Colonial Reordering of Sees as Prelude to the Conciliar Usurpation
The Latin text under the name of John XXIII, titled TANANARIVENSIS, announces the erection of two new ecclesiastical provinces in Madagascar (“De Diego Suarez” and “Fianarantsoaënsis”) by partitioning the former province of Tananarive, and raises the apostolic prefecture of Tsiroanomandidy to a diocese; it enumerates suffragan sees, grants metropolitan prerogatives, regulates external insignia, assigns material resources, and delegates implementation to Marcel Lefebvre as Apostolic Delegate.
In reality, this bureaucratic rearrangement, promulgated mere months after the death of Pius XII, is an early juridical seal of the nascent conciliar revolution, cloaking the coming apostasy under the respectable forms of canonical administration.
The Factual Illusion of Ordinary Administration
At first sight, the document appears as a standard pre-1958-style apostolic constitution: Latin form, clear juridical determinations, reference to the promotion of the christiana res (Christian cause), and the expansion of ecclesiastical structures in mission territory.
Key elements:
– Division of the former single province into three:
– Tananarive: Tananarive, Antsirabe, Miarinarivo, Tamatave, Tsiroanomandidy.
– Fianarantsoa: Fianarantsoa, Fort-Dauphin, Morondava, Farafangana, Tuléar.
– Diego Suarez: Diego Suarez, Majunga, Ambanja.
– Elevation of Tsiroanomandidy from apostolic prefecture to diocese, with its cathedral at Our Lady of Perpetual Help and standard endowments.
– Grant of metropolitan dignity to the incumbents of Fianarantsoa and Diego Suarez (Xavier Thoyer, Jean Wolff).
– Mandate that Marcel Lefebvre, as Apostolic Delegate, execute the provisions.
– Assertion of typical canonical clauses:
– Suppletory consent (“consensum omnium supplentes”).
– Perpetual validity.
– Nullity of contrary acts.
– Threat of canonical penalties for resistance.
On the purely factual plane, this could be read as a continuation of the missionary policy of the pre-1958 papacy, aligning with the long tradition of structuring local hierarchies as the Church grows. However, such a reading is tenable only if one brackets out the decisive datum: the text emanates from the claimant John XXIII, the initiator of the conciliar sect, whose “pontificate” marks the rupture with the integral Magisterium of Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII.
Once this is acknowledged, the same provisions take on an entirely different significance: not authentic growth of the Mystical Body, but the careful extension of the jurisdictional skeleton that will soon be invaded and hollowed out by Modernismus, ecumenism, religious indifferentism, and the cult of man.
Language of Piety as Mask for a Usurped Authority
Already in the opening lines, the rhetorical strategy appears:
“Qui benignissima Dei voluntate ideo ad summum Ecclesiae Pontificatum evecti sumus…”
(“We, who by the most benign will of God have been raised to the supreme Pontificate of the Church…”)
This formula, perfectly orthodox in itself, becomes blasphemously appropriated when used by one who inaugurates the very revolution condemned by his predecessors:
– Pius IX’s Syllabus (1864) and Quanta Cura condemn the liberalism, religious indifferentism, and false freedoms which the conciliar line will officially embrace.
– St. Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi brands Modernism as “omnium haeresum collectum” (the synthesis of all heresies), and imposes excommunication on its defenders.
– Pius XI in Quas Primas proclaims the absolute and public rights of Christ the King over states, denying the legitimacy of secularist “neutrality.”
– Pius XII consistently maintains doctrinal continuity with this line.
Thus, when the promulgator of Vatican II and its “aggiornamento” claims that God’s will raised him to the supreme Pontificate, the words must be measured against the doctrinal axiom, paraphrasing Bellarmine and the traditional theologians: *a manifest heretic cannot be head of the Church whose faith he destroys; he ceases to be a member and therefore cannot be its visible head*. The constitution’s tone of serene normality is itself part of the deception: a usurped authority cloaking itself with immaculate canonical prose.
The language is:
– Smooth, administrative, free of overt doctrinal novelties.
– Entirely this-worldly in its focus: jurisdictions, boundaries, endowments, external insignia.
