2. Pagan superstitions as sources of Divine Revelation and alternative pathways for salvation The Instrumentum Laboris draws from its implicit pantheistic conception an erroneous concept of Divine Revelation, stating basically that God continues to self-communicate in history through the conscience of the peoples and the cries of nature. According to this view, the pagan superstitions of the Amazon tribes are an expression of divine Revelation deserving an attitude of dialogue and acceptance on the part of the Church: ‒ The Amazon is a “theological place” where faith “or the experience of God in history” is lived; it is “a particular source of God’s revelation: epiphanic places” where the “caresses of God” become “incarnate in history” (n°19); ‒ The Church must “discover the incarnate and active presence of God” in “the spirituality of original peoples” (n°33), recognizing in them “other avenues / pathways” (n°39), since the Creator Spirit “has nurtured the spirituality of these peoples for centuries, even before the proclamation of the Gospel” (n°120) teaching them “faith in the God Father-Mother Creator” and “the living relationship with nature and ‘Mother Earth’” as well as “with ancestors” (n°121); ‒ Through dialogue, the Church must avoid imposing “petrified doctrines” (n°38), “formulations of faith expressed with other cultural referents” (n°120), and a “corporatist attitude, that reserve salvation exclusively for one’s own creed,” (n°39); by so doing, the Church will be journeying “in search of its identity towards unity in the Holy Spirit” (n°40); The Magisterium of the Church rejects the relativization of the uniqueness of God’s revelation as contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, teaching: “The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures just as she venerates the body of the Lord (...) She has always maintained them, and continues to do so, together with sacred Tradition, as the supreme rule of faith, since, as inspired by God and committed once and for all to writing, they impart the word of God Himself without change, and make the voice of the Holy Spirit resound in the words of the prophets and Apostles. Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture” (Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, n°21). The Magisterium of the Church affirms that there is one unique Savior, Jesus Christ, and the Church is His unique Mystical Body and Bride: “In connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: ‘a single Catholic and Apostolic Church’. Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church's integrity — will never be lacking” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – Declaration Dominus Iesus on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, n°16). 

3. Intercultural dialogue instead of evangelization The Instrumentum Laboris contains the erroneous theory that aboriginal people have already received divine revelation, and that the Catholic Church in the Amazon should undergo a “missionary and pastoral conversion”, instead of introducing doctrine and practice of universal truth and goodness. The Instrumentum Laboris says also that the Church must enrich herself with the symbols and rites of the aboriginal people: ‒ An “outgoing Church” avoids the risk of “proposing a solution with universal value” or the application of “a monolithic body of doctrine guarded by all” (n°110) and favours interculturality, i.e. “a mutual enrichment of cultures in dialogue,” because “the active subjects of inculturation are the indigenous peoples themselves” (n°122); ‒ Furthermore, the Church recognizes “indigenous spirituality as a source of riches for the Christian experience” and undertakes “a catechesis that assumes the language and meaning of the narratives of the indigenous and Afro-descendant cultures” (n°123); ‒ By mutually sharing their “their experiences of God,” believers make “their differences a stimulus to grow and deepen their own faith” (n°136). The Magisterium of the Church rejects the idea that missionary activity is merely intercultural enrichment, teaching: “‘Missions’ is the term usually given to those particular undertakings by which the heralds of the Gospel, sent out by the Church and going forth into the whole world, carry out the task of preaching the Gospel and planting the Church among peoples or groups who do not yet believe in Christ. (...) The proper purpose of this missionary activity is evangelization, and the planting of the Church among those peoples and groups where it has not yet taken root. (...) The chief means of the planting referred to is the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ” (Second Vatican Council, Decree Ad Gentes, n°6). “Through inculturation the Church makes the Gospel incarnate in different cultures and at the same time introduces peoples, together with their cultures, into her own community. She transmits to them her own values, at the same time taking the good elements that already exist in them and renewing them from within. Through inculturation the Church, for her part, becomes a more intelligible sign of what she is, and a more effective instrument of mission” (Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, n°52) ...

His Excellency Bishop Athanasius Schneider, truly a latter day Athanasius for our time, and His Eminence Cardinal Raymond Burke, have called on the Faithful to join in a 40 day Crusade of prayer and fasting, with God's Grace and to the best of one's abilities. From: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/crusade

I have to disagree.  I believe that men like +Schneider and +Burke are VERY DANGEROUS to Tradition.  In calling out the most egregious of the V2 era heresies, they present themselves as paragons of orthodoxy, whereas in point of fact they themselves are Modernists.  So people cold be lulled to sleep about other V2 errors by following their lead.

It's easy to figure out who Bergoglio is, but men like these create confusion by presenting the appearances of Traditional Catholic theology.

Why am I not surprised that the biggest SSPX apologist (XavierSem) has so re-calibrated his scale of "good and bad" that a cold, dusty, half-eaten drumstick is the best food he ever finds?  After all, he's in the SSPX milieu now. They're losing it.

