I find the constant assumption that those who hold to the possibility of being inside the Church without being a visible member are just being emotional or looking for loopholes a bit irritating.
The reason that the benefit of the doubt is not given is because this type of modernist thinking has been around for over 200 years, since the early 1800s. It was also around before that, when 3 other councils in the history of the Church defined dogmas which condemned such thinking. This attack against the doctrine of exclusive salvation is a never-ending attack. V2 brought it up again, and now 95% of catholics are infected with this error, to some degree.
I assume you'd also accuse Archbishop Lefebvre of the same? Was he a modernist?
I would say, based on some of his answers, that he was infected with Modernism. We all are, in some areas of our life. Pope St Pius X said that Modernism is the "synthesis of all heresies." It's prideful to think any of us is immune.
I find, philosophically, the idea that any text whatsoever does not need any interpretation whatsoever to be absurd.
The Church has ruled that, except where She has said that texts of the Bible are symbolic, that Scripture is to be read with a literal interpretation. When the Church gathers all Cardinals, Bishops and theologians together for a council, in order to condemn errors and teach doctrine, She spends months and years to formulate the doctrinal statements so that they are clear, concise, and simple to understand. This is Her purpose - to teach simply so that even a child can understand the Faith. So, yes, doctrines are meant to be read in a literal sense, especially since they come from the Pope, through his power of infallibility, wherein God protects him from error in teaching truth.
But the idea that there was no development, whatsoever, between the early church and Vatican I, seems impossible to defend either.
It depends what you mean by development. Modernists want to define development as meaning that doctrine "changes over time" to "suit the needs of man in each age". This is totally heretical. The Faith which Christ gave to the Apostles, which they preached to all the nations, which was handed down to the Church Fathers, which has been handed down 2,000 years to us is absolutely, 100% the same - with nothing added, edited or removed. This is why Tradition and doctrine is said to be believed "everywhere, always and by all."
.
However, we can say that doctrine "improves" in the sense that by prayer, apparitions and enlightenments of Saints, God gives greater understanding, depth and wisdom concerning the Divine Truths which doctrines seek to explain. This does not mean that doctrine changes; it just means that God gives us more details. Our simple minds can never fully understand Divine Truths, which is why we will continue to learn for all eternity about God, if we make it to heaven.
.
Honestly, I find the witch hunts on both sides kind of irritating. I find it irritating when the Feeneyites get called extremists, and I find it irritating when Baptism of Desire advocates get called modernists. I mean, I think we should be discussing these things, but ultimately we agree on lot more than we don't. And I still haven't seen anywhere *near* sufficient proof, either something absolutely irrrefutable from the past, or actual Vatican action, that would lead me to believe that either side is definitively heretical.
It's important to remember that this debate over baptism of desire/blood is party based on doctrine and partly based on theological speculation. There is gray area here; the Church has yet to teach on this with 100% clarity. The contention is over the boundaries of the gray area.
.
Feeneyites/St Thomas-ites would say the gray area is small. BOD only concerns a small, unique situation. Most others, due to the liberalism since the 1800s, the anti-St Thomas modernists of the 1900s and the freemasonic V2 of 1960 - say that the gray area affects all non-catholics, since God's mercy is limitless.