The Board Members are Missionary according to Feeneyite and not Cushingite theology.Cushingite theology is modernism.It is a heresy as widespread in the Church as during the Arian heresy.Mission is traditional.It is based on knowing all non Catholics are on the way to Hell in general and not only those who 'know'.Those who know and do not know is Cushingism.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of St.Pius X can also be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism and the conclusion would be different.The Board Members must be aware of this.
With Feeneyism it would mean that the ecclesiology of the Church on mission, ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue, non separation of Church and State and the theology of the liturgy would be the same before and after Vatican Council II.
You can interpret the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) with Cushingism or Feeneyism.
With Cushingism BOD, BOB and I.I excludes the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
For Feeneyites BOD, BOB and I.I are followed by the baptism of water and its effects in a way known to God.This is the dogmatic teaching in EENS.
With Feeneyism the entire theology of Vatican Council II changes.We are back to exclusivist salvation in the Church. We are back to the past ecclesiocenterism on ecumenism, all need to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation, the Eucharist indicates outside the Church there is no salvation,there is traditional mission based on Hell and the last four things,there is the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation based on EENS...
When it is assumed that BOD and I.I are physically visible in the present times, I call it Cushingism.Church Militant TV, Catholic Answers, Catholic National Register and EWTN are Cushingites.
When we assume that the BOD and I.I are not physically visible, I call it Feeneyism.
These are two differenct theologies.
So in Flordia the Collegium would have to correct the diocese.
For me Lionel Andrades , the baptism of desire and blood with or without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church refers to a physically invisible case. So it cannot be relevant or an exception to the dogma EENS, as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.It can be the same with the Board Members.
I Lionel Andrades interpret Vatican Council II without an irrational premise and so my conclusion is different from the magisterium of the two living popes and that of the USCCB.It is the same with the dogma EENS.
This is Vatican Council II Feeneyite for me with these diagrams which follow.It must be the same for the Board Members and the students and faculty at a Catholic college.It is important to remember that we have found the missing link .We now know what makes Vatican Council II a rupture or continuity with the past. This was not known 50 years back.This was not known by Chris Ferrera when he wrote his book The Great Facade.
It was not known to Fr.Nicholas Gruner and Roberto dei Mattei when they wrote on Vatican Council II. It was not known also to conservatives Bishop Robert Morlino and Fr. John Zuhlsdorf.A new Catholic College now has an advantage. We have found the missing link as to what makes causes the hermeneutic of rupture or continuity.
Now if Chris Ferrara , Roberto dei Mattei,Bishop Robert Morlino,Fr. John Zuhlsdorf and Edward Schaefer affirm a Feeneyite Vatican Council II and EENS they will be persecuted. Would they be ready to do this?