John XXIII’s apostolic letter “Diuturno usu” (29 February 1960) establishes an Apostolic Internunciature in the Republic of Turkey, headquartered in Constantinople, in order to formalize “public relations” of friendship between the Apostolic See and the Turkish state, assigning to this diplomatic mission all the privileges proper to pontifical legations and declaring the act perpetually valid.
Diplomatic Enthronement of Apostasy: John XXIII in the Shadow of Hagia Sophia
The few lines of Diuturno usu are short, but they are not innocent. In these icy, bureaucratic formulas John XXIII manifests the program of the nascent conciliar revolution: subjection of what calls itself the Apostolic See to a militantly anti-Christian regime, naturalization of the Church’s mission into diplomatic “public relations,” and practical denial of the social Kingship of Christ in a land once consecrated by martyrs, councils, and the very blood of Catholic Rome.
This text must be read not as a sterile administrative act, but as a symptom and instrument of an ecclesiological mutation which contradicts the constant doctrine taught up to 1958 and solemnly reaffirmed by the Magisterium of Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII.
Elevation of Secular Diplomacy Above the Supernatural End of the Church
John XXIII justifies the erection of the Internunciature by appealing to the allegedly “proven” benefits of permanent public diplomatic relations between the Apostolic See and nations, claiming that such mechanisms are highly useful for “strengthening the goods of peace” and achieving “true progress.”
Already here we see the essential perversion:
– The Church, according to constant doctrine, is a *societas perfecta* (perfect society) instituted by Christ with a supernatural end: the salvation of souls and the public glory of God through the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This is infallibly taught by the ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium, notably expressed by Leo XIII and reiterated with adamant clarity by Pius XI in Quas Primas, where he affirms that peace and order are possible only when individuals and states recognize the Kingship of Christ and submit public life to His law.
– In Diuturno usu, the starting point is inverted: the act is founded on generic “public relations” and “friendship” as instruments of “peace” and “progress,” without a single word about:
– the obligation of the Turkish state, like every state, to confess Christ the King;
– the duty to abandon institutionalized apostasy and blasphemy;
– the need to protect the rights of the true Church and the salvation of souls in a land where the Catholic faith had been nearly annihilated.
This silence is not accidental. It betrays a naturalistic premise: the paramasonic structure occupying the Vatican identifies its role with a diplomatic NGO among others, a quasi-neutral religious factor in the concert of nations, instead of the unique divinely instituted authority which, by right, judges nations and demands submission to the law of Christ.
Pius IX, in the Syllabus of Errors, explicitly condemns the notion that the State can be the source of rights without reference to God (prop. 39), that the Church is merely subject to civil definition of her rights (prop. 19), and that the Church should be separated from the State (prop. 55). John XXIII’s text, however, presupposes precisely that model: the so‑called Apostolic See comes to Ankara and Istanbul not to demand the rights of Christ and His Church, but to seal “amicitia publica” with a regime which constitutionally denies those rights.
Language of Technocratic Neutrality as Symptom of Doctrinal Decomposition
The rhetoric of Diuturno usu is revealing. The key expressions revolve around:
– “Diuturno usu est comprobatum permagnas utilitates e publicis officiorum rationibus”
– “publicis amicitiae vinculis”
– “pacis bona firmanda verique nominis profectum adipiscendum”
This pseudo-classical Latin in fact encodes a modernist content:
1. The horizon is exclusively horizontal:
– “Peace” is invoked, but not as the fruit of the submission of individuals and nations to Christ the King, to His law, to His Church, nor as the fruit of the reign of grace in souls through the Most Holy Sacrifice and the sacraments.
– “Progress” is praised, but its object is left deliberately vague, emptied of theological substance, corresponding exactly to the “modern civilization” and naturalistic concept of progress solemnly unmasked and condemned by Pius IX and St. Pius X as the breeding ground of Modernism.
2. Total omission of supernatural finality:
– No mention of the *finis ultimus* (final end) of the Church: the glory of God and salvation of souls.
