Setting theological arguments aside, does anybody else find the opposition to Feeneyism* extremely weird?

What I find weird about it is that those who adhere to it are literally willing to break communion with zealous Catholics, call them heretics, deny them sacraments, etc. just to defend the illusion that some Amazonian Indian who's never heard the Holy Name of Jesus Christ can be saved. It's like despising a real-life friend for an imaginary one.

* I know that this term is loaded with bad connotations but I can't find one better to describe strict adherence to EENS while at the same time ruling out those who say they affirm it but end up denying it.

What I find weirdest about it is that people keep calling it "Feeneyism" instead of EENS.

See the note at the bottom of my post. Nobody dares to deny openly EENS but many do surreptitiously, so a distinction must be made to only include those (like me) who take it in the literal sense.

No one likes being called a heretic out of hand.  Baptism of desire and blood are in multiple catechisms, referred to in canon law, papal encyclical, and letter from the Holy Office, as well as St Alphonsus a doctor of the Church.  All this over the course of several hundred years.  If the Feeney people want to say someone is in error for believing in BoD and BoB, fair enough, but don't call us a heretic, because it's not heresy.  On the other hand the Feeney people do have seem to have some recourse to several Church Father's and other sources.  So, based on that they shouldn't be called heretics either.  I think not calling each other heretics and condemning each other over this issue would be a good way to generate some civility and good will.

Because in most cases it is heresy. Improper understanding to how BoD was speculated on by theologians is important. For example. St Alphonsus with BoD did not deny water baptism, nor belief in the incarnation or the Holy Trinity.

When talking to BoD people, if you push for their beliefs they will either refuse to tell you if Jєωs, muslims, pagans or others who hate Christ can be saved outside the Church, or they will make some kind of exception for them which results in a denial of EENS or a denial in the dogma from Trent. Or a denial in explicit belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity...

Yes the dimonds are wrong to automatically call BoDers heretics (due to the nuanced example of St Alphonsus etc) however most of them are at least material heretics. BoB also has no ambiguous exceptions (like Trent has desire in justification (note not salvation)), this is a problem, because BoD and BoB are often conflated together. I.e the heresy of "three baptisms".....

No, I don't agree, at all, and this is exactly what I'm talking about.  Can't even have a discussion with these feeyney people, everyone on earth but the 300 feeneyites are heretics according to them.  They also have 0 priests, 0 bishops, and their founder was excommunicated.  Funnily enough Fr Feeney sought reconciliation from Paul VI.  I shouldn't laugh about this, but its hard not to.

No, I don't agree, at all, and this is exactly what I'm talking about.  Can't even have a discussion with these feeyney people, everyone on earth but the 300 feeneyites are heretics according to them.  They also have 0 priests, 0 bishops, and their founder was excommunicated.  Funnily enough Fr Feeney sought reconciliation from Paul VI.  I shouldn't laugh about this, but its hard not to.

He just finished telling you that most Feeneyites don't consider people who believe in BoD (in the sense that St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus taught it) to be heretics.  We just think they're wrong.  What part of his response didn't you understand where you now restate the assertion that "these feeney people" believe that all those who believe in BoD are heretics?  Father Feeney himself never said that, nor do most of the people who can be called "Feeneyites".  That attitude is peculiar to the "Dimondite" variation of Feeneyism, and many / most of us think they're wrong about that.

Where the problem comes in is where this notion of BoD was extended to beyond Catechumens and then ultimately beyond those who meet the criteria for having the Catholic faith and lost any reference to the Sacrament of Baptism.  St. Robert Bellarmine believed that it only applied to actual Catechumens, for instance, because he was a staunch believer in the essential visibility of the Church.  Others at least required Catholic faith.  Then it got extended to anyone who believes in God.  Jorge has now tried to expand it to include even atheists.

In actual practice, only a very few proponents of BoD don't extend it beyond the case of Catechumens who have an explicit intention to be baptized, or even of those who at least have the Catholic faith, and the vast majority articulate a view of BoD that has no real reference to the Sacrament of Baptism, resulting in the notion that people can be saved without the Sacraments, and also where people effectively save themselves ex opere operantis.  There's also a hidden Pelagianism which implies that unless someone actively commits a sin against the faith they can be saved.

Father Feeney didn't "seek" anything.

I was always curious about this.

I think that it is impossible that Father Feeney did not see a problem with the post-conciliar church, the hierarchy and the new sacraments. He was a man with such a great catholic sense that when the US started fluoridizing water, he was concerned that it would invalidate the matter of baptism (I read that somewhere at The Point). From this, we can speculate that he would have had very grave concerns with the new mass, the new rites of holy orders and by extension with the hierarchy that promulgated them. Is there any account on what he thought about the council?

So I don't think that he was completely at ease with reconciling with the post-conciliar Church.

Father Feeney didn't "seek" anything.  It were various members of the hierarchy who were sympathetic to his plight who sent a representative to "reconcile" Father Feeney, and they only required of him that he recite the Athanasian Creed to consider him a Catholic, and of course Father Feeney willingly professed his belief in the Creed.

But if you’re a sedevacantist Feeneyite, then the Paul VI reconciliation was worthless (since he allegedly wasn’t a pope), and Feeney remains forever excommunicated by the preconciliar Holy Office, yes?

Holy Office doesn't excommunicate people.  You're conflating SH with the excommunication, and perpetuating the notion that Father Feeney was excommunicated for doctrinal reasons.  But, apart from that, you believe that Wojtyla was Pope, so +Lefebvre, +Williamson, et all were excommunicated.  +Felly, +Tissier, and +Galaretta had theirs lifted, but +Williamson's was reinstated.  So, your point, Sean?  There are such things as unjust excommuncations, no?

...except that Feeney was excommunicated under a traditional one, while Lefebvre/Williamson/et al were excommunicated by modernist ones.