Not getting into a big debate about this now. Bod does not say "salvation outside the church by the Church". Bod says individuals in inculpable ignorance can enter the Church by the extraordinary means of baptism of desire in some circuмstances.

If you hold the AAS of a legitimate Pope can teach heresy, you have no grounds for rejecting Vatican II or the new Catechism. Why is John XXIII a heretic if Pius XII is not? Why is John Paul II a heretic for teaching baptism of desire in his Catechism but Pius X is not a heretic for the same reason? Why is it ok for the Magisterium of Pius XII to teach heresy in the AAS but not ok for the Magisterium of Francis to teach heresy? The Magisterium cannot teach heresy. You claim Trent taught no one can receive justification without Baptism. St. Alphonsus and others say one can receive justification without water baptism by baptism of desire. If your interpretation of Trent is right, it would logically follow St. Alphonsus is a heretic, as Ibranyi holds, but which all Catholics everywhere recognize is schismatic.

The Catechism of Trent also refutes your absurd opinion. Imagine Vatican I declaring the Immaculate Conception that Mary is without any sin at all and then Vatican I releasing a Catechism that says Mary supposedly had some sins. Your position is like that. A theological absurdity. No wonder 99% of traditional clergy reject it. Moving on now. May God enlighten you.

If you hold the AAS of a legitimate Pope can teach heresy ...

You've already been corrected about this strawman.  Very few Feeneyites hold that BoD is heresy.  Actually, no Feeneyites do.  There are some who hold more the opinion of the Dimonds Brothers that may consider it to be heresy, but very few here on CI do.

What do you mean by "AAS"?  Are you talking about Suprema Haec?  SH wasn't IN AAS.

Pope Pius XII confirmed in the AAS that he agreed with baptism of desire. Note that this was in 1951 "In an adult an act of love may suffice to obtain him sanctifying grace and so supply for the lack of Baptism". (PIUS XII, “Allocution to Italian Midwives”, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 43 (1951), 841.) 

AAS is the Act Aposotolicae Sedis or the acts of the apostolic see. If baptism of desire contradicts Trent, the simple fact is that Pius XII was a heretic. Why are you so afraid to go there? If John XXIII can be a heretic and the see vacant for nearly 70 years, then pius xii could have been a heretic too and the see vacant for just a bit longer.

"The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has examined again the problem of Father Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center. Having studied carefully the publications issued by the Center, and having considered all the circuмstances of this case, the Sacred Congregation has ordered me to publish, in its entirety, the letter which the same Congregation sent me on the 8th of August, 1949. The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision. In due obedience, therefore, we publish, in its entirety, the Latin text of the letter as received from the Holy Office with an English translation of the same approved by the Holy See." https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/letter-to-the-archbishop-of-boston-2076

If in spite of this one wants to say Pius XII was not a heretic, then one can easily say the same of John XXIII or John Paul II for the same reason. If one of them lost their office ipso facto such that their acts were invalid, then so did the other. And if the act was indeed invalid, that would explain how a "Pope" inserted heresy into the AAS/Magisterium. A legitimate Pope, as those who've studied the issue know, cant teach heresy in the Magisterium.

Not getting into a big debate about this now. Bod does not say "salvation outside the church by the Church". Bod says individuals in inculpable ignorance can enter the Church by the extraordinary means of baptism of desire in some circuмstances.

What??? that's not what BoD is. BoD is if a catechuman who wanted baptism but died before they physically received it, then their desire sufficed for the sacrament in voto.

I can't even, I do not have the patience and time for this, Ladislaus is truely a saint compared to me in this regard. I cannot go over the same ridiculous arguments over and over and over and over. 

I can't, i just can't. I'm done for today. Goodnight.

Read the Magisterium's explanation, which is Christ's, as Pope Pius XII said "he who hears you hears Me" applies to the explanations of the Magisterium rather than going by your own lights.

So who's "lights" are you following in rejecting Vatican II?  Every bishop and theologian has told you that Vatican II is perfectly Catholic.  And, if you believe Suprema Haec, then you have absolutely no business rejecting Vatican II's ecclesiology, since it's identical.  This is why most of you live in bizarre mental contradiction ... since if Pius XII passed wind before Vatican II it was infallible, but then when Vatican II was saying the same thing, it was suddenly wrong.  No Catholic theologian has ever held that these low-level "teachings" of a Pope are infallible or irreformable.  So you're also making that up with your own "lights".

You're so full of it that your eyes are brown.

If in spite of this one wants to say Pius XII was not a heretic, then one can easily say the same of John XXIII or John Paul II for the same reason. If one of them lost their office ipso facto such that their acts were invalid, then so did the other. And if the act was indeed invalid, that would explain how a "Pope" inserted heresy into the AAS/Magisterium. A legitimate Pope, as those who've studied the issue know, cant teach heresy in the Magisterium.

Yes, and this was pointed out pages ago in this thread as the real reason why the average sede or SSPX adherent will not look honestly at the facts of the Fr. Feeney case. The timeline and facts challenge their dogmatic view of the crisis in the Church. It's also why they end up bleeding souls off into the Eastern Orthodox sects once they see the evidence for how far back the corruption goes. (Not recommending that course, it will damn you). The fact remains that Fr. Feeney was not excommunicated over BOD. He didn't take a position on that until later, when he pointed out that BOD was what the Holy Office used to say that he was wrong for saying EENS. It's only some trads who insist it was over BOD because they can't wrap their minds around what actually happened.

"All of the Apostles, due to their lack of diplomacy, due to their lack of 'getting along,' were all put to death because they preached the dogma Outside the Church there is no salvation."  -Fr. James Wathen.   The Apostles did not preach any of the nonsense spouted by Bishop Cushing and his ilk.