– Devoid of serious supernatural exhortation: no insistence on the preservation of the integral faith against liberalism, communism, and Modernism; no emphasis on the necessity of the state of grace, the Most Holy Sacrifice, or the Four Last Things; no evocation of the war against Freemasonry and the “synagogue of Satan” so lucidly described by Pius IX.
This silence is not accidental; it is symptomatic. The constitution functions as a tranquil bridge: maintaining the outer legal-continuity form while silently shifting the principle of authority from the immutable magisterium to the person of the new “pope,” who will soon convoke the council that enthrones the condemned errors.
Silence on the Supernatural Mission: A Grave Omission
Measured against pre-1958 doctrine, the text is strikingly impoverished in supernatural content.
What is missing?
– No reference to the necessity of the Catholic faith as the only way of salvation, against the indifferentism condemned in the Syllabus (propositions 15–18).
– No warning against secret societies, Freemasonry, and subversive sects which Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and others repeatedly denounce as principal enemies of the Church and the Christian order.
– No insistence that the newly erected provinces must uphold the social kingship of Christ by shaping civil life, education, and law according to His rights, as Pius XI requires in Quas Primas.
– No stress on doctrinal purity against Modernism, despite the proximity to St. Pius X’s condemnations, which are still fully in force and explicitly renewed with severe penalties.
Instead, the document is almost entirely horizontal:
– Structures, boundaries, pay, dignities.
– A mere passing mention of “incrementum christianae rei” without defining that “Christian cause” according to the precise dogmatic and anti-liberal teaching of the prior magisterium.
In a truly Catholic act of missionary reorganization, one would expect forceful reminders:
– That episcopal authority exists to preserve intact the deposit of faith, not to experiment pastorally.
– That bishops must resist secularism and syncretism, not collaborate with them.
– That the care of souls demands preaching the hard truths of sin, judgment, hell, and the absolute necessity of living and dying within the Catholic Church.
Their omission, especially at the edge of the conciliar upheaval, is itself an indictment. *Tacere proditoris est* (to be silent is the mark of a traitor) when the enemies are at the gate.
Canonical Formalism as Instrument of Subversion
The constitution is meticulously canonistic:
– It “supplies consent” of all with any rights.
– Declares the acts “nunc et in posterum efficaces.”
– Annihilates any contrary prescriptions.
– Specifies applicability of common law regarding episcopal elections, vacant sees, etc.
– Concludes with threats of canonical penalties against those who reject these decrees.
On the surface, this matches centuries of legitimate Roman practice. The poison lies not in the clauses themselves, but in who wields them and to what end.
Key problem:
– When the one issuing laws is objectively the initiator of doctrines and reforms previously condemned as heretical or proximate to heresy, then the same legal structure becomes an instrument not of the Mystical Body, but of a parasitic, occupying power.
In other words:
– The text extends the jurisdictional network which will soon be used to impose:
– The “New Mass,” a rite architected to obscure the propitiatory and sacrificial nature of the Most Holy Sacrifice and to align with Protestant theology.
– Religious liberty and ecumenism as taught by Vatican II, directly opposed to the Syllabus and Quas Primas.
– Collegiality and democratization which corrode papal and episcopal authority in their true sense, while creating a managerial oligarchy in service of the globalist cult of man.
Lex without fides becomes a weapon against the faithful. The usurping regime uses unimpeachable canonical forms to secure obedience to future apostasy. The Madagascar provisions are a textbook example of how the conciliar sect entrenches itself: “no rupture,” merely “pastoral” acts—yet these acts place local hierarchies firmly under the authority of the coming revolution.
The Role of Marcel Lefebvre: Prefiguration of Pseudo-Traditionalist Contradiction
Particularly telling is the designation:
“venerabilis Frater Marcellus Lefebvre, Archiepiscopus Dakarensis atque in Africa Gallica Apostolicus Delegatus”
He is charged to execute and document the implementation. At this date, Marcel Lefebvre is unquestionably a bishop formed and installed within the pre-conciliar framework. Yet the same person later becomes the architect of a movement that:
– Publicly resists certain conciliar and post-conciliar abuses.
