Honestly, I was just using shorthands... if you can give me better shorthands to use that don't involve conceeding the argument, I'd be OK with that.  

OK, I get that, but this particular shorthand has not been helpful to the debate.  I, and many straight (non-Dimondite) "Feeneyites" consider BoD to be something of a side issue.  What we're advocating here is Bellarminism and Trentism and Thomism ... NOT "Feeneyism".

What we're talking about is a different ECCLESIOLOGY.  Trent emphatically taught that the Church is a visible society whose members are easily identified.  Vatican II subsistence ecclesiogy holds that there's a visible core but then also individuals who are within the Church invisibly.

So it's not Feeney vs. Vatican II.  It's TRENT vs. Vatican II.

Those Doctors who taught Baptism of Desire still held that the catechumens belonged to the visible Church because they were identifiable as such by their profession of the faith.
This notion of an amorphous partly-visible-partly-invisible Church is more akin to the Protestant theology that Trent was condemning than to Trent's ecclesiology.

OK, I get that, but this particular shorthand has not been helpful to the debate.  I, and many straight (non-Dimondite) "Feeneyites" consider BoD to be something of a side issue.  What we're advocating here is Bellarminism and Trentism and Thomism ... NOT "Feeneyism".

What we're talking about is a different ECCLESIOLOGY.  Trent emphatically taught that the Church is a visible society whose members are easily identified.  Vatican II subsistence ecclesiogy holds that there's a visible core but then also individuals who are within the Church invisibly.

So it's not Feeney vs. Vatican II.  It's TRENT vs. Vatican II.

Those Doctors who taught Baptism of Desire still held that the catechumens belonged to the visible Church because they were identifiable as such by their profession of the faith.
This notion of an amorphous partly-visible-partly-invisible Church is more akin to the Protestant theology that Trent was condemning than to Trent's ecclesiology.

OK so I don't want to use "feeneyism" because it comes off as a bit of a slur (which is not intended) but you're proposed alternative term basically assumes the other side of the debate.  I believe, at least in good faith, that Pope Pius IX, Pope Pius XII, the Baltimore Catechism, and the Catechism of St Pius X take my side of the debate.  furthermore, we *both* know for certain that Archbishop Lefebvre simultaneously rejected Vatican II but still took my side of this debate.  Now I'm open to being convinced that our position leads to Vatican II, but I haven't seen this proven yet.  Is there any more "neutral" terminology you'd be willing to agree to?  Maybe something like "Feeeny's EENS" (which would leave out the BOD issue) vs "Lefebvre's EENS"?  Or maybe "strict" vs "looser" EENS?  I'd even do "strict" vs "Lefebvre's" if that helps move things forward, since we all know what Lefebvre taught on the issue, and its pretty quotable.

Keep in mind that you're basically putting every sedevacantist priest on the side of Vatican II rather than Trent.  I can understand saying they don't side with Trent (whether correct or not) but I don't see how you can accuse Sedevacantist priests (or SSPX priests for that matter) of getting their ecclesiology from a council they object.

All that said I will admit that Ive never understood how someone could object *specifically* to the "subsist in" line  and yet not take the strict EENS position (I'll use that one for now unless you tell me me you prefer something different.)  I generally have not objected to this part of Vatican II personally, but I have objected to *other* parts of Vatican II, including parts that seem to suggest ecuмenism between Catholics and Muslims or Protestants is justifiable, and also on religious liberty which I think is a pretty overt contradiction.

Honestly, as an ex protestant I can tell you that Protestant ecclesiology is a lot different than *any* stripe of Trad ecclesiology that I've ever seen.  But honestly, its also a lot different from Vatican II.  Protestantism doesn't have "a visible society that you can be invisibly part of."  This *may* have been the position of Martin Luther or John Calvin.  But at this point Protestantism is a bunch of disparate visible socieites, which may or may not be in communion with each other, which are varying degrees of optional, and which are all part of the "invisible church of all who believe (insert a minimum set of doctrines that can't be defended by a concrete principle).

There is no Protestant church, therefore it follows that there can be no Protestant ecclesiology. There are as many Protestant "churches" as there are Protestants, each Protestant is a "church" of one.
Protestantism is like BOD, there are many many BOD's as there are BODers, but in the end all the BODers  have one belief in common, their unbelief. Just the same as the Protestants, the only thing they have in common is there unbelief that the Catholic Church is One true Church, the tone true faith and road to salvation.

