I do not endorse Vatican 2. My position is the same as that of Fr. Lagrange and Fr. Fenton( neither one of whom did)

Uhm, Fenton did in fact endorse Vatican II and its ecclesiology.

You most certainly endorse the core teaching and ecclesiology of Vatican II.

That is Feeneyism and has been condemned
https://exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2005/12/13/condemnation-of-fr-leonard-feeney-2/
By the way, if you're a Sedevacantist, you are a schismatic. So you better hope some schismatic can be saved

Here we go ...

The Church has previously defined that Mary is immaculate.

Pope St. Martin I, Lateran Council, 649 A.D., Can. 3- “If anyone does not properly and truly confess in accord with the holy Fathers, that the holy Mother of God and ever Virgin and immaculate Mary in the earliest of the ages conceived of the Holy Spirit without seed, namely, God the Word Himself specifically and truly, who was born of God the Father before all ages, and that she incorruptibly bore [Him], her virginity remaining indestructible even after His birth, let him be condemned.” (Denzinger 256)

Not just because the teaching was found, it means that it was a dogma at the time. I am pretty sure every Catholic agrees that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined as such in the year of 1854 in Pope Pius IX's Bull Ineffabilis:

We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful.

Anyway, even if St. Thomas did err on this point, I really don't think he was a heretic, less a formal heretic.

Even if you do not agree with a saint; or do not "feel" veneration" towards him, accusing a canonized saint of the caliber of St. Thomas of nothing less than heresy is way too much. It really gives a bad name to Traditional Catholics.

Not just because the teaching was found, it means that it was a dogma at the time. I am pretty sure every Catholic agrees that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined as such in the year of 1854 in Pope Pius IX's Bull Ineffabilis:

Anyway, even if St. Thomas did err on this point, I really don't think he was a heretic, less a formal heretic.

Even if you do not agree with a saint; or do not "feel" veneration" towards him, accusing a canonized saint of the caliber of St. Thomas of nothing less than heresy is way too much. It really gives a bad name to Traditional Catholics.

I'd go even father and say in fact it's probably heresy itself to call St. Thomas a formal heretic, for formal heretics are damned and the Church infallibly teaches all Saints are in Heaven.

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/dogmatic-decrees-we-will-interpret-them-to-our-desires/

Dogmatic Decrees? False BODers Will Interpret Them According to their own Desires. (or Welcome to Vatican II Religion)



Here are excerpts from some dogmas on EENS and how they are responded to (in red) by the false BODers who teach that Jews, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists, indeed person in all false religions, can be saved by their belief in a god the rewards. Yet the young  man Banizean does not condemn them, in fact he holds Garrigou-Lagrange, one of them, as his hero, using his picture as his avatar. Meanwhile he calls heretics, those who understand these dogmas as they are written.


Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
 “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire ..and that nobody can be saved, … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (pagans and Jews can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards, thus they are in the Church. They can’t be saved even if they shed their blood for Christ, but they can be saved by a belief in a god that rewards.)


Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which [/size]nobody at all is saved, …(Persons in all false religions can be part of the faithful by their belief in a God that rewards)
 
 Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
 “… this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, … every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Persons in all false religions by their belief in a God that rewards are inside the Church, so they can have remission of sin. They do not have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff because they do not even know that they have to be baptized Catholics, why further complicate things for tem with submission to the pope?)
 
 Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
 “… one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…” (one lord, one faith by their belief in a God that rewards, and one invisible baptism by, you guessed it,  their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
 “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.” ( the Catholic faith is belief in a God that rewards)
 
 Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
 “For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.” ( Just pick a few from the above excuses, from here on it’s a cake walk, just create your own burger with the above ingredients. You’ll be an expert at it in no time.)
 
 Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
 
 Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”
 
 Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”
 
 Council of Trent, Session VI  (Jan. 13, 1547)
 Decree on Justification,
 Chapter IV.
 
 A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
 
 By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God (John 3:5). (this means you do not need to be baptized or have a desire to be baptized. You can be baptized invisible by desire or no desire, you can call no desire implicit desire, you can also receive water baptism with no desire, no, wait a minute that does not go in both directions, it only works for desire or if you have no desire at all. Come to think of it, just forget about all of it, persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards.)
 
 Chapter VII.
 
 What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.
 
 This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.
 
 Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified;(except all persons in false religions, they can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 
 
 Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:  “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church.  And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5].  The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.” (Just ignore that language, all persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 
 
 Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
 On Baptism
 
 Canon 2. If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.( any persons in false religions can be invisible baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 
 Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema (the pope is also speaking here of the invisible baptism of persons in false religions that are baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 
 Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”( the laver of regeneration can be had invisible and the true faith is  belief in a god that rewards)
 
 Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same
 way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all
 Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who
have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ
orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who
 have not received this consecration.” ( person who believe in a god that rewards do not need the mark, but they are in the Church. Somehow)
 
 
 (Oh, I forgot, no one mentions it anymore, it is now out of fashion, so I did not include it above, invincible ignorance. If you are old fashioned, just throw in a few invinble ignorants up there with the rest of the ingredients)

The false BODers follow modern theologians quotes from manuals, they are seeking teachers according to their own desires. You will not find one saint that teaches (what the False BODers want to push) salvation  for non-Catholics who have no desire to be Catholic, nor baptized, nor have belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity. All the theologians who teach the idea, are post 1600's and the idea never caught on till the late 1800's. Not one theologian can pass the test of putting their theory against all the dogmas above, not even a couple. This is why the false BODers bring up a theologian against this and a theologian to answer that, but there is no theologian that has put the "package" together, not even close. They have to twist language to even start to get some motion, however, they can't roll more than a few inches.

Catechumens are considered members of the Church

Completely false.

St. Robert Bellarmine:

The Church is one, not twofold, and this one true [Catholic] Church is the assembly of men UNITED IN THE PROFESSION OF THE SAME CHRISTIAN FAITH AND IN THE COMMUNION OF THE SAME SACRAMENTS, under the rule of legitimate pastors, and in particular, that of the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff. First part excludes all infidels, those who were never in the Church such as Jews, Turks, and pagans, or those who once were in it and later fell away, like the heretics and apostates. THE SECOND PART EXCLUDES THE CATECHUMENS and excommunicated, SINCE THE FORMER ARE NOT ADMITTED TO THE SACRAMENTS and the latter are excluded from them…"[De Ecclesia Militante, Book III, Ch. 2, opera omnia, Naples 1872, p. 75]

Dr. Ludwig Ott:

Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Membership in the Church, p. 309: “3. Catechumens are not to be counted among the members of the Church… The Church claims no jurisdiction over them (D 895). The Fathers draw a sharp line of separation between Catechumens and ‘the faithful.’”

Completely false.

St. Robert Bellarmine:

You cut off my sentence midway and replied to a straw man. Note the qualification at the end of my sentence: in the Christian East. That goes for both pre- and post- schism, whether in communion with the Bishop of Rome or not. Actually, allow me to apologize and modify my original statement - catechumens are considered Christians from the moment they enter the catechumenate. Whether or not this actually means they are members of the church, I can't say as I haven't done enough sifting through polemic and semantic controversies. 

Fathers East and West unanimously held that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, and several Eastern Church Fathers explicitly rejected the notion of Baptism of Desire, stating that the Sacramental seal is necessary for the beatific vision.

Do you realize that the practically unanimous teaching of the Eastern Fathers/Church is that the souls in Hades can be saved before the Final Judgement? So in a sense, even if what you are saying is true, it doesn't necessarily lead to the same conclusion of Feenyism, i.e. that the unbaptized are condemned to eternal hell. At least not according to the Christian East.