The Latin text promulgated under the name of John XXIII on 4 May 1959, beginning with “Qui cotidie moerore,” announces the removal of the dioceses of Nagasaki, Fukuoka, and Kagoshima from the ecclesiastical province of Tokyo and the erection of a new ecclesiastical province of Nagasaki, elevating Nagasaki to a metropolitan see with Fukuoka and Kagoshima as suffragans, and appointing Paul Aijro Yamaguchi as first metropolitan. The document clothes a purely juridical reorganization in pious language about the growth of the Church in Japan.
Administrative Expansion without Doctrinal Foundation: Nagasaki as a Symptom of the Coming Revolution
Ecclesiastical Cartography as a Substitute for Confession of Faith
On the factual level, the text appears innocuous: a canonical rearrangement of diocesan boundaries in Japan. However, once read in the light of *immutable* Catholic doctrine prior to 1958 and the subsequent historical trajectory, it reveals itself as a chillingly clear prelude to the conciliar catastrophe.
Key elements:
– The text laments persecutions of the Church in some nations, yet immediately contrasts this with “joy” at numerical and structural growth elsewhere, especially in Japan:
“We are saddened daily that the Holy Church is harassed in some nations by enemies of the Christian religion, yet it is a great joy to Us that elsewhere, stirred by divine will, she progresses, expands, and, increased by huge growth, becomes for peoples a cause of salvation.”
– It identifies this “growth” in Japan and, based on that, decrees:
– the creation of a new ecclesiastical province of Nagasaki,
– the elevation of Nagasaki to metropolitan status,
– the subordination of Fukuoka and Kagoshima as suffragans,
– the appointment (creation and proclamation) of Paul Aijro Yamaguchi as first Metropolitan.
All of this is wrapped in the solemn formulae of papal authority.
From the standpoint of integral Catholic faith, the fundamental problem is not the abstract liceity of erecting a province — which is obviously within the rightful competence of a true Roman Pontiff — but the person and context: the act proceeds from John XXIII, the initiator and public face of the conciliar revolution, whose entire program openly tends toward condemned “aggiornamento,” religious liberty, and false ecumenism. Thus the juridical act, though formally traditional in style and vocabulary, is objectively integrated into the construction of what would soon become the conciliar sect in Asia.
Once the head is poisoned, even apparently neutral acts are incorporated into a new anti-structure. The pious legalism of this constitution serves as a façade for the consolidation of an episcopate that will be used to implant *post*‑Catholic doctrine.
Linguistic Cosmetics: Pious Latin as a Veil for Institutionalism
The rhetoric of the document is carefully crafted to disarm criticism:
– It speaks of being saddened by persecution and gladdened by expansion; but it never once:
– mentions the *Most Holy Sacrifice*,
– invokes the necessity of the *true faith* for salvation,
– recalls the obligation of nations — especially Japan — to submit publicly to Christ the King,
– warns against religious indifferentism, Shinto syncretism, or Masonic democracy.
– Instead, it uses sterile bureaucratic piety:
– “prospera condicio,” “progrediatur,” “amplificetur,” “ingentibus… incrementis” — growth, enlargement, increase.
– The tone is managerial: the language of an ecclesiastical administration measuring success by territories and provinces.
This is a dangerous shift from the supernatural to the institutional.
Integral Catholic teaching, as reaffirmed authoritatively by Pius XI in Quas primas, declares unequivocally that peace and order are possible only under the social kingship of Christ: *“Peace is only possible in the kingdom of Christ”* (Pius XI, Quas primas). Pius IX in the Syllabus condemns the separation of Church and State (prop. 55) and the relativist cult of liberal “liberty of cults” (props. 77–80). Yet here, in a country still dominated by false religions and laicism, the document:
– names no duty of the Japanese polity to recognize the true Church;
– issues no warning against coexistence on equal footing with paganism and Protestantism;
– celebrates structure without confessing the exclusive right of the Catholic religion.
The very choice of what is said and what is omitted betrays a mentality already permeated by the post-war liberal order. The Church is spoken of not as the militantly exclusive una et sola arca salutis (the one and only ark of salvation), but as an expanding “presence” among many.
Silence about the supernatural ends — state of grace, damnation, the absolute necessity of the Catholic faith and baptism, the unique mediation of the Church — is not neutral. It is an indictment.
