I still think "EENS" is a waste of time nothingburger for 99.999% of people who make it their hobby and/or life's work, main crusade.

I haven't encountered any Trads anywhere in Tradition -- not even in the Indult, which is technically not part of the Traditional Movement -- that encourage would-be converts to stay in a false religion, for various reasons (they can be saved there too, water Baptism isn't necessary, etc.)

Call me down-to-earth or non-intellectual if you will, but my take on EENS is simple. Get baptized, join the Catholic Church or die the death -- the eternal death. It's simple, at least to me. I look at pagan countries and it's clear that the chances of any of those billions saving their souls is about zero if some Catholic missionary doesn't intervene. Even if one out of 10 million somehow saved their soul, who likes them odds? Missionaries are indispensable and crucial to the eternal salvation of a huge portion of the world.

I think those who argue EENS, Feeneyism, etc. should spend those dozens of hours writing Apologetics works, running an apologetics website/apostolate instead. Much more good would be done.

I agree with you that the magisterium cant contradict itself.

As an interesting aside I have only ever read trent and the roman catechism through unnofficial mediums online and never through the official teaching transmission of the bishop... And i suspect this is the case for most catholics. So can we really be said to have read trent or whatever magisterial writing if it has been from unnofficial sources,? I would say this is not infallible in transmission of teaching unlike the magisterium which is.

I take it you agree that the RC says or at least implies that one can be saved by one's desire for baptism and repentance if for some reason they do not receive baptism, correct?

If so, then we have to deal with the fact that the Magisterium taught something in its most authoritative catechism contrary to the faith, on an important matter of the faith and salvation itself. The implications of that, in light of what the same Magisterium has taught about the impossibility of it doing that, is staggering.

by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.

That is somewhat different from this end times monstrosity we are dealing with: that is a falsely teaching Magisterium going back to the 16th century.

EENS is Catholic dogma.  It is not a "nothingburger".  Even if what you meant is that the debate about it is a "nothingburger", you are wrong.  How do I know you are wrong?  You imply that EENS, a Catholic dogma, is detrimental to conversions and that instead of preaching that dogma we should be focused on Catholic apologetics.  Well, guess who is at the forefront of traditional Catholic apologetics and is getting large numbers of conversions?  Yeah, it is Most Holy Family Monastery (aka the Dimonds).  Most of their videos are Catholic apologetics videos.  They mostly focus on refuting the errors of the novus ordo, protestants and schismatics.  It seems like a week doesn't go by that they don't have someone writing to them to thank them for their work and to ask for help with getting baptized and/or converting to the traditional Catholic Church.  I have never seen anything like that at the chapels I have gone to (indult, SSPX, Resistance, CMRI).  One non-novus-ordo conversion in a year would be a big deal.  Dozens of conversions every year is almost incredible.  So regardless of whether you agree with their position on EENS, you should at least appreciate that they are getting many people to convert to the Catholic Church and receive the sacraments.

EENS is Catholic dogma.  It is not a "nothingburger".  Even if what you meant is that the debate about it is a "nothingburger", you are wrong.  How do I know you are wrong?  You imply that EENS, a Catholic dogma, is detrimental to conversions and that instead of preaching that dogma we should be focused on Catholic apologetics.  Well, guess who is at the forefront of traditional Catholic apologetics and is getting large numbers of conversions?  Yeah, it is Most Holy Family Monastery (aka the Dimonds).  Most of their videos are Catholic apologetics videos.  They mostly focus on refuting the errors of the novus ordo, protestants and schismatics.  It seems like a week doesn't go by that they don't have someone writing to them to thank them for their work and to ask for help with getting baptized and/or converting to the traditional Catholic Church.  I have never seen anything like that at the chapels I have gone to (indult, SSPX, Resistance, CMRI).  One non-novus-ordo conversion in a year would be a big deal.  Dozens of conversions every year is almost incredible.  So regardless of whether you agree with their position on EENS, you should at least appreciate that they are getting many people to convert to the Catholic Church and receive the sacraments.

Couldn't agree more. While these alphabet soup trad groups are pandering to either the disaffected NO or arguing amongst themselves about who is right in responding to the crisis, the work the Dimonds have done on the Eastern Orthodox alone puts them miles ahead of these groups in responding to real theological issues that have come up in this day and age, such as the Essence/Energy dispute between the Catholics and the Orthodox. Many disaffected Catholics have gone to the EO and no trad groups have effectively tackled the issue other than the Dimonds.

Their videos are very high quality, and powerful. Their defense against Protestants, for example, and  Justification and the use of Sacred Scripture is second to none. I have never seen any trad clergy today effectively use scripture as the Dimonds do.

Ok, I am trying to see if I understand what you're saying here. You are saying that "Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism" is akin to saying "Since adults have another means of salvation besides baptism".

Is that accurate?

Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…

He tries to bolster this position by pointing out that the above passage from Florence is a quotation from St. Thomas Aquinas, who (in the docuмent quoted) goes on to teach that there is another remedy for adults.  The problem for Fr. Laisney is that the Council of Florence did not incorporate St. Thomas’s paragraph on there being another remedy for adults (Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 68, A. 3), but stopped the quotation from him after stating that there is no other remedy for infants.

It's not "akin," but it is the very palpable and obvious implication. If the RC disavows BOD or at least does not allow it, the drafters did a horrible job of conveying the "truth" that only baptism is the means of salvation for everyone. This is a problem: if in fact the sacrament of baptism in water were absolutely necessary for all men under all circuмstances since the promulgation of the gospel, the Magisterium should have been fired for failing to forcefully and clearly affirm that in light of the BOD teachings that have dominated Catholic thought for centuries, a la St. Thomas, etc.