You might as well quote Calvin, Stubby.

Feeney was a non-Catholic heretic.

What's erroneous about that statement?  Is God incapable of providing Sacramental Baptism to any of the elect?

I love how BoDers talk about how Feeneyites limit God to working in His Sacraments, and yet claim that God is somehow limited by impossibility, unfortunate and unforeseen accidents.

Except for those encyclicals and teachings by Popes who I, Papa Pius V, as a non sedevacantist, accept as pope but disagree with. I do not consent to the teaching of those.

One problem with R&R is that it posits two kinds of Popes, the ones to be believed and the ones to be disbelieved. As a non-sede it is hard to argue honestly or consistently with those who treat all the popes the same and question all their teachings, or who put different Popes, such as Pius XII who you quote, into the category of popes to be disbelieved.

Indeed, Papa's OP condemned Feeneyism for rejecting Church teaching, but he then thinks it's OK to .... REJECT (the last 60 years of) Church teaching.

Here is Speray's argument:

The Feeneyite says all of the invincibly ignorant are damned. If this is so, how is this different from Calvinism concerning Matt. 11:28 that God only provides the possibility to be saved to a certain number of people, which necessarily implies that God created part of mankind for hell?

Uhm, St. Thomas also teaches that the invincibly ignorant are damned.  And he explains why it's not Calvinism [in principle, since Calvin lived later].  He states that this ignorance is in fact punishment for their other sins, and that, were there no such obstalces, God would enlighten them with the things necessary to know for salvation.

Trent dogmatically teaches that faith is necessary for salvation.  It is in fact agreed by ALL Catholic theologians that explicit knowledge of at least some truths about God (I'll prescind from the debate about which ones) is necessary by necessity of means in order to have supernatural faith.  Consequently, ignorance of these truths, whether vincible or invincible, renders a soul incapable of being saved.  But this is not Calvinism for the reasons St. Thomas Aquinas adduces, namely, that the ignorance itself is in fact a punishment for other sins.

We'll notice again how the BoDers' zeal to promote BoD has NOTHING to do with rare case of a catechumen who dies before Baptism.  It's all about getting the ignorant and non-Catholics into heaven.  It's an assault on EENS.  And the courageous Father Feeney called it out for what it is.

That's utterly idiotic.  You're now equating anti-Pelagianism with Calvinism, effectively declaring St. Augustine to be objectively heretical.  You might as well be promoting Pelagius, man.

We finally have someone coming out in the open admitting that it's Pelagianism that is behind BoD.

St. Augustine's views are Calvinism and Jansenism. That is an objective reality. That doesn't mean St. Augustine was a heretic though as the Church hadn't pronounced anything definitely at his time. The same goes for St. Thomas and his denial of the immaculate conception.

Now you're even excommunicating people, Papa?

Pope Pius IV’s Bull Benedictus Deus (26 January 1564). The Bull, which confirms the decrees of the Council of Trent, imposes a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication on anyone who, without the approval of the Holy See, presumes “to publish in any form any commentaries, glosses, annotations, scholia on, or any kind of interpretation whatsoever of the decrees of this council.”

There ya go, Ladi!

What's erroneous about that statement?  Is God incapable of providing Sacramental Baptism to any of the elect?

I love how BoDers talk about how Feeneyites limit God to working in His Sacraments, and yet claim that God is somehow limited by impossibility, unfortunate and unforeseen accidents.

It presupposes double predestination. Actually it necessitates it.

Indeed, Papa's OP condemned Feeneyism for rejecting Church teaching, but he then thinks it's OK to .... REJECT (the last 60 years of) Church teaching.

I admit its a huge problem. I am seriously considering the Cassiciacuм thesis.

It's not your job (or mine) to be a theologian and have an answer to this issue.  So you do just fine staying where you're at and just worrying about your soul.

Beware the DANGER of the logical contradictions and traps here, and just ask God to keep you out of them.  Leave the rest to Him.

No, but it is our job to be consistent logically with ourselves and in the faith.