The SSPX is the dog who has returned to its vomit. They left the vomit of Vatican II, and now they have returned to it. Like pigs return to wallowing in the mire, even after they've been hosed off, so also the SSPX can't resist going back to the Conciliar Church and its errors.

All the modern-day Athanasiuses have fled for the Resistance. Anyone left is a sellout with one or more higher priorities than God and His glory, and the glory of Holy Mother Church.
Even if that "higher priority" is just "the good of the SSPX". Sorry, but God comes before the SSPX. If the SSPX has outlived its usefulness, then so be it. Human emotional attachment is not a virtue, nor is it meritorious. Cry a little, and move on. It's not like Christ ever made a promise to +ABL about how long the SSPX would last.

There are some real fanboys who have deified the SSPX and/or +ABL. They had their heart set on +ABL fixing the Crisis at some point, even if only post-humously via his SSPX.

But be of good cheer, SSPXers. His first choice of bishop, Bishop Williamson, is continuing the good fight. So +ABL still gets credit. And the SSPX formed all the good priests who left to form the Resistance. All 4 Resistance bishops were formed in the SSPX.

But you need to move on, already. The SSPX will do less good every year from now on, until they utterly fail. They are doomed, since the whole leadership has gone over to a pro-Vatican II mindset. There is no human hope of repair. Sure, God could work a miracle, but He could work a miracle with ANY religious group or Congregation. God could create a new congregation out of NOTHING, going from void to a new congregation of 500 full grown men. So saying "God could always convert them" doesn't mean much, practically speaking.

Just like I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton because "God could always convert her. She still has a soul to save." Come to me asking for my vote AFTER she has converted then, OK?
We have to judge the objective goodness and badness of actions and positions AS THEY EXIST, in reality, TODAY.

You don't advise your daughter to marry an atheist or a Jєω because "He could always convert, and Jєωs make the best Catholics". You can't treat a Maybe as a "Yes". Especially since, for God, everything is a Maybe!

I have to disagree.  I believe that men like +Schneider and +Burke are VERY DANGEROUS to Tradition.  In calling out the most egregious of the V2 era heresies, they present themselves as paragons of orthodoxy, whereas in point of fact they themselves are Modernists.  So people cold be lulled to sleep about other V2 errors by following their lead.

It's easy to figure out who Bergoglio is, but men like these create confusion by presenting the appearances of Traditional Catholic theology.

Burke I question, but I have nothing against Schneider, though I do not know everything about him. If we cannot trust him, then I know of no Bishop with a public presence within the Novus Ordo who we can trust. He is the best one I know of. There is a photo of him posing with ministers of other religions as a sign that he is a false ecuмenist heretic, but I was not there with them to know if he was praying to their false Gods, or trying to convert them from their false gods and their Idolatry (I assume the latter).
The most touching thing I ever heard from a Novus Ordo Bishop of our generation was how in an interview he told the story of how he went to his underground Bishop behind the red curtain one last time before he "escaped" into the west. And the Bishop warned him that in Germany (I believe he was going to Germany) in some of the Churches they allow Communion in the hand. Then when he and his family got to Germany they went to Mass and everyone was receiving Our Lord in their hands. So they talked among each other and decided to go to another Church (there were four Catholic Churches in his town) and the same thing happened. So they went to the third Church and the same thing happened. And finally they thought there must have been one Church in their town where Our Lord was respected during Holy Communion and they went to the final Church in their town. And there they also found that the people were receiving Communion in the hand. And they were heartbroken. I do not remember if they cried, but I hope they did.

So I want to trust Schneider.

Perhaps there are some hidden good Bishops, but I have never heard anything about them. I do not want to throw away all the Bishops who say the Novus Ordo.

I don't want to look at the entire Novus Ordo hierarchy and say "Let the dead bury the dead." Are we really at that point? If we have to I will accept that. But I do not think we are there yet. I still have hope for some of them as I have hope for some of the laity who still attend to Novus Ordo because they do not know anything else. I have little hope for the older generation. Those who grew up with the traditional Mass and rejected it knowing full well what they are doing. But the younger ones who grew up in the Novus Ordo I have more hope for.

As R&R we have to hope that the Novus Ordo will at some point convert so we cannot throw them all away like the sedevacantists do. We should see signs of orthodoxy and hope for the best and that they will grow into a rebirth of tradition.

It's not like Christ ever made a promise to +ABL about how long the SSPX would last.

Heck, St. Ignatius was still alive when the Jesuits started going south.

So I want to trust Schneider.

I would like to as well, but so long as he operates within the Conciliar framework he is ipso facto un-trustworthy.

Could you please elaborate?  

If this has already been discussed on the forum somewhere, a simple link to that discussion would suffice (I'm not very good with the 'search' function here).

Personally, I know next to nothing about these two, but knowing that for the last 50 years they've said the new "mass" is enough to know that neither are even close to being a "latter day Athanasius for our time".

They are as orthodox as PBXVI was - which is to repeat Lad's words: "they present themselves as paragons of orthodoxy, whereas in point of fact they themselves are Modernists". And that's being nice.