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.

Yeah, the SVs use the "all theologians hold it" ... but then ignore the fact that "all theologians" went along with Vatican II and the New Mass.  97-99% of all the Episcopal Sees were held by Arians during that Crisis.

I'm still watching that video, and they keep saying "sensus fidelium", that "every" Catholic believed the same thing meaning it was true. I don't think I've seen this doctrine anywhere. The only thing I've seen is that if the fathers have a unanimous interpretation of scripture then that is true.

I don't care so much about the banning ... as their nonsense has gotten incredibly tedious anyway ... with them providing absolutely nothing of value.  They bloviate about how the Novus Ordo is a false religion, a non-Catholic sect ... but then do nothing but watch and analyze every single move they make, evey time a clown dances down the aisle in a Novus Ordo church (not unlike Tradition in Action that way).

But the ABSURDITY of their condemning Roncalli for saying people did not have to convert to the Catholic religion in order to be saved ... while the Trad clergy these gusy support ALL HOLD THE SAME THING.  Are they really that stupid ... or just intellectually dishonest?

So I think most people are not against EENS. The opinion of Bishop Williamson was for example: If they are in x religion, but in "good faith", god may enlighten them at the moment of their death and they will be saved AS catholics (not necessarily my opinion). 

If in an augenblick Herr Hitler between pulling the trigger and the muzzle flash repented ....