And no Church Fathers, neither St Augustine, nor St Thomas, nor Trent, nor St Alphonsus back up this view.  
.
St Alphonsus died in 1787, right around the time of the French Revolution, which ushered in political anarchy and masonic influence around the globe, including the Vatican.  Let's not forget that in the late 1800s the masons imprisoned Pius IX and almost killed him.  So are we too naive to think the masons didn't infiltrate the church in the 1800s and start watering-down doctrine, especially EENS?  That's the only explanation for how BOD morphed from St Alphonsus' catechumen to applying to Hindus and Muslims...

The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St. Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
 
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.

Here's the thing that bugs me about V2.  Even if some infidels (individuals) can be inside the Church, their communities as a whole are not, and there is *no way* to know *which* infidels are inside the Church and which are not.

I see what you're getting at with the theologian argument, but you could apply that to Novus Ordo bishops then too, couldn't you? When Bishop Barron says there is hope Hell is empty and the Vatican says nothing, is he in the clear?

I definitely was a sedevacantist for a while, and I wouldn't call myself a sedeplenist now either. I have no idea really and I'm not satisfied with any position at present, so I just try to avoid it as much as possible, but if I was pressed to answer I'd say I lean towards sedeprivationism

 I don't see the relevance here though.

Yes, this notion of a Church for which there's "no way to know" who's in it and who is not ... this contradicts Tridentine ecclesiology, which taught precisely that the Church is a VISIBLE SOCIETY whose membership is knowable.

Basically, then, to those who think like you here, and that includes a lot of Traditional Catholics, all we have is a shift in presumption.  Whereas the pre-Vatican II Church presumed that these were outside the Church, the post-V2 Church shifted the presumption in their favor.  That is hardly a monumental theological or doctrinal shift, but a practical one.  Now, even the V2 Church states that as a general rule non-Catholics cannot be admitted to the Sacraments because they are not members of the Church and not in "full communion" with the Church, but the 1983 Code of Canon Law states otherwise.

If I were to accept the notion that infidels and other non-Catholics could be within the Church, then I would cease to have anything "bug me" about Vatican II.  It's perfectly logical and consistent, then, with Catholic doctrine.

This is what the Crisis in the Church boils down to.

Either you believe in a Church that is a Visible Society whose membership is knowable or else you believe in a partly-visible-partly-invisible Church in whom are many (or some) who are formally within the Church but materially separated, and therefore not in "FULL" communion with the Church.

Ecuмenism derives very directly from this.  Ecuмenism isn't actually defined, as such, anywhere in Vatican II, but its general sense is that we have these "separated brethren" with whom we are united to a point but with whom we seek a full and perfect union.  This is the notion that the Church is divided (materially) though seeking unity.  Thus the argument that it contradicts Pius XI in Mortalium Animos evaporates by a simple formal/material distinction.  Sure, the Church is one, formally, but it's materially divided.

And then Religious Liberty derives from this also, but a little more indirectly.  If people please God, enter the Church, and save their souls by following their even-erroneous consciences, then, since people have a right to please God, enter the Church, and save their souls, then they have a right to follow their even-erroneous consciences ... thus, Religious Liberty.  By deterring them from following their consciences you could actually be placing an obstacle to their salvation.

THIS IS WHAT THE ENTIRE CRISIS IS ABOUT, and yet Traditional Catholics are for the most part totally asleep to this problem and have even become allies with those who's very principles lead to Vatican II.  You can't believe that non-Catholics are saved and at the same time object to Vatican II ecclesiology.

But God has allowed the fruits of this Vatican II theology to be so rotten that anyone can see that it is wrong and cannot be of God.  As +Vigano has pointed out, it's not a mere "accident," and bad spin or interpretation on Vatican II, but it's VATICAN II ITSELF that has caused this wreckage.

Fr Feeney believed in BOD and he believed that it justified those that received it.  The position that got him in hot water was the he believed that no one could be saved unless they first received the Sacrament of Baptism (which is not valid unless done with natural water).  So that implies that he believed that those who received BOD-only would not receive the grace of final perseverance.  He was not excommunicated for that position.  He was excommunicated because he refused to go to Rome when the pope ordered him to go there (disobedience).  In fact, Ratzinger's CDF confirmed that the strict interpretation of EENS was permissible.  Don't you think that the modernists would have found a way to outlaw that position if they could?  So even if you believe as I do that Ratzinger had no authority, at least you can appreciate his frank admission that there is no evidence that strict EENS is a condemned position.  On the other hand, I see that multiple popes tolerated a more or less subtle denial of strict EENS despite the apparent support for strict EENS in the magisterium. So the debates are going to go on and on until someone in authority puts an end to it.  And maybe like the Molinism debate, it will go on until the end of time, although at least in that case, the anathemas have ceased.

Fr. Feeney answered correctly, we do not know where a BOD person would spend eternity because we mere humans cannot know. Heck, if we are to be honest about it, we cannot even know if the BOD person ever actually desired baptism, much less where he spends eternity.  

The saints and theologians who reward the BODer with heaven, no matter how positive they seem to be, are only speculating because that's all they can do in this matter.

This is not true. Most who accept the dogma believe those who believe in a BOD are in error, not heretics. My opinion is when that belief turns to incessant preaching about a BOD - then the preacher is preaching heresy, but I do not think him a heretic. OTOH, When it gets to the point like it did with Lover of Truth where he blindly spammed the forums with dozens upon dozens of a BOD that continued for week after week even months, then that person has earned the title of heretic.  

It would be nice for the "true" pope to come out and explicitly condemn or infallibly define a BOD, but I'd be surprised if that happens in our life time. In the mean time, the debates will go on with BODers quoting the Fathers and misunderstanding Trent, while the EENSers will go on quoting the Fathers and echoing Trent.  

I'd go a step further.  If you take the first "Anaphora" of the NOM, it's basically the Tridentine Canon (with very few variations).  If the NOM reform had simply implemented Canon I and that Mass had continued to be said in Latin, there would have been very little Traditional movement ... apart from, perhaps, the Feeneyite groups.  Most people became Traditional Catholics after watching clown Masses and altar girls and all this other junk.  I know that this is the stuff that opened my eyes to what was going on.