– No mention of the duty to preach the one true faith or to seek the conversion of the Turkish nation from Islam and secularism to the Catholic Church.
– No mention of the unique mediation of the Church for salvation, dogma taught constantly and reaffirmed against indifferentism.
3. Reduction of the “Apostolic” function:
– The “Apostolic See” in the text functions as a subject of international law engaging in *mutua utilitas* with a secular republic, rather than as the Chair of Peter charged to teach all nations and to bind and loose in the name of Christ.
– The very act of establishing this mission is described as formalising “public friendship” instead of asserting divine rights.
This carefully sanitized lexicon is not a neutral choice; it reflects the new ecclesiology which will soon be codified by the conciliar sect: the Church of the New Advent as “partner in dialogue,” “servant of humanity,” no longer judge of the nations but their chaplain. Such rhetoric is precisely what St. Pius X’s Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi identify as characteristic of Modernism: transforming dogma and mission into categories of historical utility, diplomacy, and humanitarian cooperation.
Turkey as Paradigm: From Christendom’s Bastion to Laboratory of Religious Relativism
The choice of the Republic of Turkey and the language used about it are especially significant.
Historically, the See of Constantinople is tied to:
– Ecumenical Councils defending the divinity of Christ and the integrity of the Incarnation.
– The schism of Photius and the enduring rebellion of the East against the Roman Primacy.
– The conquest by Islam, the desecration of sanctuaries (above all Hagia Sophia), and the establishment of a polity publicly denying Christ’s Kingship.
After World War I, the Kemalist revolution imposed:
– Radical laicism;
– Abolition of the last symbolic forms of Christendom in that territory;
– Systematic suffocation of Catholic public life.
In this context, John XXIII’s act:
– Does not recall the rights of Christ the King over that land;
– Does not denounce the laicist usurpation and Islamic apostasy;
– Does not affirm the obligation of returning to the true Church.
Instead, he solemnly forges “public bonds of friendship” with a regime defined by its legal negation of the Kingship of Christ and of the authority of the Church.
This is in direct opposition to the teaching of Pius XI in Quas Primas, where he insists:
– That rulers sin gravely when they refuse to recognize and honor Christ publicly.
– That laws, courts, and education must conform to the divine law and Christian principles.
– That peace cannot be obtained while states exile Christ from public life.
Diuturno usu reverses this axiom in practice: peace is sought without Christ, through “amicitia” with His public enemies; the occupant of the Roman See behaves as if the secular, Islamic-marked Turkish state were an acceptable and sufficient framework, needing only diplomatic “normalization,” not conversion.
This is not pastoral prudence; it is an implicit repudiation of the dogma that “there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved” than that of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It enshrines indifferentism under the guise of diplomacy, precisely what the Syllabus condemns (propositions 15–18).
From Apostolic Nunciature to Mission of the Antichurch
Let us consider the internal dogmatic implications of this letter.
John XXIII, first in the line of usurpers, acts here as if:
– He possesses the plenitude of Apostolic authority (*plenitudo potestatis*) to erect a pontifical legation;
– This act is grounded solely “motu proprio, certa scientia ac matura deliberatione,” without any reference to the supernatural mandate to “teach all nations … teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”
The structure of the act is formally papal, but the substance is anti-papal:
– The authority given to Peter was to confirm the brethren in the faith, to pasture lambs and sheep in truth, to condemn error, and to demand the subjection of nations to Christ.
– The authority used here is employed exclusively to adapt the so-called Apostolic See to the framework of religiously neutral states and to bind it to their order through solemn “friendship.”
This inversion is a practical application of the Modernist thesis that the Church must “come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” (Syllabus prop. 80) — a proposition solemnly condemned by Pius IX, yet effectively embraced in the conciliar sect’s praxis. Rather than being a mere prudential step, Diuturno usu signals that the occupying clique accepts the liberal-laicist order as normative and seeks its place within it.
