The document entitled “EO INTENDENTES” (3 May 1960) by John XXIII reorganizes the so‑called Apostolic Delegation of “Eastern and Western British Africa,” renaming it “Apostolic Delegation of Eastern Africa” and redefining its territories (Sudan, Kenya and Zanzibar, Uganda, Tanganyika, Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, French Somaliland, Seychelles), under the competence of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, declaring the act firm, valid, and binding for all. In one page of bureaucratic Latin, the conciliar revolution reveals, with chilling clarity, how ecclesiastical structures can be instrumentalized as a colonial administration for a future neo-church, while remaining almost entirely silent on the supernatural end of the Church and the rights of Christ the King.
Colonial Cartography in Choir Dress: How John XXIII Rewires Africa for the Conciliar Sect
From Apostolic Zeal to Geopolitical Management of Mission Territories
The text opens with an apparently pious intent: the desire that peoples abandon “pagan superstitions” and come to the knowledge of the one true God and be aggregated to the Church. In translation:
“Intending that peoples, having rejected the darkness of pagan superstition, be led to the knowledge and worship of the one true God and be aggregated to the Church, the guardian of the Faith and saving Mother, with solicitous care we provide those things which seem better suited to promote and regulate missionary work.”
At first sight, this seems Catholic. But immediately, the entire perspective collapses into administrative-technocratic rearrangement. The “missionary work” is treated predominantly as a function of territorial governance. The decisive paragraphs concern:
“We have decided to impose a new name on the Apostolic Delegation hitherto called of Eastern and Western British Africa and to establish its boundaries in a more suitable way… We decree that the Apostolic Delegation of Eastern and Western British Africa shall henceforth be called the Apostolic Delegation of Eastern Africa, and we subject to it these regions: Sudan, Kenya and Zanzibar, Uganda, Tanganyika, Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, French Somaliland and Seychelles.”
The supposed Apostolic authority is invoked above all to draw lines on the map and ratify an ecclesiastico-political grid over vast territories. The supernatural hierarchy of ends is inverted: instead of the temporal order being subordinated to the reign of Christ the King, ecclesiastical structures are adjusted to the categories of secular colonial geography and future decolonization management. The Church is made to appear as one more actor of international administration.
This is not accidental. Already before the Council, John XXIII appears here as the architect of a paramasonic “updated” missionary system: less concerned with clear doctrinal confession, more with diplomatic optimization. The text is a cold template for the later conciliar sect’s strategy in Africa: create a uniform bureaucratic framework through which a naturalistic religious globalization can later be injected.
Linguistic Sterility as Symptom of Doctrinal Erosion
The language of the document is externally traditional (Latin formulas, motu proprio, “certa scientia,” invoking the “plenitude of Apostolic power”), yet the substance is vacuous in precisely those elements where the pre‑1958 Magisterium would be fiery and precise.
Note the contrast:
– There is a generic reference to peoples abandoning “ethnic superstition,” but absolutely no:
– concrete confession of the necessity of the Catholic Church as the only ark of salvation;
– affirmation of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus in its full, dogmatic sense;
– warning against Islam, Protestantism, masonry, socialism, or syncretistic cults, all of which were already ravaging African religious life and political structures.
– There is solemn insistence on the legal validity of the territorial act:
“We decree that the present Letters remain firm, valid and effective… and that anything attempted contrary to these dispositions, by any person, of whatever authority, wittingly or unwittingly, shall be null and void.”
But there is no analogous solemn insistence that these peoples must publicly submit to Christ the King, legislate according to divine law, and reject the Satanic principles condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus.
The style betrays a mentality: the sacred formulas of the papal chancery are preserved, but emptied of the burning doctrinal content characteristic of Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII. Instead of titles and borders being instruments at the service of an aggressive supernatural mission, the “mission” is the rhetorical ornament of a fundamentally administrative act.
Pius XI in Quas primas taught clearly that peace and order are only possible if Christ reigns socially and politically, and that secularism is a “plague” that must be condemned, not accommodated. Here, however, we see precisely the opposite trajectory: structures ready-made to coexist with states divorced from Christ, anticipating the conciliar dogma of “religious freedom” and “dialogue.”
The text’s bureaucratic neatness is not neutral; it is the mask of a new orientation: from zeal for divine rights to meticulous respect for human geopolitical balances.
Theological Inversion: Mission Territories Prepared for Religious Indifferentism
Measured against the immutable doctrine of the Church before 1958, the document is theologically deficient in ways that are not accidental, but prophetic of the conciliar sect.
