These are the 5 Roman Catholic Prelates who issued an extremely important Declaration of Truth. We should be daily praying for them by name, as that is one way we show our love, devotion and attachment for the Catholic Hierarchy, whom "the Holy Ghost has placed" over us, "to rule the Church of God" (cf. Acts 20:28), and on whom much of the work necessary for Church Restoration, including the Consecration of Russia, and the wider Restoration of the Tridentine Mass, still depends. We should be encouraging and working for other good Roman Catholic Prelates to join these courageous and heroic Prelates in standing firm for Truth in Charity, within the Catholic Communion of the Universal Church.

• I. Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta
• II. Cardinal Janis Pujats, Archbishop Emeritus of Riga
• III. Tomash Peta, Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana
• IV. Jan Pawel Lenga, Archbishop-Bishop emeritus of Karaganda
• V. Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

From: https://onepeterfive.com/newly-released-declaration-of-truths-reads-like-a-neo-syllabus-of-errors/

The full declaration is here: https://onepeterfive.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Declaration_Truths_Errors_final_version_clean.pdf

Just these three articles alone are sufficient to end 99% of the Doctrinal Crisis: "After the institution of the New and Everlasting Covenant in Jesus Christ, no one may be saved by obedience to the law of Moses alone without faith in Christ as true God and the only Savior of humankind (see Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16)." [IV] and "True ecuмenism intends that non-Catholics should enter that unity which the Catholic Church already indestructibly possesses in virtue of the prayer of Christ, always heard by His Father, “that they may be one” (John 17:11), and which she professes in the Symbol of Faith, “I believe in one Church.” Ecuмenism, therefore, may not legitimately have for its goal the establishment of a Church that does not yet exist." [VII] and "The gift of free will with which God the Creator endowed the human person grants man the natural right to choose only the good and the true. No human person has, therefore, a natural right to offend God in choosing the moral evil of sin, the religious error of idolatry, blasphemy, or a false religion." [XI]

It is without doubt and beyond question one of the most important Church Docuмents to have been declared in the last 50 odd years, and many Cardinals and Bishops have already signed. It should be evangelized. Many more Cardinals and Bishops, as well as others, should be encouraged to sign it, and then we have go out and evangelize non-Catholics and non-Christians from their liberal secularist and atheistic errors, because that is the way to bring about the Triumph of the Church and the conversion of nations promised to us. Within the Church, we should work for the wider restoration of the Tridentine Mass and the Consecration of Russia.

I'm posting the 40 articles here below if anyone wants to attempt to critique it or tear it down in some way:

I. The Fundamentals of Faith 1. The right meaning of the expressions ‘living tradition,’ ‘living Magisterium,’ ‘hermeneutic of continuity,’ and ‘development of doctrine’ includes the truth that whatever new insights may be expressed regarding the deposit of faith, nevertheless they cannot be contrary to what the Church has always proposed in the same dogma, in the same sense, and in the same meaning (see First Vatican Council, Dei Filius, sess. 3, c. 4: “in eodem dogmate, eodem sensu, eademque sententia”).

2. “The meaning of dogmatic formulas remains ever true and constant in the Church, even when it is expressed with greater clarity or more developed. The faithful therefore must shun the opinion, first, that dogmatic formulas (or some category of them) cannot signify truth in a determinate way, but can only offer changeable approximations to it, which to a certain extent distort or alter it; secondly, that these formulas signify the truth only in an indeterminate way, this truth being like a goal that is constantly being sought by means of such approximations. Those who hold such an opinion do not avoid dogmatic relativism and they corrupt the concept of the Church's infallibility relative to the truth to be taught or held in a determinate way.” (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration “Mysterium Ecclesiae” in defense of the Catholic doctrine on the Church against certain errors of the present day, 5).

The Creed

3. “The Kingdom of God begun here below in the Church of Christ is not of this world whose form is passing, and its proper growth cannot be confounded with the progress of civilization, of science or of human technology, but it consists in an ever more profound knowledge of the unfathomable riches of Christ, an ever stronger hope in eternal blessings, an ever more ardent response to the love of God, and an ever more generous bestowal of grace and holiness among men. The deep solicitude of the Church, the Spouse of Christ, for the needs of men, for their joys and hopes, their griefs and efforts, is therefore nothing other than her great desire to be present to them, in order to illuminate them with the light of Christ and to gather them all in Him, their only Savior. This solicitude can never mean that the Church conforms herself to the things of this world, or that she lessens the ardor of her longing of her Lord and of the eternal Kingdom” (Paul VI, Apostolic letter Solemni hac liturgia (Credo of the People of God), 27). The opinion is, therefore, erroneous that says that God is glorified principally by the very fact of the progress in the temporal and earthly condition of the human race.