In classic Catholic doctrine:
– The Church may use diplomatic relations as a means to defend her liberty and procure the good of souls, but always without compromising the claim of Christ over states.
– Where such relations would require silence about the rights of Christ or practical participation in indifferentism, they become morally and doctrinally impossible.
Here, the act itself is founded on a silence which functions as consent:
– By solemnly sealing “public friendship” with a state constitutionally rejecting Christ, and by framing this as a model of “true progress,” John XXIII offers ecclesiastical confirmation to the laicist usurpation.
– He does so not as a persecuted Pope prudently tolerating evil while denouncing it, but as an enthusiastic partner who canonizes the liberal order.
Such a stance is incompatible with the dogmatic teaching that Christ must reign over societies as well as individuals. Therefore, the act is not an exercise of papal authority; it is an exercise of usurped power within a neo-church whose aims contradict the constitutive marks of the Catholic Church.
Theological Vacuum: Total Absence of Evangelization and the Kingship of Christ
The gravest scandal of Diuturno usu is what it does not say.
In a region soaked with Catholic blood and suffering, amid:
– Islam;
– militant laicism;
– decapitation of Christian culture;
the so‑called Apostolic letter:
– Does not once mention the Holy Name of Jesus Christ as King and Lord to whom Turkey owes allegiance.
– Does not call for the protection or restoration of the Most Holy Sacrifice.
– Does not call the Turkish authorities or people to repentance, baptism, and submission to the one true Church.
– Does not speak of the Four Last Things: death, judgment, hell, and heaven; nor of the danger of eternal damnation for those who persist in false cults and indifferentism.
Instead, everything is reduced to:
– “useful” diplomatic relations;
– “bonds of friendship”;
– “goods of peace” and “true progress” — all undefined, drained of supernatural meaning, usable by any Masonic lodge or secular chancellery.
This silence is a theological confession: the conciliar sect no longer believes in the exclusive salvific necessity of the Catholic faith and Church. It has replaced the supernatural soteriology with a naturalistic humanitarianism. Pius XI explicitly warned that laicism — making the state operate as if God and Christ did not exist — is the plague poisoning modern society; John XXIII, in this act, solemnizes cooperation with precisely that plague.
Silentium de Christo Rege in actu publico (silence about Christ the King in a public act) of this kind is itself a denial by omission. When the one who claims the See of Peter speaks formally and exclusively in terms of secular friendship with a regime of apostasy, he testifies that for his structure Christ’s rights are negotiable, optional, or irrelevant.
Conciliar Fruits: Religious Indifferentism and Ecumenical Betrayal
The approach exhibited in Diuturno usu is not an isolated aberration; it is a seed of later and greater betrayals:
– The conciliar sect’s doctrine on “religious liberty” and “dialogue” with Islam and other false religions flows organically from this mentality.
– The neo-church’s participation in interreligious gatherings, common prayers, and public endorsement of non-Christian cults is but the matured fruit of treating apostate or infidel states as legitimate partners in “peace and progress,” instead of nations in need of conversion.
Pius IX, in the Syllabus, rejects:
– That every man is free to embrace and profess whatever religion he deems true (prop. 15).
– That man can find salvation in any religion whatsoever (prop. 16).
– That Protestantism (and, a fortiori, non-Christian religions) is just another form of true Christianity (prop. 18).
– That the Roman Pontiff can reconcile himself with liberalism and modern civilization (prop. 80).
Yet John XXIII’s letter presupposes precisely the opposite: the Turkish Republic remains ideologically and legally alien to Christ; instead of being summoned to abandon its error, it is embraced in a “public friendship” which by its very nature recognizes that apostate order as legitimate and sufficient, so long as it allows the conciliar sect’s diplomatic presence.
This is not apostolic mission; it is religious relativism in practice. The Internunciature, so defined, does not represent the Church demanding the rights of God; it represents the Church of the New Advent submitting itself to the Masonic architecture of the modern state system.
