This is the only rational option, available for all. It is only in this, one, way that Vatican Council II can be ethical and Magisterial. There is only one rational option for the popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, religious communities...Their present interpretation is irrational, non ethical,non traditional , heretical, schismatic and non Magisterial.

 

‘The hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition’ or ‘the development of doctrine with Vatican Council II’ depends upon how you interpret the hypothetical (red) passages. So do they refer to physically invisible or visible cases in 2024 for you?

1. If they are physically visible cases then they are examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church and so they contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). The past ecclesiocentrism is made obsolete. The door is open for liberalism and innovation (Synods, Amoris Laetitia etc).

2. If they are physically invisible cases they are not practical exceptions for the dogma EENS, Traditional Mission and the need for all to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation. 

NO EXCEPTIONS FOR THE PROCLAMATION OF THE SOCIAL REIGN OF CHRIST THE KING

There are no exceptions for the dogma EENS and so the need for a Catholic State and the Proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics.  There is no break with Tradition (Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, Catechisms of Trent and Pius X). There is no break with the orthodox (blue) passages in Vatican Council II. The Council has a coherence within itself.Only when the red hypothetical passages are interpreted rationally, as being only hypothetical cases ; invisible people in the present times. 

THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS FOR TRADITIONAL MISSION

There are no exceptions for Traditional Mission based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. So the Catholic Church returns once again to the traditional mission of the Jesuits in the Middle Ages. The doctrine has no changed with Vatican Council II.

This is the only rational option, available for all. It is only in this, one,  way that  Vatican Council II can be ethical and Magisterial. There is only one rational option for the popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, religious communities...Their present interpretation is irrational, non ethical,non traditional , heretical, schismatic and non Magisterial.-Lionel Andrades 

______________________

______________________

 NOVEMBER 6, 2017

There is a mistake in Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus

 Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus have a mistake.

When Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus were issued neither did Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger know of any exceptions to the dogma

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/when-redemptoris-missio-and-dominus.html

Dominus Iesus, Redemptoris Missio carry the Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani mistake

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/dominus-iesus-redemptoris-missio-carry.html

NOVEMBER 6, 2017

Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus were written with the 'possibilities are exceptions' errorhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/11/pope-john-paul-ii-and-cardinal-joseph.html

 NOVEMBER 6, 2017

Bishop Robert J.McManus and Brother Thomas Augustine MICM,Superior,St.Benedict Center,Still River,MA, interpret Vatican Council II with the 'possibilites are exceptions' error  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/11/bishop-robert-jmcmanus-and-brother.html

Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict also used the false premise and conclusion from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/pope-john-paul-ii-and-pope-benedict.html

DECEMBER 24, 2016

In Dominus Iesus Cardinal Ratzinger repeats mistakes of Redemptoris Missio :irrational philosophy creates non traditional theology

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/in-dominus-iesus-cardinal-ratzinger.html

DECEMBER 23, 2016

Cardinal Ratzinger made an objective mistake in Redemptoris Missio

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/cardinal-ratzinger-made-objective.html

December 22, 2016

Card.Ratzinger's error in the ITC papers is also there in Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus

 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/cardratzingers-error-in-itc-papers-is.html

DECEMBER 22, 2016

Cardinal Ratzinger 's work : a rupture between faith and reason

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/cardinal-ratzinger-s-work-rupture.html

DECEMBER 12, 2015

Irrational Cushingism theology in the Document on the Jews is also there in Redemptorist Missio and Dominus Iesus

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/irrational-cushingism-theology-in.html

MARCH 16, 2015

Once a traditionalist or sedevacantist has an insight into all this Vatican Council II dramatically changes

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/message-incomplete-we-dont-know-any-one.html

-Lionel Andrades

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2018

Errors in Dominus Iesus : It is because of Pope Benedict that there is so much doctrinal confusion in the Church. Catholics have to accept heresy.This was considered orthodoxy by Cardinal Ratzinger

Since Cardinal Ratzinger used Cushingite instead of  Feeneyite theology to interpret Vatican Council II, as he refers to an ‘ecclesiocentrism' of the past ' (Dominus Iesus 19) 1 which is no more the eccclesiology of the present times for him.This is a scandal.
He first uses and irrational premise to interpret Vatican Council II and then we he creates a non traditional conclusion which is a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the rest of Tradition, he refers to an ecclesiocentrism of the past, as if that is not the ecclesiology of the  Catholic Church any more.

