It's your own fault, you mentioned "Feeneyites" and blew their whole tradition.  

Only difference between them and the Conciliar usurpers (on this point) is that the trads will pay mouth service to EENS before denying it..which I think is actually worse

Trad clergy -

(From the bishop of the church I go to:) 

Iffy on EENS and pretty much an "okayer" of NFP... 

Yep.

So the reason that SVs in particular are so hostile to EENS (much more so than R&R) is because in their battles with R&R they ended up making the (age-old) error of moving to the opposite extreme, exaggerating the scope of papal infallibility practically to the point of absurdity, attributing to it an almost absolute inerrancy.  See, if they conceded that a Pope can teach error in fallible statements, then their battle with R&R becomes whether the teaching of V2 meets the notes of inallibility ... which could go back and forth in see-saw fashion without any kind of clear winner.  If they concede that any papal teaching can be erroneous, then why not 2, or 3, or 5?  What's the limit?  Is there a point at which a difference in degree becomes a different in kind?  SVs tout the infallibility of theological consensus, but I've asked them to produce a single post VI and pre VII theologians who holds that popes can never err.  You'll find exactly 0 ... and they just ignore the question.

In any case, due to their exaggeration of infallibility, for them the old Suprema Haec [sic] might as well be Pius IX's solemn dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception, for all intents and purposes.  Father Cekada then also invented this theory about how the consensus of theologians also should be considered inerrant for all intents and purposes also ... something that both historical examples falsify and which a true theologian like Msgr. Fenton explicitly rejects.  I then ask how it is that all theologians (with Bishop Guerard des Lauriers being the only exception that I now of) considered Vatican II Catholic and the New Mass Catholic ... and of course all theologians between VI and VII held that there theoretically COULD be some error in papal teaching.

I don’t think you thought this through……

No, it's completely accurate.

For the V2 church, Traditionalists are the only people who are condemned.
For Traditionalism, Feeneyites are the only people who are condemned.

Not only that, but one gets the impression that the SVs who vocally denounce the Conciliars as Modernist heretics consider the "Feeneyites" to be worse heretics than even the Modernist Conciliars.  I bet if you asked them whether Father Feeney or Bergoglio was the worse heretic, many / most would ansewr Father Feeney.  You can almost hear them begin foaming at the mouth with the mere mention of Father Feeney.  That does not come from a good place, but from somewhere diabolical.  At most you can say, "well, I think the Feeneyites take it too far to the extreme.", i.e. perhaps take the EENS dogmatic definitions "too literally" or something, representing an excess of zeal.  But, no, Feeneyites are "horrible apostates" ... for believing EENS dogma verbatim, and somehow believing that EENS doesn't mean the opposite of what it actually says, i.e. where they hold that you're a heretic if you believe that only Catholics can be saved.  You can say it's about Baptism of Desire ... except that they could hardly care less about that.  BoD is just an excuse they use to gut EENS dogma, which they find distasteful and almost odious.  So they "re-interpret" it so that what the Church REALLY means by it is ... the opposite of what it actually says.  Whenever you see such inversions, again the scent of sulfur makes its presence known.  But most of them go around blithely saying that pagans, heretics, Hindus, Muslmis, etc. ... can all be saved, i.e. verbatim denying EENS dogma.  At the VERY LEAST it's proximate to heresy and offensive to pious ears, to make statements that verbatim contradict a dogmatic definiton of the Church.  To get the REAL interpretation of what the Church means, you have to read a dozen pages from theologians who lived hundreds of years after the definitions were made.  So, a simple Catholic can't just say, "oh, this says that only Catholics can save their souls" ... but instead is required to digest about 10 pages of distinctions and nuances that truly explain what those one- or two- sentence definitions REALLY mean, namely the opposite of what they say, and if you don't believe the opposite of what it says, then you're a heretic.  You could completely prescind from any discussion of BoD ... which in fact I have not mentioned direction on X at all, just the notion of there being no salvation for non-Catholics.

Perhaps the closest thing to a halfway solid argument they have is that you're rejecting the Council of Trent, making you a heretic.  So, even if you understand Trent the way they claim it should be understood, Father Feeney believed that there can be justification by desire.  That's what Trent teaches (even by your reading).  Please explain the heresy.  You get crickets.  Then you add onto it that Father Feeney did not invent the distinction between justification and salvation, but that post-Tridentine theologians like the Dominican Melchior Cano distinguished between the two, holding that infidels (for instance) could be justified but not saved ... and Cano was not condemned for that distinction.  So, again, please tell me the heresy one commits by believing in justificaition by desire.  You could ARGUE that's a false distinction ... but, guess what ... you're not the Church, so you know what they say about opinions, that like certain body parts, everybody has one.  As for "Suprema Haec", apart from the fact that it isn't even considered "authentic Magisterium" by Canonical standards (never appeared in AAS), many theologians disputed the infallibility of decrees from the Holy Office.  I then ask these SVs how many of them are geocentrists?  Again, I heard crickets.  Well ... the Holy Office condemned non-geocentrism as being proximate to heresy.