The Latin text attributed to John XXIII announces, in bureaucratic curial style, the erection of a new territorial structure in Mexico: by detaching municipalities from the Archdiocese of Veracruz and the Diocese of Tehuantepec, it fabricates the Diocese of “San Andrés Tuxtla,” assigns its boundaries, subjects it as suffragan to Veracruz, prescribes a seminary, cathedral chapter, and canonical administration, and wraps the whole in standard juridical formulas of apostolic authority and penalties for non-compliance. In reality, this apparently harmless territorial decree is one of the early juridical instruments of the conciliar usurpation: a cold, administrative act that presupposes—with no proof and against the faith—the legitimacy of the new “pontiff,” and silently organizes the ecclesial battlefield on which the revolution against the Kingship of Christ and the pre-1958 Church will soon be executed.
Anti-Apostolic Engineering: How a Territorial Decree Serves the Conciliar Revolution
Canonical Facade Built on a Void: Defective Authority, Defective Acts
At the factual level, the text appears to be a standard pre-conciliar-style *constitutio apostolica*: it cites petitions from local hierarchy, enumerates municipalities, defines borders, orders erection of a cathedral, seminary, chapter, diocesan curia, regulates benefices, and threatens penalties for opposition.
But the entire structure rests on a premise that integral Catholic theology renders untenable:
– The document is issued in the name of John XXIII as “Supreme Pastor” with “*summa et apostolica potestas*”.
– However, the same John XXIII inaugurated and embodied the program that Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII consistently condemned: rapprochement with modern liberalism, indulgence toward condemned errors, the preparation of what became Vatican II—the very engine of dogmatic relativization, religious liberty, false ecumenism, and the cult of man.
From the perspective of unchanging doctrine, this yields a fundamental juridical conclusion:
– A manifest promoter of condemned modernist, liberal, and ecumenist principles cannot be the visible head of the Church.
– *Non christianus, non papa*: as classical theology (summarized by Bellarmine, Billot, Wernz-Vidal and others) insists, a manifest heretic is outside the Church and thus incapable of receiving or exercising papal jurisdiction.
– The 1917 Code, c. 188 §4: public defection from the faith causes loss of office *ipso facto*. This principle, grounded in divine and ecclesiastical tradition, is not abolished by later lawless novelties.
Therefore, the very “apostolic authority” invoked in this text is theologically and canonically vacuous. What presents itself as serene continuation is in fact an early administrative exercise of a usurping power that will soon enthrone the conciliar program. The decree’s legal form cannot repair the defect of its subject.
Ex nihilo ius non oritur (no right arises from a void): acts of a non-pope claiming universal jurisdiction over the Mystical Body do not bind the faithful before God. Under the dignified Latin phrasing, the text is less an act of Peter than an instrument of a parallel structure preparing to occupy his See.
Neutral Technical Language as Mask for Ecclesiological Subversion
The linguistic texture of the constitution is revealing.
The document speaks of:
“Quibus christiani populi grex a summo universorum hominum Pastore pascendus, regendus et custodiendus commissus est, non sane praetermittimus… ecclesiasticas circumscriptiones partiri easdemque aptius designare.”
(“Since the flock of the Christian people has been entrusted by the supreme Pastor of all men to be fed, governed, and guarded, we do not neglect… to divide and more suitably determine the ecclesiastical circumscriptions.”)
At first glance, this echoes traditional ecclesial solicitude. Yet:
– The “supreme Pastor of all men” formulation is the same conceptual path that will be naturalized in the conciliar sect as a pseudo-universal humanitarian leadership, opening the way to religious indifferentism and interreligious egalitarianism.
– The act is framed entirely in administrative, cartographic, and procedural terms: borders, municipalities, suffragan relationship, curial documentation, economic provisions, penalties.
What is striking is not what is said, but what is meticulously not said:
– No mention of the necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation.
– No stress on guarding the flock from heresy, Freemasonry, naturalism, socialism, or modernism—precisely the enemies that Pius IX in the *Syllabus Errorum* and Pius X in *Lamentabili sane exitu* and *Pascendi* brand as the core threats.
– No reference to the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ over society, as vigorously defined by Pius XI in *Quas Primas*, despite the act touching directly on the social kingship of Christ through ecclesiastical structuring of a Catholic nation.