' the necessity of the Church for this salvation”(Dominus Iesus 20)  for him does not refer to being  incorporated into the Church as a member. Since this  would be the past ecclesiocentrism for him.He is referring to a New Theology and New Ecclesioilogy created with alleged known salvation outside the Church. So LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 are not just hypothetical cases, speculation with good will for him they are personally known people. Since only if there are personally known people saved outside the Catholic Church can there be exceptions to EENS and the past ecclesiocentrism would become obsolete.

How could he reject the old ecclesiology by using an irrational premise ? He rejects the dogma EENS too by using the false premise.This cannot be magisterial. Since the
 Holy Spirit would not use a false premise to create a rupture with Tradition.

It is because of Pope Benedict that there is so much doctrinal confusion in the Church.

Catholics have to accept heresy.This was considered orthodoxy by Cardinal Ratzinger.

Dominus Iesus is Cushingite.It is based on unknown cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance being visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).This is an irrational philosophy used to create a new theology and it is magisterial. It was approved by the liberal theologian Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in Redemptoris Missio and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.2

Cardinal Ratzinger approved Christianity and the World Religions,ITC. It assumes the possibilities of salvation are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So theoretical cases are actual, real people for Cardinal Ratzinger. Otherwise how could they  be exceptions to EENS? Someone must exist to be an exception.So with this philosophical error ( deception?) they did away with exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.They wrote Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus with this error.

So there is no exclusivist ecclesiology in Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus. 

They were written with the invisible people are visible premise.Unknown cases of the baptism of desire etc are assumed to be known cases of salvation outside the Church.People saved in Heaven are allegedly visible on earth.This is the basis of the New Theology upon which is based Redemptoris Missio and Dominus  Iesus. How can possibilities be real people ? I cannot meet someone saved with  the baptism of desire. I do not know any one saved in invincible ignorance or seeds  of the Word or elements of sanctification and truth in other religions or because we 

know someone saved because the true Church of Christ subsists in outside the Catholic Church.We cannot know of any one saved in another religions through Jesus and the Church. These are all speculative and theoretical statements.

 Yet they are interpreted as being known exceptions to EENS and the 'past 

ecclesiocentrism'.

Here is Bishop Bernard Fellay making the 'possibilities are exceptions' error.

The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3).

Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church, which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949".
 - Bishop Bernard Fellay (April 13, 2014 ) Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82 

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/11/formal-recognition-of-traditionalist.html

Bishop Bernard Fellay made a factual mistake in Letter  to Friends and Benefactors no. 82 : we cannot see the dead.

Bishop Bernard Fellay Superior General of the Society of St.Pius X 
(SSPX) refers to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He says it is contradicted by Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Lumen Gentium 8  and Nostra Aetate  2 in Vatican Council  II which refer to salvation for non Catholics.

In his Letter to Friends and Benefactors (April  13,2014) he considers Unitatis Redintegratio 3,Lumen Gentium 8 and Nostra Aetate 2   exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.This is Cushingism.

For Bishop Fellay UR 3, LG 8 and NA 2 are  exceptions to the dogma EENS and so he rejects Vatican Council II as did Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. He is following the Letter of the  Holy Office 1949(LOHO) in which the theology is Cushingite.The same  false premise which he and Pope Benedict use, is also there in LOHO.-Lionel Andrades

1.

DECEMBER 24, 2016

In Dominus Iesus Cardinal Ratzinger repeats mistakes of Redemptoris Missio :irrational philosophy creates non traditional theology

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/in-dominus-iesus-cardinal-ratzinger.html

2. DECEMBER 20, 2017

Dominus Iesus is not Feeneyite but uses the irrational Cushingite theology.Cardinal Kasper is correct.  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/question-for-matthew-bellisario-so-you.html

3.