– Simultaneously recognizes the authority of the very line beginning with John XXIII and, in practice, treats their sacraments, canonizations, and juridical acts as those of true popes.
– Reduces the crisis to liturgical forms and disciplinary questions: “Give us the old Mass and that is enough for us,” while leaving untouched the root issue of authority and Modernist heresy.
This constitution, therefore, is a symbolic hinge:
– A legitimate pre-1968 episcopal figure (Lefebvre) receives a mission under an illegitimate claimant (John XXIII).
– Later, his followers appeal to such early connections to assert “continuity,” yet use them to justify a hybrid position: materially in the conciliar structure, formally in alleged tradition.
– Thus arises a schism within a schism: those pretending to be traditional Catholics who stage elements of the Roman rite while remaining tethered, doctrinally or juridically, to the conciliar usurpers.
The Malagasy reorganization shows how, already in 1958, the personnel and institutions that would produce pseudo-oppositional currents are woven deep into the fabric of the new regime. The constitution is part of the genealogy of that ambiguity.
Reduction of the Church’s Mission to Technical Expansion
An authentic missionary constitution, faithful to Pius XI’s teaching that peace and order can exist only under the social reign of Christ, would explicitly link:
– The erection of provinces to the obligation to combat paganism, Islam, sects, and anti-Christian ideologies.
– The education of clergy to the condemnation of Modernism, evolution of dogma, and scriptural relativism (cf. Lamentabili).
– The formation of Catholic societies in which civil law recognizes the sovereignty of Christ and the rights of His Church, against the liberal thesis condemned in the Syllabus (55: separation of Church and State).
Instead, this document’s entire horizon is:
– Diocesan boundaries.
– Distribution of honors (pallium, processional cross).
– Financial endowments.
– Internal administration.
These are legitimate elements—but without explicit doctrinal anchoring, they become ecclesiastical technocracy: the Church as a global NGO of sacral administration. This naturalizing tendency is the seed of the later transformation into a humanistic “people of God” organization obsessed with “development,” “dialogue,” and “human rights,” while silencing sin, hell, and the need for conversion to the one true Church.
Abusus non tollit usum (abuse does not take away right use), but persistent omission of the supernatural for the sake of administrative pragmatism reveals an underlying worldview. Here, the “pastoral” and “organizational” are severed from the militant, confessional, anti-liberal mission defined by the pre-1958 Magisterium.
Contradiction with the Pre-Conciliar Magisterium on Authority
The constitution invokes papal authority in absolute terms:
“de Nostra apostolica auctoritate haec statuimus et iubemus… Has vero Litteras nunc et in posterum efficaces esse… Quapropter si quis… contra egerit ac Nos ediximus, id prorsus irritum atque inane haberi iubemus… Qui… spreverit… sciat se poenas esse subiturum…”
This would be entirely sound—if the one speaking were indeed the successor of Pius XII continuing in the same doctrine. But the very person who speaks is the one who will:
– Convocate the council that endorses religious liberty in clear tension with proposition 15ff. of the Syllabus.
– Initiate the ecumenical orientation that treats schismatic and heretical communities as “sister churches,” contradicting the condemnation of national churches and the uniqueness of the Roman Pontiff’s jurisdiction (propositions 37–38).
– Prepare the demolition of the confessional state and approve that the Catholic religion no longer be the sole religion of Catholic nations (against proposition 77).
According to the perennial principles reflected in:
– Bellarmine’s assertion that a manifest heretic cannot be pope because he is outside the Church.
– Canon 188.4 (1917) on offices vacated by public defection from the faith.
– The doctrine presupposed by Cum ex Apostolatus Officio of Paul IV on heretical claimants.
Such a man cannot bind consciences as Supreme Pastor; his use of papal formulas becomes an abuse: a usurper exploiting the fear of disobedience to legitimate popes in order to secure submission to his own future revolt. The Malagasy decree thus exemplifies the *mask of orthodoxy* behind which the conciliar subversion advances.
Propagation of a Vulnerable Hierarchy for the Neo-Church
By multiplying dioceses and provinces in mission territories under his name, John XXIII ensures:
– That the hierarchy in those lands will trace its juridical existence to the conciliar line, not exclusively to the solid anti-liberal, anti-modernist pontiffs.
