BoD is not the central issue for most Feeneyites; it's tangential and of much less importance than the core ecclesiological issues.  It's the Dimondites who have given BoD such prominence.  Father Feeney originally only addressed the subject of EENS and of Tridentine (Catholic) ecclesiology ... and only later did BoD become an issue.  Even to the end, though, Father spoke of his position as a mere personal opinion that he could easily drop if the Church were to officially condemn it.  In addition, Father Feeney had a nuanced position.  He did not deny justification by BoD, but distinguished between justification and salvation (a very real distinction that even Trent taught, in so far as final perseverence is a special grace distinct from justification itself).  In the end, most true Feeneyites care very little about BoD.  They actually DO believe in a BoD (per your question), it's just that for them it justifies but does not save.

As for why they're despised, I don't think it's primarily personal.  I think that people despise the POSITION they have taken.  Sure, there are a few extremely bitter ones, but I have not seen that with straight Feeneyites ... but rather with the Dimondites.

From the outside you may not acknowledge the difference between Feeneyites and Dimondites, but they're real.  From the outside, people would be inclined to lump Traditional Catholics together, failing to distinguish between, say, the SSPX and the dogmatic sedevacantists ... and then smearing the entire group of Traditionalists with attacks that only apply to the dogmatic sedevacantists.  Similarly, there are very real differences between straight BoDers (considering it an opinion) vs. the dogmatic BoDers (e.g. Dimondites).

So it's a combination of the unpopularity of their position and the black eyes they get from being lumped in with the Dimondites.  They often get banned from forums simply because the moderator has concluded that Feeneyism is heresy.

Two of my favorite Priests who had apostolic zeal for the conversion of America (and who each made many converts!) really preached EENS in a wonderful, holy, frank way. Without arguments or attenuation, and without denying Baptism of Desire. They were 19th century Priests and had burning love for God and neighbor, and a deep desire for all men and women to become Catholic Christians and be saved. I think we can all learn a lot from such Apostolic men whose works bear witness of them. Let's see how they preached!

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/familiar.htm

Q. Is it, then, the will of God that all men should be Catholics?
A. Yes; because it is only in the Roman Catholic Church that they can learn the will of God; that is, the full doctrine of Jesus Christ, which alone can save them.
Q. Did Jesus Christ Himself assure us most solemnly, and in plain words, that no one can be saved out of the Roman Catholic Church?
A. He did, when He said to His Apostles: "Go and teach all nations, and teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. He that believeth not all these things shall be condemned ...

Q. But is it not a very uncharitable doctrine to say that none can be saved out of the Church?
A. On the contrary, it is a very great act of charity to assert this doctrine most emphatically.
Q. Why?
A. Because Jesus Christ Himself and His apostles have taught it in very plain language ...

Q. What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity of knowing better?
A. Their inculpable ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance ...

Q. What do you mean by this?
A. I mean that God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the truth of the Catholic faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic.

https://www.olrl.org/apologetics/churchbible.shtml

Dearly Beloved Christians – When Our Divine Savior sent His Apostles and His Disciples throughout the whole universe to preach the Gospel to every creature, He laid down the conditions of salvation thus: "He that believeth and is Baptized," said the Son of the Living God, "shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned." (Mark 16:16). Here, then, Our Blessed Lord laid down the two conditions of salvation: Faith and Baptism. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned – or is damned. Hence, then, two conditions of salvation: Faith and Baptism. I will speak this evening on the condition of Faith.
We must have Faith in order to be saved, and we must have Divine Faith, not human faith. Human faith will not save a man, but only Divine Faith. What is Divine Faith? It is to believe, upon the authority of God, all the Truths that God has revealed; that is Divine Faith. To believe all that God has taught upon the authority of God, and to believe without doubting, without hesitating; for the moment you commence to doubt or hesitate; that moment you commence to distrust the authority of God, and, therefore, insult God by doubting His Word. Divine Faith, therefore, is to believe without doubting, without hesitating. Human faith is when we believe a thing upon the authority of men – on human authority. That is human Faith. But Divine Faith is to believe without hesitating, whatsoever God has revealed upon the authority of God, upon the Word of God ... "Well, yes," says my Protestant friend "I guess that is the right Faith. To believe that Jesus is the Son of the Living God we must believe all that Christ has taught."