NOVEMBER 6, 2017

Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's Redemptoris Missio and

Dominus Iesus were written with the 'possibilities are exceptions' error.  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/11/pope-john-paul-ii-and-cardinal-joseph.html

MAY 14, 2018

Most of Redemptoris Missio cannot be magisterial since the Holy Spirit cannot make an objective and factual mistake  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/05/most-of-redemptoris-mission-cannot-be.html

MAY 13, 2018

Missionary work among non Christians non relevant : Cushingite theology ended it  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/05/missionary-work-among-non-christians.html

MAY 13, 2018

With Redemptoris Missio's Cushingite theology 'the dogma of the faith was lost' (Graphics)   http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/05/with-redemptoris-missios-cushingite.html

MAY 13, 2018

At Fatima Our Lady could have been referring to the future work of the liberals including Cardinal Ratzinger  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/05/at-fatima-our-lady-could-have-been.html

 MAY 12, 2018

Cardinal Ratzinger made an objective error in Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus :
 we can undo the mistake and re-interpret Vatican Council II (Graphics)

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/05/cardinal-ratzinger-made-onbjective.html

MAY 12, 2018

Repost : There is a mistake in Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus : objective mistake  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/05/repost-there-is-mistake-in-redemptoris.html

MAY 11, 2018

Parts of Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger cannot be magisterial since the Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake : the false theology is also there in the new book Liberating Freedom: Faith and Politics in the Third Millennium / Joseph Ratzinger-Benedict XVI, “Liberare la libertà. Fede e politica nel terzo millennio” ( Cantagalli) http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/05/redemptoris-missio-and-dominus-iesus-of.html

 JUNE 27, 2016

THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF THE CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH, VATICAN II, ‘LUMEN GENTIUM’ IS FEENEYITE : FOR CARDINAL RATZINGER AND THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION IT IS CUSHINGITE   http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/the-ecclesiology-of-constitution-on.html

All the Cardinals and Bishops at the Synod on the family in their catechesis will use the irrational right hand column in the intepretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/all-cardinals-at-synod-on-family-in.html#links

All this must be clarified by the SSPX before they sign a doctrinal preamble.This is major doctrinal error in the Catholic Church which the CDF keeps hidden

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/cardinal-luiz-ladaria-s.html#links

OCTOBER 2, 2014

CCC 1257-1260: If we do not know any such person in 2014 then how can we say theoretically, God is not limited to the Sacraments, every one does not need the Baptism of water  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/ccc-1257-1260-if-we-do-not-know-any.html

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/ccc-1257-god-is-not-limited-to.html

MAY 12, 2018

Repost : There is a mistake in Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus : objective mistake       http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/05/repost-there-is-mistake-in-redemptoris.html

MARCH 20, 2012

Bishop Fellay, Fr.Schmidberger,FSSP,Joseph Fenton seem unaware the baptism of desire is not an explicit exception to the dogma http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/bishop-fellay-frschmidbergerfsspjoseph.html

_________________________________

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2014

Franciscans of the Immaculate, SSPX note : Cardinal Ratzinger used an irrational inference in the interpretation of Dominus Iesus

Franciscans of the Immaculate (FFI) and the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX)  be aware.  Cardinal Ratzinger used an irrational premise. With this false inference he intepreted magisterial documents.So during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II he rejected traditional teachings in a subtle way. Dominus Iesus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Redemptoris Missio have all been water downed. Cardinal Ratzinger assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are known and visible to us in real life. So he  then assumed there were  explicit exceptions to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Feeneyite version was rejected as heresy. Also rejected was Tradition  according to the popes and  saints before 1949. For Cardinal Ratzinger, and then Pope Benedict XVI, some persons  now in Heaven were  visible exceptions on earth.They were exceptions  to the baptism of water being necessary for all.Traditional teaching on salvation was rejected. It is with this 'empirical observation', I-can-see-the-dead-saved-without-the-baptism-of-water, that he screened Dominus Iesus etc.

For him Lumen Gentium 16, Lumen Gentium 8,Nostra Aetate 2, Unitatis Redintigratio 3 etc refer to objective exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. So he could not simply say in Dominus Iesus  that all need to enter the Church formally and defacto there are no exceptions.

