Here's where I hit a roadblock though.  Its really hard for me to believe that everyone but Fr. Feeney and Fr. Wathen is just ignorant of something that's easily demonstrable theologically by the OUM.  Almost all of the clergy, whether they take a more HOC position like the FSSP, the Traditionalist R and R priests in the SSPX or SSPX Resistance, *and* the Sedevacantists *all* seem to take the position here.  I could see possible explanations of the discrepancy if some group were to agree with Fr. Feeney (at least on EENS, if not straight up BOD.)  If the Sedevacantists held to the stricter view, perhaps we could say this is the poisoned fruit of V2.  If the R and R were stricter, perhaps we could hold that the issue is giving too much weight to the non infallible teachings of a narrow period of history, say, 1870 to 1960 or so.  But the thing is, *both* groups generally hold to Archbishop Lefebvre's comparatively "loose" EENS that says all sorts of religious people *can* be saved in spite of their errors, not just erring materially Catholics, but also Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.  Almost all of the Sedevacantist and R and R clergy believe salvation is *theoretically open* to such people, just despite their religion and not because of it.  Now I think there's room to make a mistake here.  Just because something *can* happen doesn't mean that its going to, or that we can count on it.  But the issue is, has God dogmatically ruled out the possibility, or not?  Ladislaus (and a few other posters here, and Fr. Feeney and Fr. Wathen in the historical realm) would say that he has, but the *vast* majority of Trad clergy, both sedevacantist and non sedevacantist, would say he hasnt.

And I don't see nearly enough clear evidence to say that almost all of the Trad clergy are just brazenly wrong here.  Now if someone could truly prove to me that I was obliged to believe that anyone who isn't a formal and visible member of the Church is damned, I would certainly accept it.  But the problem is the "proof" is usually just  verbatim quoting the "plain meaning" of Florence or Unam Sanctum, which the Trad clergy are certainly aware of.  ie. if just quote bombing florence isn't convincing to such intelligent people as Archbishop Lefebvre, Fr. Cekada, Bishop Williamson, Bishop Sanborn, or really pretty much any of the priests and bishops even on the far end of the Trad spectrum, I don't really see why it should be convincing to me.  "Lol I've read Florence I know more than basically all the clergy in the world about EENS."  To be fair to Ladislaus, I know he went to seminary and has been a Catholic for a long time.  He certainly knows more than *me*.

Still finding this one hard to believe TBH.

How could so many Trad priests and bishops be "wrong"? That is almost child's play compared to the larger issue: how could the pope and bishops of the Catholic Church speaking collectively and with "the voice of Christ," the Magisterium, get things wrong?

I understand your point and it is certainly valid. Here's the thing, however. What have we, or those who fit the label of "Trad," learned from Vatican II and the "Conciliar Revolution"?

At the heart of it all is the issue of Magisterial authority - indefectability and freedom from error - when, and under what conditions? This issue has to be grappled with because what the Conciliar revolution (related - how much of a revolution is it?) shows is a pope and the moral majority of bishops united him promulgating either doctrinal or disciplinary errors (if not heresies), and if the errors are only "disciplinary" they go so far as imposing an "evil" or "harmful to souls" rite of the Mass on the Latin rite of the Church (according to most Trads).

The traditional, pre-Vatican II understanding of the OUM would maintain that when the pope and the bishops in union with him teach something to the Church it is free from error. That is, the "universality" of the teaching of the OUM, to be infallible or free from error, has to be only synchronic (the current pope and the bishops at the time, the current Magisterium, united at one in a teaching) and not diachronic (always taught throughout the Church, through all time). This is in the pre-Vatican II manuals, and I think of Cardinal Franzelin primarily, who I believe Mithrandylan has quoted here.

As I see it, there are only two options in light of the Magisterium and its teachings in this post-V2 reality. Either this teaching of the manuals regarding the infalliblity or indefectibility of the OUM is wrong, or the post-V2 magisterium is an aberration that departs from a true teaching. A departure from truth in an organism established for purposes of preaching and carrying forth the truth of salvation is so radical that it requires the Sedevacantist solution - if the pre-Vatican II teachings regarding the Magisterium are true, this can't be the Magisterium.