We Catholics say the same, and here we agree again. Christ, then, we must believe, and that is the true FAith; we must believe all that Christ has taught,that God has revealed, and without that Faith there is no salvation, without that Faith there is no hope of Heaven, without that Faith there is eternal damnation! We have the words of Christ for it. "He that believeth not shall be condemned," says Christ ...

Has God given us such means? "Yes," say my Protestant friends, "He has." And so says the Catholic: God has given us such a means. What is the means God has given us whereby we shall learn the Truth that God has revealed? "The Bible," says my Protestant friends, "the Bible, the whole of the Bible, and nothing but the Bible." But we Catholics say, "No; not the Bible and its private interpretation, but the Church God."

I will prove the facts, and I defy all my separated brethren, and all the preachers into the bargain, to disprove what I will say tonight. I say, then, it is not the private interpretation of the Bible that has been appointed by God to be the teacher of man, but the Church of the living God.

For, my dear people, if God had intended that man should learn His religion from a book – the Bible – surely God would have given that book to man; Christ would have given that book to man. Did He do it? He did not. Christ sent His Apostles throughout the whole universe and said: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."

I just had the "interviewer" come over and ask me another question, which I added to the original Interview. 


Since you're not a Feeneyite yourself, why do you allow them on CathInfo?

Firstly, I keep all discussion touching on Feeneyism in a single sub-forum, since many (most?) people don't want to hear it. But some people can't get enough of such discussion -- both pro and con. Who am I to forbid them to discuss what they want to discuss? Secondly, because it's impractical and near impossible to forbid entire topics of discussion on a discussion forum -- topics which are often closely related to many other topics. I have nothing but contempt for Angelqueen's infamous and laughable moderation policy, where they inserted [BLEEP] every time "Sedevacantist" or "Sedevacantism" was mentioned. Notice that AQ is dead and irrelevant as a forum today. No one mentions AQ anymore, except in a historical context. It sounds good at first glance to "ban Feeneyites", but where does it end? EENS? Membership in the Church? Catholic doctrine on Salvation? Baptism? It's too hard to carve out an exact forbidden area with no ambiguity. The same with Fisheaters banning all discussion of "cօռspιʀαcιҽs" back in 2006. Does that include all cօռspιʀαcιҽs, even those with tons of evidence? So any case of 2 or more men getting together to work evil, without being completely open about their plans to the whole world, is forbidden? That's an awfully broad definition.

"Feeneyites." Their signature issue is EENS and the conversion of America.

What is EENS? I just did a duckduckgo.com search as those letters stump me every time.

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

1. It's not just one or two people that say that "Feeneyites deny BoD, BoB" -- it's pretty much everyone. I'll admit it's the short version, and probably a highly simplified version. I'll also admit that I'm no expert on the intricate details of Feeneyism or the controversy that surrounds the group.

.
So when a crowd of conspirators rise up to promote a denunciation of one man or one group it becomes a matter of fact? You know there are a lot of voices attacking President Trump, even claiming that he should be impeached: does that make it true? You say "it's pretty much everyone" but that's just your own perception. Everyone is the appearance of the critics of Trump, too, if you only watch the MSM. I'm glad to see you're aware you're not an "expert on the intricate details." That's at least a start.
.

2. Are you saying that Feeneyites accept the doctrines of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood?

.
The teachings of BoD and BoB are entirely a matter of theological speculation. They in no way rise to the level of dogma by any stretch of the imagination, and they hardly constitute a doctrine, since to different people they mean VASTLY different things, and it may well nigh be impossible to define them in the strict sense of the word. What Fr. Feeney managed to do was to see the inconsistency and how it was being used by Modernists to dismantle the missionary spirit in the Church, so he pointed out the inconsistency in defense of the Church to protect the missionary spirit and the purity of doctrine. Is that some kind of crime? Of course, to Modernists, defending the purity of doctrine is a crime, no question. Whose side do you want to be on? That's the question.
.

