With regard to the sede position, I came back to the Church when I was older, at that time I really didn't know anything about the Faith. I read profusely for years and almost from the beginning, concluded that JPII was a punishment from God and I told people that. However, I have never pushed the sede position on anyone mainly because all the sede groups teach that anyone can be saved without baptism and Christ in any way shape or form. Same goes for the SSPX.

If the sedes and SSPX came to the conclusion that say the dogmatic Athanasian Creed means the complete opposite of what it says by their "theological analysis," how can I believe them on the sede position, since our current situation is unprecedented while EENS is likely the most dogmatically docuмented teaching in the Church.

That's not an argument.

I now underlined groups in the first part and added groups to the second part to make it super clear. The MHFM for instance is sede and believes in EENS as it is written, but the Dimond's are not a sede group, they do not have a seminary, priests and bishops.

I also know that St. Alphonsus claimed that Trent teaches that men can be justified by "desire", which it doesn't.  See here, though again I don;t expect you to be able to actually follow and address an argument as to the turth opf its premises or valdity of its deductive steps, only attacking its conclusion with vagues statements abotu unanimity about something. https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/dogma-gt-desire-and-laver-of-regeneration-cannot-be-separated/msg577508/#msg577508

And you have such kind words for your admittedly heretical pope......

I haven't said anything to the contrary, though I don't care what Father Feeney did or did not teach.  I haven't even stated my position on BOD. What I have stated is that the only passage in Trent to mention "desire" in this context does not teach that this "desire" is a sufficient condition for justification to be effected. But again, I'm fairly certain given your showing thus far that you can't even grasp the simple logical truth that a propositional expression of the form (¬P⇒¬Q)⇒(P⇒Q) is not logically valid, i.e., necessity does not imply sufficiency, because in parctice you refuse to even consider arguments. But of course you don't, since "implicit desire" style BOD advocates are proposing something in direct and explicit contradition to plain meaning of scripture and formal definitions of the extraordinary magisterium and for which there is no evidence of its existence in divine revelation, so that they have to take a few quotations from orthodox theologians almost exlucisvely on catechumens, twist them out of all context to fit their own ideas through ye olde fallacy of equivocation, and, present this "salvation for those who die as Jєωs, pagans, etc." as magisterial under, to paraphrase Vatican I, the specious notion of a "deeper understanding", born not of anything in divine revelation but based entirely upon a "theological argument" from ideas about God's mercy: you NEVER consider arguments but just cut-and-paste bomb others like Protestants, only replacing infallible though misnterpreted scripture with fallible writings that directly contradict only-to-be-read-literally formal definitions of the extradorinary magisterium when understood in your proposed sense, then shouting things like "unanimous opinion" or, if a Novus Ordo cultist, "The CCC says!". Yeah,  the  unanimous opinion of theologians that the unanimous opinion of theologians is infallible in declaring what the unanimous opinion of theologians is - where that middle one is in practice the opinion of anti-EENS theologians writing after the birth of modernism - did I get that bit of logical merry-go-round-riding correct?

Incidentally, this is the same St. Alphonsus who states that:


“See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jєωs, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.” (Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219.)

“‘Some theologians hold that the belief of the two other articles – the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons – is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved.’ (First Command. No. 8.).”

“Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted.  But what is this remote grace?  St. Thomas explains it, when he says, that if anyone was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius.  Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.” (The History of Heresies, Refutation 6, #11, p. 457)

So if you're claiming that St. Alphonsus taught that people who died without the Christian faith could be saved by some baptism of "implicit desire", you're a liar. And how could he have when the Athanasian creed says explicictly that "WHOSOEVER WISHES/WILLS/DESIRES (volunt) TO BE SAVED, it is before all things necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith", so that even if we assume BOD to be possible, one who did have merely "DESIRE" would STILL HAVE TO have FAITH in the Trinity and Incarnation.