– That future local bishops, consecrated after the imposition of post-1968 rites and imbued with Vatican II ideology, will be inserted into a structure apparently legitimized in 1958.
– That resistance to the conciliar sect will be psychologically and historically more difficult, as the faithful are told: “These provinces were erected by a saintly pope in continuity with tradition.”
In reality:
– The same net is used to capture souls for the Church of the New Advent.
– The expansion of sees without corresponding insistence on doctrinal fidelity prepares a compliant Episcopate: salaried, honored, structurally dependent, and theologically malleable.
This is not the militant expansion of the Kingdom of Christ, but the construction of an ecclesiastical infrastructure pre-adapted to religious relativism and globalist governance.
Absence of Combat against Modernism: A Loud Accusation
St. Pius X, hardly fifty years earlier, decreed in Lamentabili and Pascendi:
– That the Church has full authority to judge philosophical and scientific opinions touching on revelation.
– That dogma cannot evolve into new meanings contrary to its original sense.
– That Scripture cannot be subjected to a merely historical-critical relativization.
– That those resisting these teachings incur excommunication.
A document issued in 1958, in a world already saturated with Modernist errors, that genuinely continued Pius X’s line would:
– Remind new bishops and provinces to enforce anti-modernist measures.
– Command vigilance against false biblical exegesis, liturgical experimentation, and doctrinal minimalism.
– Connect the erection of local hierarchies with the duty to resist Freemasonic and liberal ideologies corrupting both Church and State.
Instead, this constitution is perfectly compatible—indeed structurally harmonious—with the Modernist program: it says nothing that would impede the later revolution. This conspiracy of silence, this refusal to frame new structures within anti-modernist, anti-liberal dogma, is the most damning evidence of spiritual bankruptcy.
Silence here is not neutrality. It is complicity.
From Territorial Clauses to the Abomination of Desolation
Looking forward from 1958:
– The provinces and dioceses shaped in this text become part of the paramasonic structure that will celebrate the New Rite, preach religious liberty, engage in syncretic “dialogue,” and dissolve Catholic identity into humanitarian rhetoric.
– The faithful of Madagascar are placed under shepherds formed by and loyal to the conciliar usurpers, receiving “sacraments” increasingly detached from Catholic theology and, in many cases, invalid or sacrilegious.
– The Most Holy Sacrifice is replaced, in those same cathedrals formally erected here, by an assembly meal in which belief in transubstantiation, propitiation, and the unique mediation of Christ is obscured or denied.
Thus a text that never mentions Modernism, ecumenism, or religious liberty proves, in hindsight, to have been a preparatory brick in the edifice of the abomination of desolation: juridical continuity exploited to introduce doctrinal rupture.
Conclusion: Law without Truth Cannot Bind Conscience
Under the immutable principles of the integral Catholic faith:
– The authority to erect provinces and dioceses is real only in the hands of a true Roman Pontiff, who teaches and governs in continuity with his predecessors.
– When a claimant inaugurates and promotes errors solemnly condemned by prior popes—Modernism, religious liberty, ecumenism, democratization of the Church—his acts do not enjoy the guarantee of Christ; he stands judged by the pre-existing Magisterium.
– Canonical acts that expand the machinery later used to propagate those errors must be viewed with utmost suspicion and cannot claim blind obedience.
Therefore, this constitution:
– Is not a benign, neutral administrative act.
– Is an early juridical consolidation of the future conciliar sect’s control over mission territories.
– Illustrates the tactic of using traditional forms to mask a transfer of allegiance: from the Kingdom of Christ the King, as taught by Pius XI, to the kingdom of man, enthroned by Vatican II and its successors.
Where there is no explicit and operative submission to the doctrinal line of Pius IX, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII; where Modernism is left unmentioned, uncondemned, and in practice prepared for triumph; where legal formulas are invoked to demand unquestioning obedience to a future revolution—there the faithful must recognize not the voice of the Good Shepherd, but the cold, bureaucratic diction of an authority already turning against the City of God.
Source:
Tananarivensis (De diego Suarez et aliarum) (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025