3. Why do Feeneyites have such a bad reputation in the Trad world, to the point that everyone strongly dislikes them, they aren't welcome on most Traditional Catholic fora, they are often banned from Trad chapels, etc. Are you suggesting there's some kind of evil Illuminati-level conspiracy throughout the Trad world (across the board, in every group, even though most Trad groups completely oppose each other) to denigrate the reputation of a group of integral Catholics whose only fault is being seriously apostolic? Are you saying everyone hates you because you're holy and good, or because everyone is just jealous? Sorry, I don't buy that. You have a long way to go if you hope to convince me.

.
Who says "Feeneyites" have a bad reputation? Their enemies? Who are these enemies? I know of one conspicuous figure, one Fr. Martin Stepanich (d. 2012), who dared to violate the principle of common decency by writing hit-pieces containing blatant lies and detraction against Fr. Feeney the very year he died, which were published by Michael Matt, the two-faced, in his wimpy Remnant newspaper, 1974. Is that what you're referring to? Or is it his otherwise uninformed readers? Are you aware at the time the Novus Ordo Newmass was the new kid in town and there was a lot of controversy over the Mass. You'd think that a Catholic priest who was wont to protect the TLM would be at least objective and charitable toward another priest who has the same outlook toward the Mass. But apparently it was too much to ask of Stepanich. What I am suggesting is that the devil is a whole lot more intelligent and scheming than man or even mankind, and it is the work of the devil to divide and conquer. Any tiny chink in the armor of Christendom is a prime target for the devil's attacks and especially among the defenders of the TLM. 
.
I don't expect to convince you. But so long as you refuse to physically go to let's say the St. Benedict Center at Richmond, NH, yourself and see first hand what you've been all up-in-arms about, it's your choice to continue in your ignorance. 
.

4. Yes, insofar as it's possible, St. Dominic's Chapel would like to see the conversion of America. Now personally I don't see this small Resistance chapel having much of an influence beyond a 1.5 hour driving radius, especially with no resident priest, but you brought it up...

.
Are you willing to tell everyone who has any contact with St. Dominic's Chapel that your crusade is the conversion of America?
Do you know of ANYONE ELSE who says that?
Obviously, if you're going to go around saying that, you have to be ready for questions.
"What are you doing to convert America?" and things like that.
.

5. I had never heard of St. Benedict Centers nor did I know what they were about.  I guess there isn't one anywhere near my hometown (same as TAN Books) nor my current stomping grounds (San Antonio area). And if there is, I can only conclude they must be doing a lousy job of putting themselves out there, being apostolic, garnering good publicity, etc.

.
They don't advertise in the newspapers. They don't hold protest rallies in public parks like the TFP does. If you want to know what events they're going to be present at you need to go to their website or join their mailing list or at least their e-mail list. It's free. But you have to want to know. Or you can remain in ignorance. Perhaps invincibly.
.

6. If the nearest St. Benedict Center is more than 45 min. away, I certainly won't be visiting. Not from any apathy towards the truth, but because my duties of state don't allow it. Sorry.

.
Okay, so you can't make the trip to NH. Whatever. You can get on their e-mail list and read the regular articles that Brother Andre-Marie publishes. That's no big commitment, maybe 15 minutes twice a month or so. You can pay attention at least every now and then to someone OTHER than their enemies, which by the way includes various elements of the SSPX that you're so eager to oppose, like Fr. Laisney, if not for different reasons. Is the enemy of your enemy sometimes your friend, or not? Perhaps the perpetuation of animosity is the work of the devil -- no, it most certainly IS. The Franciscans against the Dominicans was a delightful scenario from the devil's perspective!
.