Canonical and Dogmatic Incoherence: Abuse of “Perpetual” and “Plenitude of Power”
Diuturno usu concludes with emphatic juridical formulas:
– The act is to be “firmus, validus atque effica[x] … iugiter exstare ac permanere.”
– Any contrary attempt “a quovis, auctoritate qualibet” is declared null.
This solemnity, borrowed from genuine pontifical documents, is turned against the very essence of papal authority:
– True papal acts bind because they are instruments of the mission received from Christ: to guard the deposit of faith, govern the Church for the salvation of souls, and assert the divine rights of Christ and His Church.
– When a pretended act absolutizes a purely naturalist diplomatic arrangement with a regime of apostasy, declaring it “perpetual,” it exposes itself as caricature: the usurper arrogates to himself a definitive sacramentalized sanction of silence about Christ’s Kingship.
Furthermore:
– The concept of “plenitudo potestatis” (plenitude of power) has precise theological limits: the Pope is not an absolute monarch in the secular or modernist sense, but the vicar of Christ bound by divine law, revelation, and the perennial Magisterium.
– To use this formula to institutionalize a friendship which, by omission and context, ratifies religious indifferentism, is an abuse that confirms that the author does not act as Vicar of Christ, but as head of a neo-church with different ends.
Such misuse is one of the many signs that those who, beginning with John XXIII, perpetuate these policies cannot be recognized as true Popes while holding and promoting principles condemned by their predecessors. The theological principle expressed by theologians like St. Robert Bellarmine and summarized in pre-1958 canonical doctrine — that a public heretic cannot be head of the Church because he ceases to be a member — applies in substance: an authority structurally committed to religious liberty, indifferentism, and the denial of Christ’s public reign cannot be the Catholic Papacy.
Symptom of a Deeper Masonic Strategy Against the Church
Finally, Diuturno usu must be seen in continuity with the long-term objectives of anti-Christian and paramasonic forces clearly identified by pre-1958 Magisterium:
– Pius IX and subsequent Popes denounced Masonic sects as the “synagogue of Satan,” whose aim is to banish Christ from public life, dissolve Catholic states, and transform the Church into a harmless moral ornament subordinate to liberal-democratic and laicist regimes.
– Pius XI in Quas Primas explicitly indicates secularism and laicism as the root of social ruin and war, emphasizing that peace without Christ is illusion.
John XXIII’s letter, by officially binding what calls itself the Apostolic See to “friendship” with a Masonic-style laicist state, and by presenting this as “true progress,” operates precisely in the direction desired by those sects:
– The Church (or rather its occupied structures) no longer confronts laicism; she canonizes cooperation with it.
– Instead of challenging the Islamic and secular denial of Christ in Turkey, she recognizes such denial as compatible with “bonds of friendship.”
Thus, Diuturno usu is not a neutral diplomatic step; it is a micro-manifesto of the conciliar sect’s doctrinal capitulation and its alignment with the program condemned consistently before 1958.
Conclusion: A Thin Document as a Thick Manifestation of Apostasy
Behind the polished Latin and the brevity of Diuturno usu stands a complete inversion of Catholic principles:
– The divine right of Christ the King over Turkey and all nations is not affirmed but practically denied.
– The supernatural mission of the Church is eclipsed in favor of technocratic diplomacy.
– The rights of the true Church are not defended; instead, the neo-church integrates itself into laicist structures as a compliant partner.
– The solemn formulas of papal authority are hijacked to bind an act which embodies the very liberalism and religious indifferentism anathematized by true Popes.
This letter thus exposes, in miniatura, the spiritual bankruptcy of the conciliar revolution: substitution of the Cross with the protocol, of evangelization with public relations, of the Kingship of Christ with the cult of “peace and progress” without conversion. It is precisely this logic that has transformed the visible structures once occupied by Catholic authority into the paramasonic neo-church, where the Abomination of Desolation consists above all in the official, systematic silence about the non-negotiable rights of Our Lord Jesus Christ over nations, laws, and consciences.
Source:
Diuturno usu (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025