CathInfo.com

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

If by BOD you mean that catechumens who believe in the Trinity, the incarnation and all the Catholic Faith may be saved if they die without having received water baptism, that has not been condemned as heresy. I am inclined to think that it is an error but there is a reason why such great minds as St. Thomas', St. Robert Bellarmine's and St. Alphonsus' thought about it. And there is also a reason why many other great saints and doctors rejected it.

If by BOD you mean that protestants, muslims, jews, "righteous pagans" who never heard the Name of Jesus Christ, may be somehow joined to His Mystical Body and be saved, that's definitely heresy.

And this "Traditional Pope" also approved and promulgated the 1955 Holy Week Rites that you claim are tainted with Modernism.  Pius XII, while a legitimate Pope, was no St. Pius X and not staunchly anti-Modernist either.  He actually set into motion all the factors that would eventually bring us Vatican II.  Nevertheless, that is also irrelevant.  According to you, both Pius XII and Wojtyla had the authority to excommunicate.  Had Wojtyla excommunicated Hans Kung for heresy, you'd hold it as valid, despite the fact that Wojtyla was a Modernist.  Question was whether the excommunication ITSELF was just or unjust ... in both cases.  There's no difference.  I hold that Father Feeney's excommunication was unjust, the same way that I would hold the Wojtylan excommunication of +Lefebvre et al. to have been unjust even if I believed that Wojtyla had been the Pope.