4. After the institution of the New and Everlasting Covenant in Jesus Christ, no one may be saved by obedience to the law of Moses alone without faith in Christ as true God and the only Savior of humankind (see Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16).

5. Muslims and others who lack faith in Jesus Christ, God and man, even monotheists, cannot give to God the same adoration as Christians do, that is to say, supernatural worship in Spirit and in Truth (see Jn 4:24; Eph 2:8) of those who have received the Spirit of filial adoption (see Rom 8:15).

6. Spiritualities and religions that promote any kind of idolatry or pantheism cannot be considered either as “seeds” or as “fruits” of the Divine Word, since they are deceptions that preclude the evangelization and eternal salvation of their adherents, as it is taught by Holy Scripture: “the god of this world has made blind the minds of those who have not faith, so that the light of the good news of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, might not be shining on them” (2 Cor 4:4).

7. True ecuмenism intends that non-Catholics should enter that unity which the Catholic Church already indestructibly possesses in virtue of the prayer of Christ, always heard by His Father, “that they may be one” (John 17:11), and which she professes in the Symbol of Faith, “I believe in one Church.” Ecuмenism, therefore, may not legitimately have for its goal the establishment of a Church that does not yet exist.

8. Hell exists and those who are condemned to hell for any unrepented mortal sin are eternally punished there by Divine justice (see Mt 25:46). Not only fallen angels but also human souls are damned eternally (see 2 Thess 1:9; 2 Pet 3:7). Eternally damned human beings will not be annihilated, since their souls are immortal according to the infallible teaching of the Church (see Fifth Lateran Council, sess. 8).

9. The religion born of faith in Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God and the only Savior of humankind, is the only religion positively willed by God. The opinion is, therefore, wrong that says that just as God positively wills the diversity of the male and female sexes and the diversity of nations, so in the same way he also wills the diversity of religions.

10. “Our [Christian] religion effectively establishes with God an authentic and living relationship which the other religions do not succeed in doing, even though they have, as it were, their arms stretched out towards heaven” (Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi, 53)."

31. The formulations by which the Council of Trent expressed the Church’s faith in the Holy Eucharist are suitable for men of all times and places, since they are a “perennially valid teaching of the Church” (John Paul II, Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 15).

32. In the Holy Mass, a true and proper sacrifice is offered to the Blessed Trinity and this sacrifice is propitiatory both for men living on earth and for the souls in Purgatory. The opinion is, therefore, wrong that says that the sacrifice of the Mass consists simply in the fact that the people make a spiritual sacrifice of prayers and praises, as well as the opinion that the Mass may or should be defined only as Christ giving Himself to the faithful as their spiritual food (see Council of Trent, sess. 22, c. 2).

33. “The Mass, celebrated by the priest representing the person of Christ by virtue of the power received through the Sacrament of Orders and offered by him in the name of Christ and the members of His Mystical Body, is the sacrifice of Calvary rendered sacramentally present on our altars. We believe that as the bread and wine consecrated by the Lord at the Last Supper were changed into His body and His blood which were to be offered for us on the cross, likewise the bread and wine consecrated by the priest are changed into the body and blood of Christ enthroned gloriously in heaven, and we believe that the mysterious presence of the Lord, under what continues to appear to our senses as before, is a true, real and substantial presence” (Paul VI, Apostolic letter Solemni hac liturgia (Credo of the People of God), 24).

34. “The unbloody immolation at the words of consecration, when Christ is made present upon the altar in the state of a victim, is performed by the priest and by him alone, as the representative of Christ and not as the representative of the faithful. (…) The faithful offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest from the fact that the minister at the altar, in offering a sacrifice in the name of all His members, represents Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body. The conclusion, however, that the people offer the sacrifice with the priest himself is not based on the fact that, being members of the Church no less than the priest himself, they perform a visible liturgical rite; for this is the privilege only of the minister who has been Divinely appointed to this office: rather it is based on the fact that the people unite their hearts in praise, impetration, expiation and thanksgiving with prayers or intention of the priest, even of the High Priest himself, so that in the one and same offering of the victim and according to a visible sacerdotal rite, they may be presented to God the Father” (Pius XII, Encyclical Mediator Dei, 92).