– No warning against laicism, syncretism, or the propaganda of secret societies which Pius IX and Leo XIII denounced as attempting to subjugate and dissolve the Church.
This icy omission is not accidental. It is symptomatic:
– The text treats the Church as an institutional management reality, not as the militant, dogmatically intransigent Ark of Salvation.
– It reduces pastoral government to geographical optimization, as if the main crisis were logistical distance, not the encroaching apostasy condemned by Pius X as *“the synthesis of all heresies.”*
– It implicitly accepts the modern state framework and its political geography without reasserting Christ’s absolute sovereign rights over civil law and public life.
Silentium de Deo, de gratia, de regno Christi (silence about God, grace, and Christ’s reign) in acts of “highest authority” is not neutral; it is a confession of practical naturalism. The juridical prose becomes a smokescreen under which an ecclesiology of bureaucratic functionality replaces the supernatural note of the true Church.
Displacement of the True Mission: From Salvation of Souls to Managerial Cartography
The theological core of the constitution can be exposed by contrasting it with the pre-1958 magisterium—especially the very sources the conciliar sect pretends to continue.
1. The document’s operative concern: to “better serve” the “Christian community” by subdividing territories and assigning a suffragan see, seminaries, chapters, and curial structures.
2. What integral Catholic doctrine asserts:
– The Church is a perfect, sovereign society, divinely constituted, with a supernatural end: the salvation of souls through the true faith, the Most Holy Sacrifice, and the sacraments.
– Structures, dioceses, and provinces are not neutral technocratic grids; they must visibly secure:
– the doctrinal integrity against error;
– the central role of the Sacrifice;
– the social Kingship of Christ over nations;
– the protection of the flock from wolves.
Pius XI in *Quas Primas* (1925) teaches with crystalline clarity that:
– peace and order are impossible where Christ’s reign is not publicly recognized;
– rulers and states sin when they refuse to subject law, education, and public life to Christ and His Church;
– Catholics must combat laicism and liberalism which deny Christ’s rights.
In this light, the 1959 constitution is damning not for what it decrees territorially, but for the religious vacuum in which it does so:
– No challenge to the secular state; no reaffirmation that civil law must bow to Christ the King.
– No insistence that the newly erected diocese serve as a bastion against modernism, communism, and masonic infiltration—precisely as Pius IX denounced the “synagogue of Satan” working through such sects to destroy the Church.
– No call to restore or defend Catholic political order in Mexico, a land ravaged by liberal and masonic persecution in the preceding decades.
Instead, we find:
“…novam dioecesim condimus… omnia iura damus, quae dioecesibus competunt…”
(“…we establish a new diocese… we grant all the rights which belong to dioceses…”)
Yet there is not one word indicating that these “rights” are ordered to the one necessary end: the integral, exclusive Catholic confession, the condemnation of error, and the subjection of society to Our Lord.
The omission is theological: it reflects an ecclesiology where the Church exists peacefully within the pluralist state as one religious institution among others, content to rearrange its internal districts instead of militantly claiming the public crown for Christ. This mentality is the seed of the conciliar teaching on “religious freedom” and “dialogue,” solemnly condemned in substance by the *Syllabus* (e.g., errors 15–18, 55, 77–80).
Seminaries Without Dogma: The Machinery for a New Clergy
Particularly revealing is the paragraph on clerical formation:
“Curet sacer huius novae Ecclesiae Praesul ut Seminarium saltem elementarium struat… Cum autem iuvenes… imbu’i debeant, qui meliores fuerint Romam mittantur, in Pontificium scilicet Collegium Pianum Latinum Americanum.”
(“Let the sacred Prelate of this new Church take care to establish at least a minor seminary… When the youths reach the age for philosophy and theology, let the better ones be sent to Rome, to the Pontifical Pius Latin American College.”)
On the surface, this appears praiseworthy. But in 1959 we stand on the immediate threshold of the systemic subversion of seminaries:
– The intellectual and spiritual infiltration by those whom Pius X had condemned in *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi* was already advanced.
– Roman institutions were increasingly dominated by precisely the “new theology” which:
– relativizes dogma as “living experience”;
– subjects Scripture and Tradition to historicism;
– exalts ecumenism and religious liberty;
– prepares the overthrow of the immemorial liturgy.
Thus:
– The requirement to send the “best” candidates into these centers is not neutral; it channels vocations into the heart of an emerging conciliar network.