He could not say it. Since for him LG 16 ( saved with invincible ignorance) refers to known salvation outside the Church ( i.e without faith and baptism).Pope Pius XII was correct and Fr.Feeney and the previous popes were wrong for him.

The text of Vatican Council II does not refer to salvation in invincible ignorance as being explicit for us . It does not say that we personally know any one saved as such. Neither does it state that those who are saved as such will not have received the baptism of water  before going to Heaven.However he infers all this.

Cardinal Ratzinger  assumed (1) that these cases were personally known to us( for them to be exceptions). (2) They refer to persons  saved without the baptism of water and who did   not need to formally enter  the Catholic Church.Where does any magisterial document before 1949 make this claim? There is no precedent.Mystici Corporis and the Council of Trent only refer to implicit desire/ baptism of desire. It is not said that these cases are 1) visible to us in real life or 2) are explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on salvation.

 

 

Instead we have been a new new doctrine.It is irrational. It is an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.It  was not corrected by the Prefect of the Congregation for the  Doctrine of the Faith(CDF),Vatican.Instead the CDF  allowed the oversight to condition Dominis Iesus.Cardinal Ratzinger was a Cushingite.Irrational Cushingism can be detected all over magisterial documents he approved.

When Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger approved Dominus Iesus in 2000 he  assumed that Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong.For Pope Benedict XVI  there was known salvation outside the Church. Those saved with the baptism of desire etc were assumed to be known.They were visible for him. Upon this irrationality the new theology is founded.

 

Dominus Iesus: 

20.For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation.

Lionel:

The dogma says all need to formally enter the Church for salvation and so does Vatican Council II (AG 7). Dominus Iesus says those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church are saved. Who are they? Do we know any such person over the last 100 years saved, who was  not a formal member of the Church? Do we know any one who will be saved as such in future?

How can hypothetical cases, be exceptions to the dogma approved by three Church Councils? The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued by a cardinal ( Marchetti-Selvaggini), in which he has made an objective mistake, is sufficient to do away with the dogma and the traditional interpretation?

 

Dominus Iesus: 

21.With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself...

Lionel:

Who are these mysterious people saved without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith? They are not known to us in 2014. They would have to be known to be exceptions to the tradional interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. So they are irrelevant to the dogma Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.There are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to Cantate Dominio which defined extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The dogma says all heretics ( Protestants) and schismatics ( Orthodox Christians) need to convert into the Catholic Church formally to avoid the fires of  Hell.The Jews need to do the same said this Church Council.

Without the irrational inference Vatican Council II is traditional and in line with extra ecclesiam nulla salus, according to Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius X. With the inference of the dead being visible Vatican Council II becomes a break with the past.

So if the Franciscans of the Immaculate and the SSPX avoid the irrational inference, which assumes salvation in Heaven, in some cases, are physically visible to us on earth, then Vatican Council II can be accepted as being traditional on other religions and Christian communities.Vatican Council II (without the false premise) would become ideological for Pope Francis and Fr.Fidenzio Volpi.More important, they would have no rational basis, no citation in the Council, to support their liberal and heretical position.-Lionel Andrades

In Dominus Iesus Cardinal Ratzinger chose the irrational inference and rejected the traditional dogma on salvationhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/in-dominus-iesus-cardinal-ratzinger-has.html

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2019

Coetus Internationalis Patrum Working Group (International Group of Fathers) had to address the issue of Cushingism and Feeneyism in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and Dominus Iesus

The Oct. 1 statement issued by an annonymous  group  the Coetus Internationalis Patrum(CIP) Working Group (International Group of Fathers) cited Dominus Iesus against the Working Paper of the Amazon Synod- but Dominus Iesus is Cushingite and not Feeneyite.Cardinal Ratzinger was a Cushingite who rejected exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.The CIP has cited Dominus Iesus 14 and 16.

1. Amazonian diversity, which is above all religious diversity, evokes a new Pentecost (IL 30): respect for this diversity means to recognize that there are other paths to salvation, without reserving salvation exclusively to the Catholic faith. Non-Catholic Christian groups teach other modalities of being Church, without censures, without dogmatism, without ritual disciplines and ecclesial forms (IL 138); the Catholic Church ought to integrate these modalities. Reserving salvation exclusively to the Creed is destructive of the Creed (IL 39).

