With the new model for their websites the traditionalists and sedevacantists would be affirming the Social Reign of Christ the King and the old ecumenism based on the old ecclesiology.1 With Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus, inter religious dialogue is back to its traditional model.
The new ecumenism is based on allegedly known salvation outside the Church.This is Cushingism.It is irrational and non traditional.
The new inter-religious dialogue with non Christians is based also on there being known salvation outside the Church.It is irrational,non traditional and heretical. It rejects the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
With the rejection of the old ecclesiology there is the rejection of the teachings on the Social Reign of Christ the King.It is said that if there is salvation outside the Church why should all political legislation be based on Jesus as he is known in the Catholic Church.The exception makes the new rule.A person can be saved outside the Church is the exception.
The new model however supports the old ecclesiology upon which the Social Reign of Christ the King is based.All political legislation must have the teachings of the Catholic Church as its priority since outside the Church there is no known salvation, outside the Church there is no salvation.
With the new model we have the old ecclesiology intact.This is the foundation for the the old ecumenism of non return, the need for non Catholics to be incorporated into the Catholic Church to avoid the fires of Hell,the Social Reign of Christ the King, Catholics in inter-faith marriage being a mortal sin,since the spouse is outside the Church, the non-separation of Church and State and the Eucharist being given only to Catholics.
So with the new model(as expressed in the blog post Traditionalist, sedevacantist websites need to be updated )which really is 'the old model', we affirm the old ecclesiology and also Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1995), Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus etc.2
How is this possible now and never before it may be asked?
The difference between the past and now is the theology.If you switch the theology you change the ecclesiology without having to deny any magisterial document mentioned above.
When the baptism of desire was assumed to be visible and known in personal cases, theology in the Catholic Church was changed.
Now we affirm invisible baptism of desire, which is rational, and we go back to the old ecclesiology.We don't add any thing new.We do not create a new theology to get rid of the Rahner-Ratzinger one.
We switch from Cushingism to Feeneyism.
Then we affirm all the magisterial documents, this time not with Cushingism,but with Feeneyism.
Presently the traditionalist websites are critical of Vatican Council II which for them is a break with the past.This is only because their theology is Cushingite. The fault is not there with Vatican Council II per se.
The traditionalist websites can now affirm Vatican Council II as a continuity with the past because the theology would be the same as that of the 16th century missionaries.
So the ecclesiology of the Novus Ordo and Traditional Latin Mass would be the same as that of the past centuries.
This is a breakthrough in the Catholic Church.The theological rupture with the past has ended and we no more have to blame Vatican Council II for it.
Even though the cardinals at Vatican Council II accepted the Cushingite theology the Council can be interpreted today with Feeneyism.Hypothetical cases simply have to be considered hypothetical and not objectively known.It's as simple as that.