Great.  That's a step in the right direction.  He does stop a bit short of affirming, however, that he believes in that position, or believes that the "Rewarder God" theory is unacceptable and untenable.  But not a few Traditional Catholics hold that you're basically a "Feeneyite heretic" if you say that infidels, Jews, pagans, etc. cannot be saved.

This was before your time here, Servus, but there was a poster here, Xavier Nishant, who (before he was banned for other reasons) eventually came around and started to hold that those who are justified by desire would at least be somehow baptized before they died.  He came to accept the teaching of St. Augustine on the matter, holding that there's nothing that would prevent God from sending an angel to confer the Sacrament on someone who was in a state of justification and nearing the moment of death.  That's actually what St. Cyprian believed was taking place during Baptism of Blood.  He referred to it as the Sacrament and said that the angels pronounced the words during the martyrdom.

What is this nonsense that God's Providence can be thwarted by "impossibility" or "unforeseen" death?  St. Augustine, after he rejected BoD, that those who "wish to be Catholic" must reject this thinking, that God's Providence could thwart Him from getting the Sacrament to His elect.

To claim that God can be prevented by "impossibility" is in fact clearly heretical.  "With God all things are possible." right?  To say otherwise is to deny His omnipotence.  So the only conclusion is that God wills for some to be saved by BoD instead of actual reception of the Sacrament.  So why would He do that exactly?  In fact, we have some stories of the saints where the saint raised a deceased person back to life to confer the Sacrament.  In one case, there was a woman who was a devout practicing Catholic ... or so it was thought.  She went to Holy Communion every day, regular Confession, etc.  According to St. Thomas, the reception of Holy Communion would have put her in a state of grace.  But she died before the saint could get there.  He raised her back to life and started hearing her Confession.  Then he abruptly stopped, and asked for water.  It was revealed to him that she had not been baptized.  So he baptized her and she died.

I wonder if he's begun taking MHFM's materials more honestly after the Cassman debate

I don't understand why this is described as breaking news. Had Mario previously expressed that belief in the Incarnation was not necessary for salvation?

He's been pretty vocal about BOD and labeling those who defend the true teaching on EENS as "Feeneyites"
https://novusordowatch.org/2018/11/contra-crawford-baptism-of-desire-blood/

Perhaps the key word is "explicit"?

I'm confused by the CMRI's position.  They clearly don't think that explicit faith in the incarnation is necessary for salvation but they don't seem to have any problem at all with those who do think that explicit faith in the incarnation is necessary.  Also, while they clearly believe that BOD can save a non-Catholic, they don't refuse the sacraments to those who think the Sacrament of Baptism (Water) is a necessity of means for salvation (Fr Feeney's position).  So does that mean that they think Fr Feeney's position is acceptable?  The primary difference between Fr Feeney and people who affirm that explicit faith is necessary would be that the Sacrament is likewise necessary (which is clearly stated in the Council of Trent).  So maybe the CMRI doesn't have a problem with people who are taking Trent literally?  I don't know.  I personally think MHFM is correct on this issue.  They quote multiple popes who affirm infallibly that justification cannot be separated from the Sacrament and the basis for the opposing view can only be two words from Trent ("or desire") which can reasonably be read to mean that both the Sacrament and desire are necessary.  Theologians, no matter how highly esteemed, cannot outrank the popes on matters of faith and morals.  And interpreting dogma is not allowed.  We are bound by the literal meaning of dogmas, not by the interpretations of theologians.  I know that sometimes the word interpretation is sometimes loosely defined to mean any explanation of the terms, but when the interpretation/explanation ends up contradicting the obvious literal meaning of the dogma, we have a problem.

I'm confused by the CMRI's position.  They clearly don't think that explicit faith in the incarnation is necessary for salvation but they don't seem to have any problem at all with those who do think that explicit faith in the incarnation is necessary.  Also, while they clearly believe that BOD can save a non-Catholic, they don't refuse the sacraments to those who think the Sacrament of Baptism (Water) is a necessity of means for salvation (Fr Feeney's position).  So does that mean that they think Fr Feeney's position is acceptable?  The primary difference between Fr Feeney and people who affirm that explicit faith is necessary would be that the Sacrament is likewise necessary (which is clearly stated in the Council of Trent).  So maybe the CMRI doesn't have a problem with people who are taking Trent literally?  I don't know.  I personally think MHFM is correct on this issue.  They quote multiple popes who affirm infallibly that justification cannot be separated from the Sacrament and the basis for the opposing view can only be two words from Trent ("or desire") which can reasonably be read to mean that both the Sacrament and desire are necessary.  Theologians, no matter how highly esteemed, cannot outrank the popes on matters of faith and morals.  And interpreting dogma is not allowed.  We are bound by the literal meaning of dogmas, not by the interpretations of theologians.  I know that sometimes the word interpretation is sometimes loosely defined to mean any explanation of the terms, but when the interpretation/explanation ends up contradicting the obvious literal meaning of the dogma, we have a problem.

I have heard these and similar things from the Dimonds as well.
But considering that after the Council of Trent the Pope established a seperate congregation specifically tasked with interpreting the council's decrees, the idea that interpreting a dogma is not allowed must be wrong.
In actuality, language works in a way so that it must always be interpreted. And everyone interprets to a degree whenever he hears words or sentences. Only through interpretation they convey any meaning to him.
So the question is not whether intepretation is allowed or not but rather to whom is given authority to interpret.
And I think that authority belongs to those theologians who were tasked with it; not the Dimonds.