1. The end of missions:
– True doctrine (Pius XI, Pius XII, the entire missionary tradition): missions exist to convert nations, destroy idolatry and error, plant the Catholic Church with her sacraments, doctrine, and discipline, and shape public and private life according to Christ’s law.
– This document: speaks briefly of leading peoples from superstition to knowledge and worship of the one true God and to “aggregation” to the Church, but reduces the concrete means to “providing those things which seem better suited to promote and regulate missionary work” understood as jurisdictional redistribution.
The omission is crucial. Where a true Pope would thunder against sects, Freemasonry, Protestant propaganda, Islam, Marxism, animist and syncretist cults, this text confines itself to the neutral language of “regions,” “conditions,” “more suitable boundaries.”
The silence about sacraments, state of grace, final judgment, and the absolute necessity of explicit Catholic faith for nations is not a detail; it is a doctrinal mutilation. The Church is reduced to a kind of transnational administration of religious presence, rather than the exclusive Ark of Salvation imposing the lex Christi over peoples and rulers.
2. Subordination to modern geopolitical categories:
The list of territories is taken directly from colonial nomenclature — Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, French Somaliland, Seychelles. There is no assertion that these political entities are morally obliged to recognize the Kingship of Christ and subject their legislation to the natural and divine law, as taught infallibly in the constant Magisterium and reaffirmed by Pius XI.
Instead, the Delegation is defined in humble conformity to the existing political-territorial order. This is the embryo of the conciliar teaching that the State can and should remain religiously “neutral” and that the Church no longer demands privilegium veritatis in public law, explicitly condemned in the Syllabus (e.g. propositions 55, 77‑80).
3. Legal maximalism, doctrinal minimalism:
The same act that is timid and generic in doctrine is maximalist in juridical formulae:
“We decree and define… we order these Letters to remain firm, valid, effective… anything attempted contrary shall be null and void.”
This paradox is typical of the nascent neo-church: an absolutist claim to authority used to implement practical reorientation away from the prior doctrinal firmness. The authority claimed in the name of Peter is mobilized not to defend the Syllabus, Pascendi, Lamentabili, Quas primas, but to rearrange power lines for a structure that will soon betray them.
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, such use of the forms of Apostolic power in the service of a program that structurally prepares for doctrinal dilution is morally and theologically monstrous.
Silence about the Enemy: Modernism and Freemasonry Hidden in Plain Sight
One of the gravest indictments of this document is what it does not say.
By 1960:
– Freemasonic and socialist movements were deeply involved in African “liberation” politics.
– Protestant and sectarian missions, as well as Islamic influences, were aggressively expanding in the same territories.
– Modernist biblical, liturgical, and ecumenical errors, condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi, were infiltrating seminaries, missionary institutes, and episcopates.
Yet the text:
– does not mention the grave danger of heresy and apostasy;
– does not recall the prior condemnations of secret societies and laicism so forcefully articulated by Pius IX and Leo XIII;
– does not warn missionaries or faithful against collaboration with anti-Catholic revolutionary movements or secular “development” agendas;
– does not command the social reign of Christ in these new nations, contrary to the clear obligation taught in Quas primas.
This silence is not pious discretion; it is complicity. Pius IX explicitly unmasked masonic sects as the “synagogue of Satan” and traced political persecutions against the Church to their machinations, urging bishops to denounce them publicly. Here, by contrast, there is a politically hygienic document, carefully avoiding any “offense” to emerging national elites and their ideological sponsors.
Such omission has a dogmatic dimension: by not asserting the rights of Christ the King and the exclusive truth of the Catholic religion, and by not naming the enemies of the Faith in these contested territories, the document catechizes bishops and missionaries into practical indifferentism and cowardly silence.
Instrumentalization of Pre-Conciliar Forms for the Neo-Church Project
The structural features of “EO INTENDENTES” must be read prophetically in light of what followed:
– It centralizes and streamlines the chain of command over vast African territories just before the launch of the Second Vatican pseudo-council.
– This centralized Delegation becomes the conduit through which:
– the new ecumenical and religious liberty doctrines will be imposed;
– the Protestantized “New Mass” will later be diffused;
– episcopal appointments, often ideologically aligned with laicist and socialist regimes, will be orchestrated;
– national hierarchies will be trained in the cult of “human rights,” “development,” and “inculturation” understood as syncretism.
The text itself, invoking “Propaganda Fide,” pretends continuity with missionary tradition. In reality, it prepares the administrative skeleton for an anti-missionary strategy: once the conciliar errors are endorsed, this same Delegation framework is used not to eradicate superstition and error, but to dignify them under “dialogue,” “respect for cultures,” and “religious liberty” — all condemned propositions in the Syllabus of Pius IX.