35. The sacrament of Penance isthe only ordinary means by which grave sins committed after Baptism may be remitted, and by Divine law all such sins must be confessed by number and by species (see Council of Trent, sess. 14, can. 7).

36. By Divine law the confessor may not violate the seal of the sacrament of Penance for any reason whatsoever; no ecclesiastical authority has the power to dispense him from the seal of the sacrament and the civil power is wholly incompetent to oblige him to do so (see Code of Canon Law 1983, can. 1388 § 1; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1467).

37. By virtue of the will of Christ and the unchangeable Tradition of the Church, the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist may not be given to those who are in a public state of objectively grave sin, and sacramental absolution may not be given to those who express their unwillingness to conform to Divine law, even if their unwillingness pertains only to a single grave matter (see Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 4; Pope John Paul II, Message to the Major Penitentiary Cardinal William W. Baum, on March 22, 1996).

38. According to the constant Tradition of the Church, the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist may not be given to those who deny any truth of the Catholic faith by formally professing their adherence to a heretical or to an officially schismatic Christian community (see Code of Canon Law 1983, can. 915; 1364).

39. The law by which priests are bound to observe perfect continence in celibacy stems from the example of Jesus Christ and belongs to immemorial and apostolic tradition according to the constant witness of the Fathers of the Church and of the Roman Pontiffs. For this reason, this law should not be abolished in the Roman Church through the innovation of an optional priestly celibacy, either at the regional or the universal level. The perennial valid witness of the Church states that the law of priestly continence “does not command new precepts; these precepts should be observed, because they have been neglected on the part of some through ignorance and sloth. These precepts, nevertheless, go back to the apostles and were established by the Fathers, as it is written, ‘Stand firm, then, brothers and keep the traditions that we taught you, whether by word of mouth or by letter’ (2 Thess. 2:15). There are in fact many who, ignoring the statutes of our forefathers, have violated the chastity of the Church by their presumption and have followed the will of the people, not fearing the judgment of God” (Pope Siricius, Decretal cuм in unum in the year 386).

40. By the will of Christ and the Divine constitution of the Church, only baptized men (viri) may receive the sacrament of Orders, whether in the episcopacy, the priesthood, or the diaconate (see John Paul II Apostolic Letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 4). Furthermore, the assertion is wrong that says that only an Ecuмenical Council can define this matter, because the teaching authority of an Ecuмenical Council is not more extensive than that of the Roman Pontiff (see Fifth Lateran Council, sess. 11; First Vatican Council, sess. 4, c. 3, n. 8).

May 31, 2019 [Feast of Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces]

Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, Patron of the Sovereign Military
Order of Malta Cardinal Janis Pujats,
Archbishop emeritus of Riga Tomash Peta,
Archbishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana Jan Pawel Lenga,
Archbishop-Bishop emeritus of Karaganda Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana"

There ends the declaration.

Please name the number of the statement you wish to criticize, and please show the Church Docuмent which you claim contradicts it while doing so. Thanks.

In Jesus and Mary,
Nishant Xavier.

Can you point me to the parts where they renounce the hermeneutic of continuity, condemn the doctrinalerrors of Vatican II, declare the new Mass an illicit rite, express their doubts regarding the neo-canonizations, call for the restoration of the traditional sacramental rites (particularly, that of the episcopal consecration), and unambiguously reaffirm that there is no salvation outside the Church, just for starters?

If not, please keep your juvenile pep-fest rousers to 1Peter5, where you are sure to be supported by those poor deceived dupes.

Now, having dealt with the last, let's come to the other points one by one, I'm numbering them.

" Can you point me to the parts where (1) they renounce the hermeneutic of continuity, (2) condemn the doctrinalerrors of Vatican II, (3) declare the new Mass an illicit rite, (4) express their doubts regarding the neo-canonizations, (5) call for the restoration of the traditional sacramental rites (particularly, that of the episcopal consecration), and (6) unambiguously reaffirm that there is no salvation outside the Church, just for starters?"