Theological Incoherence: Authority Invoked to Build the Future Antichurch
The constitution uses the solemn language of papal plenitude of power:
– It “supplies the consent” of those with rights,
– decrees the new province,
– grants metropolitan rights (pallium, cross, privileges),
– threatens penalties for those who disregard the decrees.
Formally, this echoes the style of genuine papal legislation. Substantively, however, we must confront the contradiction that the same John XXIII:
– convoked the “Second Vatican Council” with an explicitly novelist program of “updating,” contradicting the anti-modernist stance of Pius X’s Lamentabili and Pascendi;
– promoted precisely those tendencies condemned in the Syllabus and by all pre-1958 popes: religious liberty, false ecumenism, the reconciliation with “modern civilization” (explicitly condemned by Pius IX, prop. 80).
The integral Catholic theological tradition, well summarized in the sources you have provided:
– teaches that a manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church:
– St Robert Bellarmine: a manifest heretic ceases to be pope and head, because he ceases to be a member of the Church.
– The 1917 Code, can. 188.4: public defection from the faith vacates office automatically.
– The consistent patristic and theological line: *non potest caput esse qui non est membrum* (he who is not a member cannot be head).
– shows by the example of Nestorius (as highlighted by Pius IX and theologians like Billot) that once someone publicly preaches heresy, his acts of jurisdiction lose authority in the Church.
Therefore:
– When John XXIII publicly inaugurates a program incompatible with the anti-modernist Magisterium, he reveals himself as standing in rupture with the integral faith.
– The constitution “Qui cotidie moerore” must be read not as an isolated legal act, but as an integral piece in the juridical architecture through which a paramasonic, post-conciliar structure entrenches itself in new territories.
The invocations of divine assistance and the curses against those resisting the act become tragically inverted: they are used to bind consciences to an apparatus that will be weaponized shortly after against the very doctrines solemnly guarded by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII.
The bitter irony: metropolitan privileges and pallium are here bestowed to fortify sees that, within a few years, will be enlisted in propagating the new ecumenical, religiously indifferentist order. The outward canonical continuity is instrumentalized to secure inward doctrinal discontinuity.
The Silent Betrayal: Missing Warnings, Missing Kingship, Missing Anathemas
The gravest accusations arise from what is not said.
1. No confession of the exclusive salvific necessity of the Catholic Church in a non-Catholic nation.
– Pre-1958 Magisterium: Outside the Church there is no salvation (Florence, Trent, repeated by all popes).
– In a land saturated with Shintoism, Buddhism, Protestant sects, and Masonic liberalism, a truly Catholic act erecting a province would resound with calls to convert, condemn error, and demand the recognition of the true religion.
– Here: nothing. Merely that the Church “becomes for peoples a cause of salvation” — a vague, almost horizontal formula, stripped of explicit exclusivity.
2. No reference to the social kingship of Christ.
– Quas primas teaches the duty of nations to acknowledge Christ’s reign publicly, warning that laicism is a mortal plague.
– Japan’s constitution explicitly enshrines religious liberty and separation of religion and state, i.e. positions condemned by Pius IX.
– The text:
– praises Church growth within that liberal framework,
– does not call upon the Japanese hierarchy to work for Christ’s public recognition,
– does not condemn the liberal order that legally equates the true religion with idolatry.
This silence effectively concedes the laicist premises: ecclesiastical provinces exist peacefully within a Masonic concept of the state. *Quod tacet, consentire videtur* (he who is silent seems to consent).
3. No warning regarding false worship or syncretism.
– Catholic missionaries in Japan historically shed their blood to preserve the purity of the faith against compromise with local cults.
– The new structure is erected in 1959 on the eve of a “council” that will raise “dialogue” with false religions into a principle.
– The constitution does nothing to fortify the faithful against this; it lays the institutional tracks that will carry the train of false ecumenism.
Silence here is not a pastoral prudence; it is the calm before the programmed storm.
From Catholic Hierarchy to Conciliar Network: Nagasaki as a Node
On the symptomatic level, this text illustrates how the conciliar sect advanced:
– It maintained the juridical shell of Catholic canonical acts: constitutions, decrees, metropolitan provinces.
– It cultivated an appearance of rigorous legal continuity: formulas, sealing, threats of nullity for opposition.
– It avoided any doctrinal clash with the dominant liberal order; it systematically omitted the sharp edges of Catholic doctrine condemned as “triumphalist” or “rigorist.”