If you're not a Sede, I don't see how you can make arguments against Feeneyites or Feeneyism on the basis of the OUM or Magisterial authority. You recognize a Magisterium that is in error. If this "Magisterium" can be in error, even in the teachings of ecuмenical councils, why could not prior popes, ecuмenical councils, etc. be in error? If the true Magisterium is capable of a imposing a noxious and harmful Mass that leads souls to hell, and teaches the possibility of salvation in other religions, etc., why couldn't the true Magisterium pre-VII be wrong on BOD?

I don't see the logical consistency of those who are not Sede in opposing Feeneyism. They recognize a Magisterium in error, and yet get apoplectic when Feeneyites take a position whose upshot is - according to most non-Feeneyite Trads - that the same Magisterium (albeit before V2) taught error. Your own position recognizes a Magisterium capable of error on a massive and dangerous scale.

I say, physicians, heal yourselves.

Of course the truth could be that the Magisterium, even if the pope and all the current bishops agree, can be in error when teaching below the level of the invocation of its extraordinary or solemn authority, or when not declaring something to be of the deposit of the faith, a part of the Revelation of God. That would be consistent, after all, with the actual language of Vatican I. But it seems to me that to come clean we need a open, honest discussion about that, and about the teachings of the pre-Vatican II manuals which taught this synchronic infallibility - rather than requiring a diachronic (always believed throughout the time of the Church) universality - of the current pope and the living bishops in union with him.

So Byz - not sure if this applies to you but I assume you are a Trad Catholic, being here - why dost thou marvel over so many priests and Trad bishops being "wrong" about BOD? Seems to me you have to deal with a Magisterium, a much higher authority, being "wrong" on either doctrine or discipline in a manner that is perhaps damning souls to hell, or at least endangering souls to that place -  contrary to the very purposes for which God established it.  

The non-Sedes oppose Feeneyism because of the OUM before V2, and yet they recognize an "OUM" after V2 that effectively impugns the OUM as a cogent (or even any) authority in any argument.

Hey, ByzCat, I've pointed this out several times now, and yet you persist.  We are not talking about the "Feeneyite" position on EENS and ecclesiology, but rather Tridentine ecclesiology (defining the Church as a visible society) and Thomistic ecclesiology and soteriology.

Vatican II presents a brand new ecclesiology, and the dispute over BoD is of little moment in that regard.

If we can get BOD'ers to accept the more-strict St Thomas/Alphonsus view, then the whole controversy would go away.

That Archbishop May considers that these Hindus with their vague search for God will avoid hell, while they are still ignorant of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the only Savior, is tantamount to a practical denial of the Catholic Faith. “But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and is a reminder to them that seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). St. Augustine explains very well that, though ignorance excuses from an additional sin against Faith, it is incapable of cleansing the original sin and other sins with which one’s soul is burdened. Baptism of desire only applies to those who, by a special grace of the Holy Ghost, have received the virtues of the Catholic Faith, Hope and Charity. (See St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIIa, Q.66, A.11.) How Archbishop May can apply this doctrine to Hindus “in search of God” is a mystery of iniquity (II Thess. 2:7).

Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.

But these things are so invisible, so subjective, that the Church has hardly spoken about it. We know the principle, but the Church has never made a practical application of it because it is too sensitive and delicate. Who can know who is in the state of grace or not? The Council of Trent teaches that no one can know it except through a special revelation or illumination from God.

[8] Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any things, that are in heaven above, or that are in the earth beneath, or that abide in the waters under the earth. [9] Thou shalt not adore them, and thou shalt not serve them.

You yourself said that to be consistent with his implicit faith form of BOD, +ABL should've accepted Vatican 2 since he was already adopting EENS-denying ecclesiology. And he's far from alone, pretty much all the Trad clergy agree with him. So by your own words, they should all accept Vatican 2 to be logically consistent with their beliefs.