At the 'New Traditional College' www.collegiumsanctorumangelorum.org will the faculty interpret magisterial documents with Feeneyism or Cushingism ? This was the question I asked Deacon Edward Schaefer a few months back.
Deacon Schaefer will probably be interpreting all magisterial documents with Cushingism.Since this is accepted by the contemporary magisterium.But Cushingism is not traditional. It is an innovation in the Church supported by the liberals.It is a break with Tradition.
The Fischer More College called itself traditional but it was liberal on the issue of exclusive salvation in the Church. Theologically it rejected exclusive salvation as does the Vatican Curia and the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX)
So the new 'traditional' college is not part of the Restoration. It will be part of the problem. It's faculty is expected to interpret Vatican Council II with an irrationality, associated with the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Richard Cushing.
If it does not intepret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise and inference, as does the local bishop, the professors of theology will not be given the mandarum to teach theology.
If the new college affirms the Syllabus of Errors or some form of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus the magisterium would consider it heresy. Since they would not be teaching, like the pontifical colleges and the SSPX, that the baptism of desire and blood, are some of the many exceptions to the rigorist intepretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
This seemed the problem at the Fischer More College.They were rejecting Vatican Council II since they interpreted the Council with Cushingism and so the Council became a break with Tradition.They did not know that the Council could have also been interpreted with Feeneyism,and it would be traditional.It would affirm the Syllabus of Errors and the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the bishop could then not say that they are rejecting Vatican Council II.It would have been a win-win case doctrinally and theologically.
But the Cushingite thinking was fixed in the mind of the faculty at FMC and so they could not make the change.This was unfortunate.Even after it was explained to them via the Internet they had no arguments, for or against.
So at the new seminary will they proclaim that there are two ways two interpret Vatican Council II ? For example there is a choice in interpreting Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance). LG 16 can refer to persons who are not known or known to us, invisible or physically visible.
For the Cushingite faculty, LG 16 would be an exception to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma EENS.In other words these cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water, refer to physically visible cases.
For a Feeneyite faculty, LG 16 would obviously be invisible, we cannot see or know invincible ignorance cases who are saved without the baptism of water. So LG 16 is not an exception to the dogma EENS.There are no exceptions to the dogma EENS.
Similarly we do not know of any subsist it in case (LG 8) on earth in 2016.
Also for the Feeneyite faculty peopele saved 'in imperfect communion with the Church' ( UR 3) are irrelevant to Tradition, if they exist.Since they do not exist in our reality.
Vatican Council II is not really an issue for a Feeneyite faculty since the Council ( with Feeneyism) does not contradict the rigorist interpretation of the dogma EENS. There is no change in the traditional ecclesiology on exclusive salvation with reference to ecumenism and other religions. Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentum 14 say all need faith and baptism for salvation and in 2016 we do not (and cannot ) know of any explicit exception.
I asked Deacon Edward Schaefer this question a few months back, about the faculty. I know there is no easy answer to it. Since the faculty which will be available can only be be Cushingite.I do not know of any Catholic theologian with a mandatum ,who would be willing to interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.
Even at the St.Benedict Centers, the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA, they interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism.Though they interpret the dogma EENS with Feeneyism i.e there are no known exceptions.
If Edward Schaefer would invite Dr. Joseph Shaw, Chairman of the Latin Mass Society, England to teach at the new college, he will do so with Cushingism. He attends the Traditional Latin Mass supporting the new ecclesiology.This is approved by Cardinal Vince Nicols, the liberal Archbishop of Westminister. The cardinal would approve of Joseph Shaw teaching liberal soteriology and ecclesiology at the new college, as he presently does at Oxford University.
If Fr. Jean Marie Gleize, the professor of Ecclesiology at the SSPX seminary in Econe, Switzerland is invited by Edward Schaefer, he would teach ecclesiology with a rejection of Vatican Council II ( interpreted with Cushingism).Since he does not know of a choice.Neither did Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and traditionalists of his time know of one.
Rorate Caeili cannot discuss this issue since the Jewish Left would object.No cardinal or bishop, wants to affirm Vatican Council II in public with Feeneyism.
Even Bishop Athanasius Schneider remains in full communion with the Church. He criticizes Vatican Council II interpreted with Cushingism and makes the Left glad.Since he suggests there is only one option available.
Will the new college also make the liberal, irrational and non traditional choice and at the same time support Tradition like Bishop Schneider and Joseph Shaw? It would be hypocritical and a falsehood.
New Traditional College in Three years