– Instead of erecting bastions of Thomistic orthodoxy against the already-denounced modernism, the constitution silently entrusts future clergy to structures soon to weaponize their formation against integral Catholic faith.
This is the opposite of what Pius X mandated when he condemned those who:
– diminish the authority of the authentic Magisterium,
– deny the full inerrancy of Scripture,
– reduce Revelation to inner experience,
– transform dogma via evolution.
*Lamentabili* and *Pascendi* are not alluded to; their spirit is not defended. Instead, the decree presupposes without scrutiny that the Roman institutions remain unproblematically safe, just as they are being prepared as laboratories for the conciliar revolution.
Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex instituendi: corrupt formation leads to corrupt “priests,” bogus sacraments, and a counterfeit gospel. By structurally binding the new diocese into this pipeline, the constitution helps manufacture the future clergy of the conciliar sect under cover of continuity.
Absolute Threats from a Relative Authority: The Inflation of Obedience
The closing juridical formulas are particularly revealing:
“Has vero Litteras nunc et in posterum efficaces esse et fore volumus… Quapropter si quis, quavis praeditus auctoritate… contra egerit ac Nos ediximus, id prorsus irritum atque inane haberi iubemus… Quae Nostra decreta in universum si quis vel spreverit vel quoquo modo detrectaverit, sciat se poenas esse subiturum iis iure statutas…”
(“We will and decree that these Letters are and shall be effective now and in the future… Wherefore, if anyone, of whatever authority, acts against what we have ordered, we command that it be held null and void… Whoever in any way spurns or opposes these decrees, let him know that he will incur the penalties established in law for those who do not obey the orders of Supreme Pontiffs.”)
In authentic ecclesial acts, such formulas have weight because they express:
– the jurisdiction of a true pope as Vicar of Christ;
– the ordered demand of obedience in matters truly serving the faith.
Here, however:
– A man whose subsequent program would openly converge with errors condemned by the *Syllabus* and *Pascendi* claims the full coercive force of papal authority.
– This is a paradigmatic move of the conciliar sect: to mobilize genuine Catholic obedience and canonical discipline in order to secure submission not to Tradition, but to a project that will systematically dismantle it.
The theological perversity is twofold:
1. Real papal authority is invoked to enforce an act embedded in a broader trajectory of rupture.
2. Faithful resistance to modernist usurpation is implicitly framed as disobedience to “Summorum Pontificum iussa,” preconditioning later accusations against those who will cling to the pre-1958 faith and liturgy.
Pius IX, in condemning the thesis that the Pope should “reconcile himself with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization” (Syllabus, 80), made clear that no “order” compelling fidelity to such reconciliation can bind consciences. No juridical thunder can transform objective apostasy into legitimate governance.
Thus these threats of penalties are, in reality:
– an early instance of the antichurch using papal style decrees to intimidate the faithful into compliance with its structural reconfiguration;
– an inversion where those who would one day defend the perennial doctrine risk being portrayed as rebels to “apostolic” commands issued in favor of a new religion.
Obedientia non est in iniquitate (there is no obligation of obedience in iniquity). The act’s coercive rhetoric unmasks its ecclesiological presupposition: that the faithful owe docile submission to any occupant of the Vatican structures even when his global orientation contradicts previous solemn teaching. This is precisely the modernist “living magisterium” myth—condemned before it was coined.
Insertion into the Conciliar Matrix: A Suffragan of the Coming Neo-Church
The constitution explicitly subordinates the new diocese:
“…eum una cum sua dioecesi metropolitanae Sedi Verae Crucis suffraganeum.”
(“…that he, together with his diocese, be suffragan to the Metropolitan See of Veracruz.”)
In itself, suffragan alignment is normal. But viewed with doctrinal lucidity:
– The episcopal appointments and structures formed under this constitution will rapidly be integrated into the conciliar network after 1958–1962.
– Bishops chosen under this framework will:
– accept and implement the later liturgical destruction (fabrication of the new rite),
– promote “religious liberty” and false ecumenism,
– dilute or abandon the doctrine of the social Kingship of Christ,
– cooperate with secularist states and masonic elites.
Thus, the new diocese is not neutral territory; it is a planned node in the future “conciliar sect,” prepared under pre-conciliar dress:
– Its seminarians sent to Roman institutions imbued with the “new theology.”
