None of the arguments of the Feeneyites have value against the rock of Tradition. But, to be consistent, let us refute two more of their major errors.

Error II:

The doctrine of baptism of desire is optional The Feeneyites present the Church’s doctrine of baptism of desire as a question to be freely discussed within the Church: "...what amounts to an academic difference to be settled by the Church."[6] If this were the case, each school of thought would then have to be accepted until the pope later defined this doctrine. This is false. The error here is to claim that only that which has already been defined belongs to the deposit of Faith, and everything else is opened to free discussion. The truth is that one must believe everything which belongs to the deposit of Faith, that being what has already been defined and that which is not yet defined but is unanimously taught by the Church.

So LoT, the insane spammer, not content to post the entire article, will repost it paragraph by paragraph every time a Feeneyite responds to anything of substance.

He's not only a pertinacious heretic, but he's also obnoxious, arrogant, and deranged.

Here are excerpts from some dogmas on EENS and how they are responded to (in red) by those who teach that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists, indeed person in all false religions, can be saved by their belief in a god the rewards. Enjoy.

And to each one or your points, the arrogant heretical man-child takes another 3-sentence snippet from the article in the OP and spams it in to hide your remarks.  He's rationing himself now, only grabbing 2-3 sentence, fearing that he'll run out of spam material.

Lover of Heresy, you've gone full retard again.

The principal error that gives way to denial of BoD is a corruption of a Catholic's approach to learning.  Fr. Laisney doesn't mention this because the SSPX doesn't really have a good handle on the topic anyways, and in fact, their approach to Catholic learning (I would say) is highly influential in cultivating BoD denial.  In theory they seem to say the right thing, but in practice they woefully transgress.

The singular most fundamental reason that anyone denies BoD is that they do not believe the Church teaches it.  They do not believe that the Church teaches it because they believe that the Church only teaches the faithful at the solemn level.  So, they look to the solemn level and they don't find BoD (which is surprising, since Trent teaches the desire of baptism).  Case closed.  The Ordinary Magisterium is just whatever is repeated from a solemn level, it's only "inadvertently" infallible, the way that each individual is infallible when they do math correctly, or tell what time it is.  It's infallible when it's right, fallible when it's wrong.  So, they will probably say they do learn from the ordinary magisterium, because they believe whatever the ordinary magisterium teaches when it echoes the solemn.  The error is in believing that it could ever not echo what is taught at a solemn level.  Trust is not extended to the ordinary magisterium, but suspicion is.  The ordinary magisterium is really where Satan enters the Church, it is where he fools simple Catholics by taking control of the mechanism by which they traditionally learn the faith.

I already posted about this in length elsewhere.  

The proximate rule of faith for Catholics is the ordinary magisterium.  That's another way of saying that Catholics usually, normally, and by design (i.e., according to the structure and order that God has chosen for His Church) learn the faith from the ordinary magisterium.  This is also common sense.  No one learns law by reading case law and the constitution to the exclusion of legal commentators and professors.  No one learns medicine by reading the PDR or DSM-V to the exclusion of biological and psychological theorists.  So on and so forth.  The material that is published at the solemn level is for people who are engaged at the solemn level: in the Church, those are the bishops.  Councils are for them, not for us, except by eventual diffusal.  Treating these (solemn) methods of teaching as the proximate rule of doctrine would be like a factory worker who is suing for unemployment going to an ABA conference to learn how to make his case.  He won't even be able to make sense of what's going, and he'll leave with a head full of bunk and he'll get laughed out of a courtroom.  Likewise, the impatience on the part of those who believe in BoD toward those who deny it is understandable in that light.  We get short with you not so much because you're wrong, but because your approach to learning the faith is quite truly absurd.  

Though at the same time, I think that an understanding and merciful attitude is (generally) warranted, because these are strange times.  I've written about this elsewhere, too-- mainly, that it may appear as though Vatican II proves that what happens at an ordinary level of teaching can be quite insidious, but we're Catholics and we love the faith, so we need to get it from somewhere-- where better to get it than straight from the horse's mouth?  That way we know that no rogue bishop or heretic will stand in the way of us apprehending, unadulterated, the teachings of Truth made Manifest.  It's an appealing proposition, though what it contains in zeal it lacks in prudence.  