Against this, among other texts: Dominus Iesus 14 and 16.

This is meaningless for a Cushingite. Even Cardinal Ratzinger and the liberals would cite Dominus Iesus 14 and 16 to support the above point.

For him Dominus Iesus is Christological.Since with Cushingism he has rejected exclusive salvation in the Church.There is no ecclesiocentric ecclesiology for him. He admits it clearly in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission.

So Dominus Iesus 16 on the Church does not say that every one needs to enter the Church for salvation( to avoid Hell). Since there are exceptions to the past ecclesiology, he would say all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church. So non Catholics could be saved in their religions, the New Theology would suggest, without knowing and believing in Jesus.So Cardinal Ratzinger would support the point above of the Working Paper, while citing Dominus Iesus 14 and 16.

The Coetus Internationalis Patrum(CIP) needed to clarify that they interpret Dominus Iesus and Vatican Council II with Feeneyism and not Cushingism.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) was Cushingite.Even at the time of the Baltimore Catechism the Americanists were Cushingite.They wanted to do away with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The pope at that time had to correct them.

The CIP needed  to announce that Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate and Unitatitis Redintigratio etc no where in its entire text contradicts the past exclusivist ecclesiology, and an ecumenism of return of the Syllabus of Errors.

Without Cushingism, the present two popes and the cardinals and bishops, cannot cite Vatican Council II to contradict   exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

So in defending Tradition, the focus must be shifted to Cushingism and Feeneyism; the Council interpreted with the false premise or without the false invisible-people-are-visible premise.

Why must Catholics in general, the two popes must be asked, have to interpret Magisterial documents with hypothetical cases not being hypothetical?
Why should students at the pontifical universities have to study pastoral theology and ecclesiology with this irrationality? Should they not be free to interpret hypothetical and theoretical cases(LG 8 etc) as not being objective exceptions to the past exclusive ecclesiology in 2019?

Why must Catholics in general interpret Lumen Gentium, as an exception, to the old ecclesiology of the Church?

Why ?

There is no rational reason. This is really the irrational official position of Cardinal Luiz Ladaria and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF). For him  Lumen Gentium (LG 8, LG 14, LG 16) contradicts the past ecclesiology, even though they are only hypothetical cases.They are not real and known non Catholics, saved outside the Church. 
Whatever are the arguments on Fr. Leonard Feeney  or the Letter of the Holy Office 1949,Lumen Gentium  does not contradict the past ecclesiology and the Syllabus of Errors for me.

We are not obliged to interpret Vatican Council II  with Cushingism just because Popes Paul VI made a mistake.

This is the central pioint the CIP must address.The cardinals and bishops at the Amazon Synod, like Pope Francis, will interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism.-Lionel Andrades

OCTOBER 4, 2019

The Amazon Synod Working Paper contradicts Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/10/i-have-written-that-amazon-synod.html

 OCTOBER 4, 2019

The popes from Paul VI to Francis made an objective and factual mistake on Vatican Council II and so the Amazon Synod Working Paper rejects exclusive salvation.They have interpreted the Council with the false premise

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-popes-from-paul-vi-to-francis-made.html

 OCTOBER 3, 2019

There is nothing controversial to proclaim.This is the new concept of mission approved by Pope Francis and Pope Benedict. Similarly in Rome, itself, the priest at Mass has nothing controversial to say since he interprets Vatican Council II with an irrational reasoning.There is no more exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/10/there-is-nothing-controversial-to.html

OCTOBER 2, 2019

The ecclesiology of the Working Paper of the Amazon Synod is heretical.Liturgically it could create an opening for the abomination of desolation to be brought to the altar

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-ecclesiology-of-working-paper-of.html

 OCTOBER 1, 2019

Amazon Synod Instrumentum Laboris contradicts Vatican Council II and Creeds : it is first class heresy and a schism with the popes before Pius XII

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/10/amazon-synod-instrumentum-laboris.html