6 was answered above. It's also dealt with in Articles IV,V,VI and VII of the Declaration, beside others. As was mentioned on another thread, EENS is also taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 and 848, beside 161, which re-affirms explicit faith in Christ.

Let's start with 1: Hermeneutic of Continuity taught by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI is correct. Archbishop Lefebvre signed this in the May 5th, 1988 Protocol - "We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in §25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium of Vatican Council II on the ecclesiastical Magisterium and the adherence which is due to it. Regarding certain points taught by Vatican Council II or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which do not appear to us easily reconcilable with Tradition, we pledge that we will have a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics." https://fsspx.org/en/protocol-agreement-may-5-1988

Do you disagree with it? Msgr. Fenton and Pope Leo XIII, beside so many other Theologians, have taught that this is the respect due to even the Ordinary Non-Infallible Pontifical or Ecclesiastical Magisterium: "The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility." http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm

To come to 2: What +Athanasius and +Burke have done already completely undermines 50 years of what anti-Catholics have tried to do Traditional Teachings. They re-affirmed all those traditional teachings. If you really care about doctrine and souls, you would appreciate that. But I don't know if you do. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-schneider-vatican-is-betraying-jesus-christ-as-the-only-savior-of-mankind

As for 3: The new Mass is a valid rite, and it did not entirely come freely from the Church, because the Vatican was infiltrated, and there were bad Cardinals like Benelli, Casaroli and Villot, beside Bp. Bugnini, acting like practical antipopes; but it is like a partial Mass, and so it does not have the entire fullness of the graces of the traditional Mass, which is the complete and integral Mass, with the complete plenitude of Graces. Even Bp. Williamson has taught this: https://www.therecusant.com/bishop-williamsons-teaching

As for 4: Here, it is you who are mistaken. Canonizations are an infallible declaration that a person is a Saint in Heaven. Pope Benedict XIV and St. Alphonsus have taught this, and that those who deny it are heretics or next to heresy - which is dangerous for you to be.

Pope Benedict XIV had said: "“If anyone dared to assert that the Pontiff had erred in this or that canonization, we shall say that he is, if not a heretic, at least temerarious, a giver of scandal to the whole Church, an insulter of the saints, a favorer of those heretics who deny the Church’s authority in canonizing saints, savoring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties”"

St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection, 1759, p. 23:“To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.”

As for 5: The new rite of Episcopal Consecration is certainly valid, and doubts about that fact, now 50 years later, are illicit, because the Roman Church has defected if they are invalid. Objectively, a rite can only be valid or invalid. Subjective doubts don't affect reality. If a false conclusion follows from presuming invalidity, it follows that those rites are invalid. Now, we know those rites are valid. At any rate, Summorum Pontificuм and Universae Ecclesiae already allow traditional Bishops to make use of the older, more traditional Roman Rite.

Now, let's see if you can discuss something without polemics, or whether you will needlessly resort to them again. 

Msgr. Fenton and Pope Leo XIII, beside so many other Theologians, have taught that this is the respect due to even the Ordinary Non-Infallible Pontifical or Ecclesiastical Magisterium

.
Great. Good to know that about Amoris Laetitia. For a while I was concerned about that one.
.

To come to 2: What +Athanasius and +Burke have done already completely undermines 50 years of what anti-Catholics have tried to do Traditional Teachings. They re-affirmed all those traditional teachings. If you really care about doctrine and souls, you would appreciate that. But I don't know if you do. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-schneider-vatican-is-betraying-jesus-christ-as-the-only-savior-of-mankind

.
So Bp. Schneider wrote an article saying the Vatican is betraying Jesus Christ. Remind me again, what did Our Lord promise to St. Peter and his successors?
.

As for 4: Here, it is you who are mistaken. Canonizations are an infallible declaration that a person is a Saint in Heaven. Pope Benedict XIV and St. Alphonsus have taught this, and that those who deny it are heretics or next to heresy - which is dangerous for you to be.

.
Huh? I thought you were with the SSPX. Apparently they don't think the new canonizations are infallible. And Archbishop Lefebvre said the positions of authority in Rome were occupied by antichrists. Is the papacy a position of authority in Rome? Or is it possible to be an antichrist and a saint at the same time?
.