I know there isn't any real Protestant church of course. But there are Protestants, they go to things that they call churches, and they have beliefs about ecclesiology.  Stop being anal.

Also your constant harping on "We all disbelieve" is tiresome.  I've already articulated why I think your idea that dogmas can be taken at "face value" is insufficient and is no more sensible than Protestants saying the same about sacred scripture, so why do you think continuing to repeat yourself would be useful?

I could theoretically be convinced that all the modern trad clergy are wrong on this, but it would take a lot more than "lol can't they read?"

As I stated before, the writer could never be convinced of even the defined limited BOD of St. Thomas, apparently he has a lot of free time to complain about it, since he's been at it for months. I post here only to cut to the chase for others who think the writer above has not been told repeatedly, all of the points brought up on this thread by others.

I will say this much.  Given how you think, your username fits you.

BzyCat,
Pray and study the doctrines/principles involved.  When you start viewing doctrine through the lens of "popularity" or "personality", you enter the realm of sentimentality.  Let's remember that Church history is full of examples where the "extreme" view was correct, while all others were wrong.  Truth matters, not "sensibility" or "reasonableness" or "earthly sense".
.
1.  St Athanasius vs Arianism (historians said of the time:  "St Athanasius was against the world")
2.  St Thomas More/St John Fisher vs Anglicanism (Bishop Fisher is the only prelate to stand up against heresy)
3.  Pope St Pius X said he was "surrounded by wolves (Modernists)".
.
Truth is not a popularity contest, which is why so many rejected Christ, even His disciples.

It's less the popularity and more so the issue that it's hard to believe it could be so simple and yet have all the trad clergy deny it. I mean, all you guys had to do to dispel "implicit faith BOD" was quote any one of several infallible confirmations of EENS. But of course +ABL and Bishop Williamson etc. are aware of these. So why aren't they convinced? Why isn't there at least a tiny minority of trad priests(who themselves are only a tiny minority of priests in general) speaking out, when it seems to be such a simple and clear-cut issue?

I mean, there are even people on this site who are sometimes in contact with trad bishops. If it's so cut-and-dry, wouldn't shooting a letter out to Bishop Williamson or whoever clear things up?

You're still appealing to "popularity" vs doctrine, but i'll still answer your question.  Firstly, Fr Feeney and Fr Wathen are known as the "only two" who have this "strict" view of EENS.  But that's not true.  They are just the only 2 priests who have the talent/time/vocation to write books.  I know personally of 3-4 Trad priests who agree with Fr Feeney/Wathen (and at least a few more), but they don't have the personality/temperment to write on the subject.  They also feel that the BOD issue is "peanuts" compared to the various other spiritual problems of the day - atheism, impurity, V2, family issues, etc.
.
Bear in mind that the "number of priests" I quote is of small significance.  An anonymous survey would reveal the true facts.  There are many new-sspx priests who don't care about BOD but "toe the line" of the society for the good of the faithful.  Same would be true of the sede-groups.  The leaders of the sspx and sede-groups have often been the directors of such theories, propping them up as more important than they are.

Perhaps this could be the case.  Certainly if a future Pope was to clearly rule that Fr. Feeney and Fr. Wathen are basically correct on this matter, I would submit to it.  But while I suppose its possible that the vast majority of *Traditional* clergy (who's very purpose for existing is resisting modernism) are "just ignoring the plain text of florence" it seems *far* more likely that we need additional clarity here, at a future time.

It's not the popularity in and of itself; it's that if "Outside the Church there is no salvation" is really as simple as 2+2=4, then it would naturally follow that any priest of good will who looked into it at all would reject implicit faith. And surely that would be a decent number of trad priests at least. So if it is as simple as reading Florence, either they're all wildly uneducated on a basic dogma or they're wilfully ignoring it. What about +ABL? Was he just regurgitating what he was told and seriously never stopped to consider it? I don't think that makes sense.

That's exactly it.  Ladislaus said on either this thread or another that everyone agreed that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation was essential for salvation prior to 1600.  If that's true, was Lefebvre unaware of it?