You also haven’t made an argument….

Because there are dozens on threads on cathinfo that have already gone through this with evidence.

Funny how no one calling names or mocking the author has made any logical arguments against what he wrote….

As others have pointed out ...

1) There's nothing of substance in that link.  It's just an emotional rant, with a link along the lines of, "For actual arguments against BoD, see Steven Speray."

2) Nobody's going to engage in a 300-page refutation of BoD every time some idiot shows up here and posts a link.  There are numerous 200-page threads on CI hashing out all the arguments.  If you wanted to raise your own arguments, you might get a response, but if you're too lazy to type out your own arguments but want to pretend you've refuted something by posting a link, you can run along, you troll.

Most of you "sedevacantists" who despise the truth about Baptism of Desire fall under your own condemnation as manifest heretics who are outside the Church.  You declare the Vatican II ecclesiology heretical but hold the same ecclesiology yourself.

No sedevacantist who hates "Feeneyism" has ever refuted my argument about why you're heretics and non-Catholics by your own criteria.

Let me summarize the core argument.

MINOR 1:  Sedevacantists hold that the Vatican II ecclesiology is heretical.
MINOR 2:  Sedevacantists hold that those who publicly adhere to said heresy are manifest heretics who are outside the Church.
MINOR 3:  Sedevacantists who despise "Feeneyism" invariably hold the same ecclesiology that Vatican II has.
CONCLUSION:  By their own critieria, Sedevacantists who despise "Feeneyism" are manifest heretics who are not Catholics and are outside the Church.

MINOR 3 is the part that needs to be proven, and I have proven it numerous times.  It's never been refuted, simply ignored.  Note.  Here we're not speaking of those who hold a position about BoD where, essentially, a Catechumen who plans on being baptized but happens to die before being able to can be saved.  That is not a heretical position.  But then those who hold that position don't tend to despise "Feeneyism".  I'm talking about those SVs who hold that non-Catholics can be saved, which is 90% of all BoDers.  Most prominent SV clergy are on record publicly declaring that non-Catholics can be saved.  It is those SV clergy and laymen that fall under their own anathema.

Here's a proof for why they (or you, if it applies to you) hold the same ecclesiology that they condemn as heretical in Vatican II.

MAJOR:  There's no salvation outside the Church. de fide.
MINOR:  SVs hold that various non-Catholics, Protestants, schismatics, Muslims, and Jews can be saved without converting and become Catholic before they die.
CONCLUSION:  SVs hold that various non-Catholics, Protestants, schismatics, Muslims, and Jews can be in the Church without converting and becoming Catholic (since, if they can be saved, they must be in the Church somehow due to the MAJOR).

This ecclesiology in the CONCLUSION is the same ecclesiology they denounce as heretical in Vatican II.

Therefore, such Sedevacantists are manifest heretics (most are quite pertinacious) who are outside the Church and are not Catholics.

This has never been refuted, simply ignored.

Let me summarize the core argument.

MINOR 1:  Sedevacantists hold that the Vatican II ecclesiology is heretical.
MINOR 2:  Sedevacantists hold that those who publicly adhere to said heresy are manifest heretics who are outside the Church.
MINOR 3:  Sedevacantists who despise "Feeneyism" invariably hold the same ecclesiology that Vatican II has.
CONCLUSION:  By their own critieria, Sedevacantists who despise "Feeneyism" are manifest heretics who are not Catholics and are outside the Church.

MINOR 3 is the part that needs to be proven, and I have proven it numerous times.  It's never been refuted, simply ignored.  Note.  Here we're not speaking of those who hold a position about BoD where, essentially, a Catechumen who plans on being baptized but happens to die before being able to can be saved.  That is not a heretical position.  But then those who hold that position don't tend to despise "Feeneyism".  I'm talking about those SVs who hold that non-Catholics can be saved, which is 90% of all BoDers.  Most prominent SV clergy are on record publicly declaring that non-Catholics can be saved.  It is those SV clergy and laymen that fall under their own anathema.

