I think we need to put aside the BoD issue. If all +Lefebvre et al. had done was to accept a Baptism of Desire, I wouldn't spend much time on it at all.
No, +Lefebvre has gone on record stating that INFIDELS can be saved.
So I will agree with ST. THOMAS AQUINAS and ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE against +Lefebvre, +Williamson, et al. I will agree with the Holy Office ruling that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation, and I will agree with the absolutely unanimous teaching and belief of the Church for the first nearly-1600 years of her existence that at the very least explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation.
BoD is a distraction from the MAIN issue here. It is THIS problem that led to all the errors of Vatican II, and not a Thomistic BoD.
You're mischaracterizing the core problem when you make it into +Lefebvre vs. Feeney when it's actually +Lefebvre vs. Aquinas, and the Holy Office, and the first 1600 years of Church history.
If +Lefebvre's EENS theology is correct, along with the implied resultant ecclesiology, then he has zero theological ground for opposing Vatican II, since Vatican II is doing nothing more than articulating this exact same ecclesiology.
There used to be a poster on here, Arvinger, who believed in a Thomistic BoD but nevertheless held a solid Catholic ecclesiology. I lauded him for this and considered him an ally in this fight rather than an adversary. BoD is a distraction being used to hide the real issue. Father Feeney was in fact not originally criticized and condemned for his BoD position, which came later in the fight. He was attacked for believing in the dogma EENS. His chief rival, +Cushing, was an open denier of EENS, stating in an official biography: "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense. Nobody's gonna tell me that Christ came to die for any select group."
The issue with appealing to the old theologians here is that I'd imagine Lefebvre and Williamson would disagree with your interpretation of them, and I'm not enough of an expert on them to be able to say which of you is right, and which is wrong. I will be honest and admit it was more the early church fathers that got me to convert (and thus, where I have more familiarity) than the Medievals, even still, I know we've argued about St Justin Martyr before (I argued that he articulates something similar to what Archbishop Lefebvre does, and you disagreed) but I don't have dogmatic certainty that I'm right, since your explanation is *possible.*
I will agree that the debate is about *how we understand* EENS. Its not about the dogma per se, because nobody here (either those of us who may disagree with your point of view, or else the Trad clergy who hold to a Lefebvre type position) would agree with Cardinal Cushing. In sharp contrast, I'd actually say that Cushing is a heretic, whereas I do not believe that you are, because Cushing straight up disagreed with a Church dogma, whereas even if you are wrong, you are clearly attempting to follow all Church dogma.
The reason I brought up Fr. Feeney was because *in the modern era* it just seems to be him, and Fr. Wathen, who take this view. The rest of the trad clergy do not, even though I have a hard time believing they're seriously just ignorant either of the dogma or how it was applied before 1600.
Now this may just be an instance where you know more than both me and the trad clergy. And my answer to that is that while I can't rule out the possibility, it is easy for me to believe you know more than me, of course, but it is much harder for me to believe you know more than Lefebvre, Williamson, etc.
Now as far as Vatican II goes, I will grant I'm still working through that one, and admit to it. But I can't help but look at the fact that what we're seeing through *most* of the Church doesn't look like either Lefebvre or what you'd get from a Lefebvre style EENS. Most of what you're saying is *far* more ecumenical, *far* more tolerant of false religions, and not to mention the liturgy was majorly watered down. You don't have (most of) the modern clergy saying some adherents of false religions may be saved with great difficulty. You have them saying "well maybe we can hope nobody goes to hell" (and let's be real, Bishop Barron isn't the worst.)
Now, I'm theoretically open to an FSSP take on Vatican II, where the documents themselves conform to tradition, but have just been applied in a terrible manner. But then my question is, how is any of that glorified to God? If this is what the documents lead to, it seems better to just burn them, even if they can *technuckalleeey* be interpreted in an orthodox manner if you squint really hard and kind of read between the lines. Why bother? What's the point?
Separate and semi related, I have no idea how to reconcile Dignitatis Humane with the Tradition though. "Who gets into heaven exactly at the final eschaton" may be somewhat mysterious, but whether false religions should be tolerated in the hear and now seem pretty concrete.
But I acknowledge that this debate isn't about BOD per se, and that there are formulations of BOD (whether this was really all St Thomas held to, I do not know enough to say) that would still fall on your side of the "strict EENS question."
I almost want to call the Lefebvre position "Moderately strict EENS" but I realize that would be objectionable to many here.