Thus, the document demonstrates the key mechanism of the conciliar sect:
– keep the envelope (Latin, “motu proprio,” juridical solemnity),
– change the content (from exclusive truth and conversion to pluralism and coexistence),
– use the authentic symbols to legitimize the coming betrayal.
This is why integral Catholic doctrine cannot regard such texts as harmless. They are acts of pre-positioning: the choreography of an institution that will soon be hijacked to extinguish precisely that missionary spirit it pretends to promote.
The False Apostolicity of John XXIII’s Act
The text repeatedly appeals to:
– motu proprio
– certa scientia
– plenitudo Apostolicae potestatis
These formulas, in the mouth of a true Roman Pontiff, are terrible and majestic; they bind the Church with the voice of Peter. But their deployment here is bound to content that, while not yet an explicit dogmatic deviation, functions as a tool of a broader revolution: the reorientation of mission, the preparation of structures for doctrinal subversion, the tacit rejection of the public Kingship of Christ and the Syllabus.
From the standpoint of the perennial Catholic doctrine defended by St. Pius X in Lamentabili and Pascendi, any authority that uses the external forms of the papacy to pave the way for condemned propositions, religious liberty, ecumenism, and the neutral State, thereby undermines its own claim. The Fathers and doctors insist: a manifest heretic cannot hold jurisdiction in the Church; those who deviate from revealed doctrine and the constant Magisterium cannot be the mouth of Peter.
This document stands as a forensic clue: an apparently innocuous administrative rearrangement that reveals John XXIII’s role as an operator of reconfiguration, not guardian of immemorial doctrine. The inverse proportion between its solemn claims of canonical force and its anorexic doctrinal content is a red flag of the coming usurpation.
Preparation of Souls for a Naturalistic “Gospel”
Beyond borders and titles, the gravest effect of such documents is pedagogical. Leadership texts teach bishops and clergy what matters.
Here, what seems to matter most is:
– alignment of ecclesiastical structures with secular territorial realities;
– docile adaptation to geopolitical change;
– centralized regulation of missions under Roman bureaucracy.
What is almost absent:
– insistence on the necessity of supernatural faith in Christ and His one Church for salvation;
– explicit subordination of political communities to the Kingship of Christ;
– militant denunciation of modern errors, Freemasonry, false religions, and syncretistic “inculturation.”
The message to missionaries and local hierarchies is clear: “You are functionaries in a respectable international organization; respect local states, adjust the map, avoid strong doctrinal language.” Within a few years, the same mentality will produce episcopal conferences that bless socialist regimes, embrace ecumenical worship, and tolerate or promote idolatry — all under the aegis of the same structures here reorganized.
The silence about state of grace, judgment, hell, the necessity of the Most Holy Sacrifice, and the gravity of idolatry is the deepest accusation. This omission catechizes entire regions into regarding Catholicism as one spirituality among others, not the exclusive path willed and commanded by God.
Conclusion: A Technical Decree as X-Ray of a Systemic Betrayal
“EO INTENDENTES” is brief, but spiritually revealing.
– It clothes itself in venerable legal formulas, but instrumentalizes them for a program of geopolitical and administrative accommodation.
– It mentions conversion in abstract terms, but omits the thunderous doctrinal clarity and anti-liberal militancy inseparable from true pre‑1958 Magisterium.
– It aligns ecclesiastical territories with the categories of secular power without reminding those powers of their duty to recognize and serve Christ the King, in open tension with Quas primas and the Syllabus.
– It functions as a hinge: the missionary apparatus is consolidated just before being injected with conciliar poison.
In its controlled language, this document already bears the genetic code of the conciliar sect: human respect, naturalistic horizon, diplomatic prudence, structural centralization, doctrinal anemia. Precisely because it seems “merely administrative,” it demonstrates how the betrayal was prepared: by habituating the Church’s visible organization to think and act as a geopolitical bureaucracy instead of as the militant Kingdom of Christ, intolerant of error and sovereign over nations.
This act, therefore, cannot be read as a simple technical note in the life of the Church; it is an early stone in the edifice of that paramasonic structure which, from 1958 onwards, would occupy Catholic institutions and use them to enthrone man where only Christ the King may reign.
Source:
Eo intendentes, Litterae Apostolicae Nomen Delegationis Apostolicae Africae Orientalis et Occidentalis Britannicae mutatur eaque appellabitur « Delegatio Apostolica Africae Orientalis »: eius insuper … (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025