Here's a proof for why they (or you, if it applies to you) hold the same ecclesiology that they condemn as heretical in Vatican II.

MAJOR:  There's no salvation outside the Church. de fide.
MINOR:  SVs hold that various non-Catholics, Protestants, schismatics, Muslims, and Jєωs can be saved without converting and become Catholic before they die.
CONCLUSION:  SVs hold that various non-Catholics, Protestants, schismatics, Muslims, and Jєωs can be in the Church without converting and becoming Catholic (since, if they can be saved, they must be in the Church somehow due to the MAJOR).

This ecclesiology in the CONCLUSION is the same ecclesiology they denounce as heretical in Vatican II.

Therefore, such Sedevacantists are manifest heretics (most are quite pertinacious) who are outside the Church and are not Catholics.

This has never been refuted, simply ignored.

I agree. They hold the same perverse, heretical soteriology: the possibility of salvation without faith in Christ. They even make it possible for salvation for those who not only lack faith in Christ, but deny Christ.

The old mote in one's own eye.

The basis for an attack on Feeneyism is on that form of it which rejects even the possibility of salvation in votum. When those who attack Feeneyism include those who even deny Christ as having the potential for salvation in votum, they lose any semblance of credibility, and any validity to an objection to Feeneyism becomes ridiculous from them. They make Feeneyism attractive, since it is so opposed to their heresy. Thus, their condemnation backfires, and draws many to Feeneyism.

They create almost a need for Dimondism.

Good job, introibo and others of that ilk. Nice work there.

I agree. They hold the same perverse, heretical soteriology: the possibility of salvation without faith in Christ. They even make it possible for salvation for those who not only lack faith in Christ, but deny Christ.

If I believed that non-Catholics (particularly infidels) could be saved by BoD, I would have to drop any objections to Vatican II ecclesiology, and all the error of Vatican I rest logically on that ecclesiology.  Prots/schismatics who are baptized are a different story, since many of them are validly baptized, so BoD per se doesn't even apply to them and we're discussing BoD here.

Which is why the Trad movement itself, in so far as it likes to maintain opposition to Vatican II on theological and substantive grounds and not only regarding external worship (Latin liturgy, Old Mass, etc.), is roiled in contradictions: it deals with the sore on the skin, and doesn't reach the disease underneath that festers.

This problem applies to most of the R & R and Sedes. The Feeneyites are at least consistent in recognizing the disease and attempting to heal it.  A former Feeneyite myself, I admire them, and Father Feeney, for that. They have other problems: their remedy is like healing a knee that needs replacement by amputating the leg.

I've never understood the hostility toward Father Feeney.  Even if one holds that he ultimately got it wrong on BoD per se, he was absolutely not wrong in diagnosing the problem in the Church being related to widespread rejection of EENS dogma.  He was the only one who basically saw the decline BEFORE Vatican II, and basically saw it coming.  All else believed everything was great in the Church.  Initially, Father sensed there was something wrong, but couldn't put his finger on it.  It was after a long period of reflection that he came to the conclusion that the widespread denial of EENS was the problem.  He was absolutely right ... whether one wants to argue that he threw the baby out of the bathwater later with his conclusions regarding BoD.  But for that he's held in contempt and derision by Traditional Catholics everywhere, as if he had been a greater heresiarch than Luther or Arius, whereas it was his nemesis Cardinal Cushing who publicly stated, "No salvation outside the Church?  Nonsense."  BoD didn't even come up for a couple years after Father Feeney's emphasis on EENS.  And it's not just about soteriology, but because of defined EENS dogma, there's no getting around having to redefine the Church, so a new ecclesiology.  Since no one can deny the thrice-defined dogma of EENS, the only way to "get non-Catholics saved" is by redefining Church.  Rahner realized that this new ecclesiology/soteriology were the most revolutionary aspects of EENS ... even if no one else did.

I am not too familiar with Feeney, what did he get wrong per se?

In short, he tangled with one of the Church's enemies, his superior, Archbishop (then made Cardinal) Cushing.