7. You should be grateful that CathInfo is the ONE Traditional Catholic forum (with a membership greater than 50) that allows Feeneyites to join or speak at all. I'm not exaggerating here. Most forums exclude Feeneyites in their official rules/charter. Yes, I place the Feeneyite group/controversy in a ghetto so as not to annoy the rest of the membership, but if there is indeed a global conspiracy to slander the group as you claim, then I am doing more than 99.9% of people to help rectify that. I am giving you a platform to defend yourselves and make your case -- to put the "truth" out there, if indeed the truth is different than the common belief about Feeneyites.

.
I wouldn't be spending so much time here if I didn't appreciate your generosity. I don't come in hammering away at every hint of anti-Feeneyism that crops up. But every now and then someone has to say something. I thank you for your level-headedness, even if it is due to German ancestry. I can make the identical claim, as well as the Irish contingent (which has other attributes).
.

I'm not afraid of the Truth.

.
Then go to www.catholicism.org and sign up for e-mail newsletters. You won't get any spam. I promise. 
.
But you will get notification of when let's say, Brother Andre, will be within your convenient traveling distance so you can meet him.
You would be most pleasantly surprised: Another promise.

.
Fr. Leonard Feeney had been a well-known professor in New England Catholic colleges, author of children's literature in use nationwide, and considered America's premiere theologian for many years before 1949. His framed picture was prominently placed on the walls of Catholic parochial schoolrooms for the children to see, only second to the framed picture of the Pope hanging on the same walls. When Bishop Fulton J. Sheen was going to take some time off from his regular TV show (which in those days was broadcast nearly live and not pre-recorded) the question arose as to who ought to be his temporary substitute during his absence. His recommendation was for Fr. Feeney, because he was the only man in America qualified for the task.
.
But the Modernists in Rome had other ideas. They wanted to get ready for some serious changes, and for that they needed a Council to make it all happen. They needed to hold a Council, but opposed to that there were two obstacles. Number one obstacle was they needed a Pope to make it happen. That was a big project with lots of pieces to arrange. Number two obstacle was that one naggingly staunch voice of Traditionalism that had to be silenced so as not to interfere with their plans; and there was one priest in particular who more than anyone else on planet earth embodied the power of that voice: Fr. Leonard Feeney. Now, Obstacle Number One was going to take some time, but Obstacle Number Two could be perhaps dispatched much more expediently. IOW they had to get Fr. Feeney OUT OF THE WAY so they could concentrate on Obstacle Number One: The Pope.
.
Suddenly one day, all the photographs of Fr. Feeney on all the school classroom walls across America were removed. They were hanging there one day, and the next day there was just a shadow of less-faded paint where the picture used to hang. How did the Modernists accomplish that magic trick? They used the services of one Francesco Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani to send a personal letter from Rome to the Archbishop of Boston, Mass., concerning the Obstacle Number Two. Then Abp. Cushing published it, under the auspices of it being some kind of official Church matter for the consumption of all the faithful (when it was in fact nothing of the sort). It was Romanita in action. They later would try the same tactics on Fr. Nicholas Gruner, among others, and they no doubt had done likewise many times in the previous 2,000 years. IOW business as usual, for Romans. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani would die in January of 1951, and Cushing would publish the (objectively invalid) excommunication of Fr. Feeney in 1953. Everything in due time. "These things must be handled delicately!" (Wicked Witch of the West, from "The Wizard of Oz")
.
They had to get Fr. Feeney out of the way, because they knew that if they got all the rest of their ducks in a row, this one priest alone would be able to prevent their Vatican II success from happening. And he would have. And they knew it. So he had to go.

I do, however, remember that my dad was quite upset. He told us that Father Feeney was not a heretic, but a good devout priest.

You needn't be an expert theologians to tell the good guys from the bad in that saga.  All anyone needed to do was to have a look at who Father Feeney's greatest enemies were ... Jєωs, liberal Catholics (like the Kennedies), and the heresiarch Cardinal Richard Cushing.  These were the ones spewing unabashed modernism and pushing for ecuмenism and "reform" well before Vatican II.  Even if you disagree with Father Feeney on BoD, Father was decidedly one of the proto-Traditonalists waging battle as the storms of Vatican II were starting to brew.  What a shame that he's now demonized by so many Traditional Catholics as somehow worse than the Conciliar modernists.