By doing this in 1959:
– It prepared an obedient hierarchy, structurally aligned to “Rome,” that, once the revolution of Vatican II was unleashed, could be smoothly transformed into a transmission belt for the new religion:
– New “Mass” — destruction of the propitiatory character of the Unbloody Sacrifice.
– Ecumenical worship and participation in interreligious ceremonies.
– Acceptance of religious liberty and rejection of the Catholic confessional state.
The province of Nagasaki, canonically erected under John XXIII, would not remain a fortress of pre-1958 Catholicism; it would become integrated into the world network of the Church of the New Advent. The constitution, when stripped of its pious verbiage, is a blueprint for jurisdictional infrastructure later usurped for apostasy.
Abuse of Papal Style to Legitimize Non-Catholic Ends
The text ends with classic papal formulae:
– Declaring the letters to be now and in the future effective.
– Nullifying all contrary prescriptions.
– Declaring any attempt to contravene them “irritum atque inane” (null and void).
– Enjoining penalties for those who despise the decrees of “Supreme Pontiffs.”
In authentic Catholic context, such language protects the flock and the deposit. Here, given the author’s role in launching the conciliar process, it is weaponized to:
– Bind Catholics psychologically to the person and acts of one who proceeds to overturn anti-modernist safeguards.
– Make resistance to the new structures appear as rebellion against lawful authority, even as those very structures are commandeered in service of doctrines condemned by Lamentabili sane exitu and the Syllabus.
Integral Catholic teaching does not grant blind obedience to one who uses office against the faith. The same pre-1958 corpus that this constitution outwardly imitates establishes the principle that heresy severs jurisdiction. The appeals to papal authority in “Qui cotidie moerore” thus become a tragic caricature: they mimic Catholic solemnity while preparing an anti-Catholic outcome.
No Space for Lay Revolt: True Authority versus Conciliar Usurpation
One grave modern temptation must also be exposed: reading such texts as permission for laicized self-management, as if the evident modernist infiltration justified democratic rebellion and doctrinal subjectivism.
This would be another betrayal.
– Authentic authority in the Church is not invented from below; it is received from Christ and transmitted through valid orders and the unchanging Magisterium.
– The conciliar sect’s crime is precisely to have replaced this supernatural order with humanistic, bureaucratic, and Masonic criteria.
– Those pretending to be traditional Catholics who accept the conciliar impostors as “popes” while negotiating practical arrangements (as with pseudo-“indults” or hybrid structures) only deepen the confusion: they treat acts like this constitution as simply neutral, instead of recognizing how such apparently harmless measures have been leveraged to erect a rival, anti-Catholic edifice.
The proper response is neither to sacralize every line of John XXIII nor to promote Protestant-style self-churching, but to:
– Adhere firmly and exclusively to the pre-1958 Magisterium, in its clear, anti-modernist sense;
– Recognize that structures commandeered by manifest innovators and enemies of the prior Magisterium cannot claim blind obedience;
– Maintain fidelity to the *Most Holy Sacrifice* and the integral faith where valid orders and doctrine remain, without compromise with the conciliar network.
Conclusion: Anodyne Latin Lines as Architecture of Apostasy
“Qui cotidie moerore” is, on its surface, a minor administrative act. Yet its timing, authorship, and silence make it emblematic:
– It exemplifies the tactic of using traditional language and canonical forms to extend the reach of a hierarchy that will shortly be reprogrammed to spread a modernist, ecumenical, and naturalistic religion.
– It reveals the early integration of mission territories like Japan into an ecclesial outlook that celebrates growth within liberal pluralism, without proclaiming clearly the exclusive rights of Christ the King and the Catholic Church.
– It confirms that the conciliar revolution did not erupt ex nihilo in 1962; it gestated within the juridical acts of those who, while speaking the Latin of the ages, had already inwardly capitulated to the world the pre-1958 popes condemned.
What is missing is decisive: no confession of Christ’s social kingship over Japan; no denunciation of laicism; no call to convert the nation from idolatry; no reaffirmation of the non-negotiable condemnations in the Syllabus and Lamentabili. Instead, there is institutional self-satisfaction and administrative triumphalism.
Under the appearance of caring for “the flock entrusted” to the Roman Pontiff, this act extends the future jurisdictional network of the conciliar sect into East Asia. It stands as a sober reminder that apostasy often advances in impeccably phrased Latin, sealed with all the external trappings of authority, while hollowing out the very faith that once gave those forms their meaning.
Source:
Nagasakiensis (Qui cotidie) (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025