– Its hierarchy tied juridically to a national episcopate that will almost unanimously embrace the council’s novelties.
– Its faithful gradually transferred from the true Mass and integral catechism to the table-assembly, vernacular banality, and dogmatic relativism of the neo-church.
The document’s omission of explicit modernist slogans does not exonerate it; it functions structurally. The revolution often advances most effectively under apparently traditional, technical acts. Here we see precisely such an act: mapping out the jurisdictional terrain that the conciliar antichurch will soon occupy under the cover of continuity.
The Gravest Omission: No Clarion Call to Christ the King and Against Modernism
The most damning theological evidence against this constitution is its silence on what matters most, precisely in an age already defined by apostasy.
Measured against Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, and Pius XI, the following absences are glaring:
– No reiteration that the Catholic Church is the only ark of salvation and that all are obliged to enter her (against indifferentism and latitudinarianism condemned in the *Syllabus*, 15–18).
– No reaffirmation that the state must recognize and favour the true religion and reject the separation thesis (condemned at 55).
– No denunciation of Freemasonry and secret societies whose influence in Latin America and Mexico is notorious and explicitly identified by pre-1958 popes as principal enemies of Christ and His Church.
– No insistence that the new diocese must be a barrier against modernist theology and biblical criticism condemned in *Lamentabili* (e.g., denial of inerrancy, relativization of dogma).
– No theological reminder that bishops derive their jurisdiction from Christ through a true Roman Pontiff, and that their duty is first to guard depositum fidei, not to adapt church structures to political or sociological convenience.
Instead, we have a smooth administrative narrative about more efficient pastoral care, as if the central drama of the 20th century were distances between parishes and not the imminent enthronement of neo-pagan humanism and the dissolution of dogma within the very visible structures of the Church.
Silence about the Sacrifice, grace, sin, judgment, hell, the Social Kingship, modernist infiltration, and masonic war is, in such a context, a theological crime. It reveals that the occupant signing this constitution is already governed by a naturalistic horizon, for which the Church is primarily an institution to be rearranged, not a supernatural polity to be defended with intransigent clarity.
Where Pius XI proclaims that peace is only possible in the kingdom of Christ and that rulers and nations must subject themselves publicly to His law, this constitution mutely coexists with secular regimes, content to draw diocesan lines without asserting His rights. This is how the conciliar sect begins: not yet trumpeting its new dogmas, but living as if the old ones no longer govern.
Conclusion: A Cold Blueprint of the Abomination’s Infrastructure
Under the polished Latin and conventional juridical forms, this 1959 constitution is a textbook instance of the transitional phase by which the conciliar revolution entrenches itself:
– It presumes the legitimacy of a “pontiff” whose program contradicts solemnly defined doctrine on modern errors.
– It deploys genuine Catholic canonical language to reconfigure the hierarchy that will soon become the operating system of post-conciliar apostasy.
– It replaces militant supernatural concern with administrative optimization, in perfect harmony with the naturalistic mindset condemned by pre-1958 popes.
– It commands absolute obedience under pain of penalties, weaponizing the notion of papal authority in service of a trajectory toward modernism, ecumenism, and religious liberty.
The text’s “innocence” is its most insidious trait. The wolves have not yet appeared in carnival colours; they are still wearing the old garments while silently redrawing the map into which the new gospel of man will be poured.
Against such subtlety, the only Catholic response is:
– unwavering adhesion to the doctrinal and disciplinary magisterium as it stood integrally before 1958;
– rigorous rejection of the conciliar sect’s claims to bind consciences where it departs—by word, deed, or systematic silence—from that magisterium;
– recognition that acts like this constitution, though clothed in venerable forms, belong to the juridical scaffolding of a structure which, once completed, shows itself as the *abominatio desolationis* standing where it ought not.
Ubi Christus Rex non regnat publice, ibi regnat princeps huius mundi (where Christ the King does not reign publicly, there reigns the prince of this world). This constitution, devoid of explicit heretical clauses yet steeped in practical naturalism and servicing a usurped authority, is one more stone in the edifice of that dismal counterfeit “church” which prefers territorial maps to the banner of Christ the King and bureaucratic formulas to the anathemas that guard the flock.
Source:
Verae Crucis -Tehuantepecensis (S. Andreae De Tuxtla) (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025