It's not that God loves not men, but that men do not love God.

But how could so many of the poor Sioux warriors, Mayan child-sacrificers and Aboriginese cannibals go to hell?

The only acceptable answer: Who put you in judgment over Almighty God?!

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

but all the innocent people caught in the crossfire

Generally speaking, Gray.  Only God knows if there were exceptions, so it's a waste of time to discuss it. 

And then if you have read AA-1025 think about how he describes how the anti-apostles were taught to say the Mass and slur the words as to give the appearance of validity but render it invalid.

Cushing was honored by B’nai B’rith as "Man of the Year" in 1956 for "a lifetime of distinguished service to the cause of human brotherhood under God and in further recognition of great leadership in the fields of education and community relations." He was a close correspondent with Robert E. Segal, longtime executive director of the Jєωιѕн Community Relations Council of Metropolitan Boston, who played a key role in Jєωιѕн-Catholic relations in Boston. As well as this, Cushing maintained close contacts with Abram L. Sachar of Brandeis University. From the very start of Cushing's tenure as Archbishop of Boston, there was a major change in the relationship between official Bostonian Catholicism and Judaism, where there had previously been much mutual suspicion, Cushing sought closer relations. The author James Carroll has attributed Cushing's outlook to the (non-Catholic) marriage between his sister Dolly Cushing and a local Jєωιѕн haberdasherer, Dick Pearlstein. At the time this was very uncommon.

If I were to become entirely convinced baptism of desire is actually heretical, I would have no other choice but to declare Pope Pius XII to be a heretic who ipso facto lost his office (or never had it) without need for any further declaration. Even Br. Dimond says that if Pope Pius XII had personally signed the Holy Office letter, he would be a heretic. Therefore, the only two possibilities are (1) Pope Pius XII is a heretic (2) baptism of desire is not heretical. Tertium non datur (there is no third option). Pius XII's holy office clearly said in the letter quoted earlier that denying bod is "very harmful both to those within the Church and those without". Also, Pius XII taught the same doctrine as the holy office letter in other places. For e.g. he said: "In an adult an act of love may suffice to obtain him sanctifying grace and so supply for the lack of Baptism". So do any other sedevacantists want to go that far, that Pius XII was also a heretic just like John XXIII and Paul VI were?

Again, Fr. Feeney should have gone to Rome. Archbishop Lefebvre went when Rome summoned him. Even Our Lord Jesus Christ went before Pontius Pilate to testify to His Gospel. If Fr. Feeney was genuinely convinced, as some of his followers here believe, that Pope Pius XII would have supported him, and that it wasn't the Pope, but only Archbishop Cushing, and also at least Cardinals Selvagianni and Ottaviani (who signed the letter) who were teaching BOD, he would have gone to Rome and clarified the matter. In fact, this would have been an exceptional opportunity to present the Gospel and the Catholic faith before the Roman authorities. This is the reason Fr. Pagliariani also gave recently for discussion with the Roman authorities. Even if Rome were not 100% convinced by the Society's theological arguments, it was an excellent opportunity to present the Gospel (i.e. the orthodox Catholic faith in its fullness) to the Roman authorities.

So I think Fr. Feeney missed a golden opportunity. Next, here is Fr. Fenton explain that Suprema Haec Sacra is indeed authoritative Magisterium, ordinary Magisterium about which Pope Pius XII says, "these things are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, about which it is true to say, "he who hears you, hears Me". Thus, again, if Pius XII was a Pope, it is Christ Himself whom we hear to teach us bod. Thus if bod is heretical, it clearly follows that Pius XII was every bit a heretic as Paul VI and John XXIII and therefore either never pope or ipso facto losing office for bod.

Fr. Fenton: "One of the few good results that followed from the unfortunate debates centering around Father Feeney's group at St. Benedict's Center was the issuance of the Holy Office instruction Suprema haec sacra, dated Aug. 8, 1949, and published officially with its authorized English translation in the Oct., 1952, issue of The American Ecclesiastical Review. This docuмent made it very clear to the men of our own time that the Church had by no means abandoned or modified the age old dogma to the effect that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. As a matter of fact this Holy Office letter put themagisterium itself on record as asserting what had been, since the latter part of the sixteenth century, the teaching of the best theologians of the Church: the doctrine that the Catholic Church itself is definitely and actually necessary for the attainment of eternal salvation with the necessity of precept and with the necessity of means." https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2013/10/questions-about-membership-in-church.html The Church of course still teaches EENS. She just rejects the Feeneyite interpretation of it. Either that, or if the Feeneyite interpretation is correct, the Church defected at this time by teaching heresy. That's if Pius XII is a legitimate Pope.

Quote despite believing a non-heretical form of BoD (there are different versions).

Quote To say his holy office condemned it but yet he never signed it is contradictory. It was already brought up that this docuмent was unreliable because it was held for 2 years after it was made and published after the death of the person who supposedly wrote it, meaning it could have been altered. Also it wasn't published in by the Church but in a news paper...

The address to midwives also taught that NFP was ok but it's not. It wasn't binding, Pope Pius 12th was wrong here on BoD. The Church didn't condemn SBC, that docuмent was already dealt with earlier in this thread. Ironic, you claim that those who properly hold the dogma EENS are revisionist modernists but it's the opposite, those who make exceptions to the teaching of the Church are following the revision of modernists. The Church has never taught salvation in the state of invincible ignorance, the Holy Office has made this very clear. I mention St Alphonsus because you are conflating the belief in BoD as heresy with your example of Pope Pius 12th

This was never the claim, BoD has many forms, most are heretical but the version which the Saints mentioned were not those heretical forms.St Alphonsus also mentions a baptism of tears, which like BoD, he was wrong about. No there isn't only one version of BoD this is false. The version the Saints held still DID NOT DENY THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM AS PER THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. The heretical forms of BoD skip over baptism. You are conflating a lot of different things while also making assumptions while also not having the proper nuance to BoD.

Baptism is never unavailable as God is not constrained by impossibility. The elect will ALWAYS receive baptism. God can constrain Himself like when He promised not to flood the earth again or that unless a man be born of water and spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. Saint Augustine also said in his LATER WORK against Julian, that "Let it not be said that God will allow any of His elect to die before receiving the sacrament of the mediator". BoD is not a sacrament, it doesn't have matter and form, and as per Trent, True Justice can only begin with sacraments.