What I mean by that is, more or less, that the logical consequence of approaching the solemn magisterium as the proximate rule of faith, and as the only infallible one, is that one actually undermines pretty much every reason one has for being a traditionalist.  The Church is not actually under attack if we look at her the way that those who deny BoD do.  She's teaching error, just as she always has.  More people today are believing it than before, but there's really no conciliar/Catholic dichotomy that we hear so much about.  There's just the Catholic Church, full of heretics and impious believers, tricking souls as she is by no means forbidden by providence to do so.  So, while an individual BoD denier may indeed never attend the new mass, not follow John Paul's canon law or catechism, he is forbidden by his own approach to learning the faith from concluding that this is a different Church.  It's the same Church, just a bit more error than usual.  Now, some people already believe this explicitly, and that's a shame.  But for those who make an effort to distinguish, for those who believe "these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches," an impetus still exists to distinguish from Christ's Bride and the Whore of Babylon.  For those people, I hope that the unsustainable logic of their approach to Catholic learning becomes clearer.  If the solemn level is the exclusive level by which the Church teaches infallibly, there's no Pascendi.  There's no Syllabus of Errors.  There's certainly no reason to attach one's wagon to Archbishops Lefebvre or Thuc.  

"But," [they would say], "Pascendi, The Syllabus, and the traditional clergy clearly agree with what was taught at the solemn level!  Therefore, they're 'safe'."  I would call this a self-serving exception.  In fact, BoD is attached to each of these authors.  And if we say that even a drop of poison ruins the whole pot of stew, why is it acceptable when the stew tastes so good?  Why don't we just take the good parts of Vatican II, like we take the good parts of Saint Pope Pius X, or pope Pius IX?  Most of Vatican II is orthodox.  Most of John Paul's catechism and canon law is fine.  But where are those on your shelves, next to those encyclicals?  Where are those on the forums, cited as authorities on some matter or another, like Pius X and Pius IX would be?  Now, humans are illogical-- we don't always act according to our principles.  But we should, and there is a significant rupture between how the BoD denier says we should learn the faith and how he actually does.  

But to abstract out from the individual BoD denier and return to the point in general, we see that the Church is quite literally designed by God to include a "buffer" between us (the faithful) and solemn teaching.  Remember, the Catholic Church is a divine institution; whatever it has "by nature" (i.e., that which is intrinsic to its constitution, structure, and mission) was literally established that way by God's positive design for our salvation.  In Apostolic times, the Apostles set up dioceses and appointed their followers to distinct geographies, granting them spiritual custody of the faithful within that region, and this Apostolic tradition has continued over thousands of years.  And in each diocese, each bishop teaches his flock and, when needed, convenes with the pope and the rest of the bishops in the world to settle some controversy or another.  And after that, the bishops all return to their flocks and publish catechisms, teach sermons, etc. in light of what was defined.  At no point in history before the Internet did Catholics have the sort of immediate access to solemn teaching that they have today.  Councils weren't in their native language.  Council docuмents were written and re-written, never with the input, consultation, or invitation of the faithful.  Published in Latin, not disseminated to the faithful.  If it is truly God's intent that we, by default, learn the faith from the solemn level, He literally could not have picked a worse way to design His Church!  Because for thousands of years, poor simple Catholics have labored in the dark, usually entirely unaware of what happened at some council or another, or what was defined at some place or another.  The joys of the radical freedom of the twentieth century, am I right?  If anything, these times are not a chastisement but are quite a mercy, and God has finally found us worthy of learning the faith the way that He intended us to: through wide dissemination of primary texts, enabled by mass printing and the Internet.  

Or, God designed His Church in the way that would be most conducive to the learning of the faith.  He arranged so that bishops were dispersed throughout the world, able to effectively communicate with the unique demographics and geographies over which they were princes, and promised that whenever they teach in union with Peter, they share in his infallibility (literally the definition of the OUM: the bishops dispersed throughout the world teaching in union with the pope).  That way, the Catholic world was able to faithfully believe from the very beginning, rather than only after two thousand years had passed.  The enigma of Vatican II confuses things slightly, but we know that the infallibility of the Church is the pope's infallibility, so we know that the guarantee of infallibility (in whatever manifestation) extends inasmuch as there is a pope.  No pope, no infallibility.  Quite simple, and the data (Bellarmine et al. + reality) supports it.  

Lover of Truth,

Somewhere you quoted St. Alphonsus as saying "it is de fide that men have been saved by BOD." I'll got find that, but if that's true, I think it's clear error.

This is why you have to be careful even with the doctors.

That's clearly an error.  St. Alphonsus did not say it that way for sure.  Even if one believes in a BoD as a theoretical possibility, there's zero proof that anyone has ever actually been saved in this manner.  His theological note of de fide for BoD is completely flawed.  He bases it primarily on a single papal letter (of dubious authorship) which wasn't defining anything but expressing an opinion based on the "authority of Augustine and Ambrose" (note, not from his own papal authority).  That completely lacks the notes required for something to be de fide.  But, then again, it's understandable, since St. Alphonsus did not have the benefit of the Vatican I definitions.