberalism as the organized rebellion of the “synagogue of Satan” against Christ and His Church.
Here, none of that voice is heard. The constitution coexists. It reorganizes. It administers. It threatens penalties for those who would resist its administrative will—yet is utterly mute where the pre-conciliar Magisterium thundered.
This is precisely how apostasy proceeds at first: not by immediate explicit denials, but by systematic omission, displacement, and substitution. The heart of the supernatural is quietly removed, leaving a juridical shell ready to be filled with a new, conciliatory religion.
Conclusion: A Juridical Facade for the Ascending Abomination
Seen in isolation and superficially, “Qui cotidie” may appear as a minor, even “edifying” document: the Church (so it seems) cares for the faithful in Japan, grants them a metropolitan see, confirms a bishop, and frames all with solemn Latin.
Seen within the light of integral Catholic doctrine and the known trajectory of John XXIII and his successors, it is something else:
– An act of a man who would shortly unleash a council contradicting the Syllabus and *Quas Primas* in practice.
– A step in knitting together a global hierarchy that, under the guise of canonical regularity, would impose pseudo-liturgies, ecumenism, religious liberty, and the cult of man.
– A specimen of the new rhetoric: impeccably curial, eternally vague about concrete enemies of the faith, void of the militant proclamation of Christ’s Kingship.
The theological and spiritual bankruptcy lies precisely in this: the use of venerable canonical forms to legitimize and consolidate the personnel and structures that will soon collaborate, willingly or by cowardice, in erecting the conciliar neo-church upon the ruins of visible Catholicity.
Those who faithfully hold to the unchanging doctrine must reject the illusion that documents such as this guarantee continuity. The only authentic measure remains the faith “once delivered to the saints” and infallibly taught by the Church up to 1958. Whenever administrative acts, however solemn, serve a line of men and ideas that overthrow that faith in practice, they are to be unmasked as part of a broader usurpation.
Source:
Nagasakiensis (Qui cotidie) (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025