I'm just a man.  I can make mistakes, and I have before, however, I firmly believe that every position needs to be taken to it's logical conclusion, in order to see whether it can make sense or not.  Here is a simple rationale behind some of my more 'controversial' positions, and why I believe they are correct:

Believing that a person can be subject to a heretical antipope and still be Catholic or not schismatic is the same as saying that a person can join a non Catholic sect and still be Catholic or non schismatic.  The leader who claims to be pope while a heretic, is in actuality the head of a non-Catholic sect, just as Martin Luther was the head of a non-Catholic sect.  For that matter, being subject to any heretical religious leader (priest, bishop, etc) is being in schism from the true Church.

Believing in a place where unbaptized infants do not suffer fire, or that a person can be saved while invincibly ignorant of the true Faith or saved by baptism of desire or baptism of blood, or that canonizations are infallible means that no dogmatic pronouncement can ever be taken literally, since many dogmatic decrees, according to their literal readings eliminate all of the aforesaid beliefs as heresies contrary to divine public revelation.  If these statements of the Extraordinary Magisterium are infallible, then a literal reading of them is exactly what is called for, otherwise they have to be viewed as either flawed or insufficient - but that is heresy.

Believing that children raised in schismatic sects who attain the use of reason (and are thus bound by the divine law) are still Catholic (if they were validly baptized) even if they do not believe in heresy, is to deny the positive obligation that each person has of rejecting false religions and professing the true one.  Or it denies the guilt involved with the transgression (by omission) of the First Commandment.  It is also an assertion that "men may, in the observance of any religion, attain eternal life," which was condemned.

If there is a flaw in any of my logic, I want to know.

Believing in a place where unbaptized infants do not suffer fire ... means that no dogmatic pronouncement can ever be taken literally...

No, it does not.  God is not a monster.  Original sin pertains to losing all possibility of attaining to the Beatific Vision.  Fire is reserved for those who have actual sin for which they must pay.

The unbaptized infant who dies has no debt to pay (for actual sin), although he is unable to see God in the face.  In such a case, there isn't even really a pain of loss, as you cannot truly lose something you never could have possessed.  The Beatific Vision is not due to us according to nature, but is a gratuitous gift pertaining to the order of grace.

Think of hell as an onion (this is my own poor analogy, so discard it as you see fit).  The outermost layer is a region that IS hell, properly speaking, as it is NOT heaven and God does not dwell therein.  However, the flames which punish the wicked for all eternity, and which, for the duration of time, cleanse those in purgatory, neither reach nor burn those who died without being baptized AND without any actual sin upon their souls.

As for the "onion" image and Christ's descent INTO HELL, do you believe He actually entered Satan's lair, or another region that IS a part of hell (insofar as it is NOT heaven), but where no flames torment the inhabitants?

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Believing that a person can be subject to a heretical antipope and still be Catholic or not schismatic is the same as saying that a person can join a non Catholic sect and still be Catholic or non schismatic...

Everything depends upon whether or not the person subjects himself, knowingly and willingly, to an anti-pope as an anti-pope.

There is still no way around it.  Pope Pius IX stated that invincible ignorance is the only excuse for the sin of infidelity, and subjecting oneself to a false religious leader is such a sin.

We have a duty to know our Faith. For those who just attend what they think is the Mass and do not bother to read anything on the faith, not to learn anything that is just lazy and there will be no excuse for that. Maybe it was Leo XIII that said something about it being mandatory for each of us to know our Faith, with no excuses, to protect us from Modernism.
I seem to remember that quote in one of the Four Marks of the last several months.

  Just imagine face of a little cute baby. If you are cruel enough to burn him/her....
Doesn't your heart melt?  :baby:

Being denied the Vision of God in the face (which is but a free gift anyway) due to circuмstances beyond one's control is NOT the same as being burned forever in punishment for actual, mortal sins.

If you cannot see this, I cannot help you.  Indeed, no one can.

Believing that...canonizations are infallible means that no dogmatic pronouncement can ever be taken literally...

You did not actually present your rationale on this one, although you may think you did so.  Please do so.  Thank you.

"We publicly celebrate this feast, offering public worship to the Most Holy Trinity, in honor of Saint So-and-so, who, of course, may very well be burning in hell..."