I would say there's a blend (between hating their message and hating their "style") but that it's about 75-25 split in favor of hating their message.  If they were putting out hard-hitting general Trad messages, without SVism and BoD involved, Traditional Catholics would flock to them.

In fact, we have many people on this forum (myself included) who have no problem excoriating Bergoglio and the Conciliar Modernists, even the SSPX, often calling them heretics and Modernists ... every bit as strongly as the Dimond Brothers go after people ... except that latter go after the majority of Traditional Catholics, so they don't like being on the receiving end of it.  I'm sure that Novus Ordites consider Trads in general to be schismatic, cult-like, having Pharisaical attitudes, and motivated by bitter zeal.

So it's a combination of the two, their message and their "style"/attitude, except I believe that latter would be "forgiven" and even "appreciated" if it were not for their message.

The issue might be the feeney vs Lefebvre interpretation of EENS itself for some people, but then i think those same people wouldn’t get along with you.  But Matthew (for instance, but he’s also the one who made the big comment on the thread) gets along just fine with you, as do many other people who don’t like the Dimonds

I do think the primary issue most people have with them really is schism, including schism with members of the NO who still believe all the dogmas of the RCC, and schism from all of the various trad groups who in the vast majority of cases do on principle affirm all the dogmas of the church but disagree on interpretation.  And then saying that people who disagree with their interpretation for whatever reason were formal heretics.  They don’t just disagree with Lefebvre for example, they literally say that he was a heretic and that he’s in hell.  They even said that a sede priest who “denied eens” was in hell

Making a logical argument that the Lefebvre interpretation of eens leads to Vatican ii is very different than saying that everyone who believes it is a formal heretic and will certainly go to hell etc

and I think to start doing that to other Catholics gets goofy and cult like, in other words i think Matthew is correct 

Absolutely not.  I personally hold that both catechumens, as well as others (the hypothetical ignorant savage for instance) who profess the following: belief in one God who rewards the just, the Blessed Trinity, and the Incarnation (while also not professing any single doctrine which contradicts the Faith) can receive Sanctifying Grace by a perfect act of love/contrition.

What do you mean by the "ignorant" savage, if he believes in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation?

No, they cannot receive sanctifying grace by a "perfect act of love/contrition".  They also have to have an votum for Baptism.  You just denied the necessity of the Sacrament and turned justification into an ex opere operantis phenomenon (semi-Pelagian) by making no reference to the votum for Baptism.  This is precisely what I pointed out on the "Necessity" thread started by DR, that the majority of BoDers do this and lose any sense for how the Sacrament remains involved in (and necessary for) justification by making no mention of it.

What do you mean by the "ignorant" savage, if he believes in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation?

No, they cannot receive sanctifying grace by a "perfect act of love/contrition".  They also have to have an votum for Baptism.  You just denied the necessity of the Sacrament and turned justification into an ex opere operantis phenomenon (semi-Pelagian) by making no reference to the votum for Baptism.  This is precisely what I pointed out on the "Necessity" thread started by DR, that the majority of BoDers do this and lose any sense for how the Sacrament remains involved in (and necessary for) justification by making no mention of it.

In this case the ignorance is of the other dogmas of the Church.  The belief in those 4 things: God, His rewarding, the Trinity, and the Incarnation is sufficient. Such a person is ignorant of many things.

As for the votum, an implicit votum is sufficient per most theologians and I am under the impression that such implicit desire is included in a perfect act of contrition/love.  If it is not included (I don't see how that can be) I stand corrected.  I did not intend to exclude yhe desire for Baptism, and it would have been more proper to make explicit mention of it.  However again I do believe the implicit desire is contained in a perfect act of contrition.  If you have a reference to the contrary please share in your charity.

Oh very interesting.  Can you please provide a citation to the Holy Office decree condemning the position that belief in a "rewarded God" is sufficient for supernatural Faith?

I wonder if Lad forgot.

Vatican I;

(A supernatural faith requires a supernatural object.)

"The Catholic Church has always held that there is a twofold order of knowledge, and that these two orders are distinguished from one another not only in their principle but in their object; in one we know by natural reason, in the other by Divine faith; the object of the one is truth attainable by natural reason, the object of the other is mysteries hidden in God, but which we have to believe and which can only be known to us by Divine revelation."



If a Divine faith is required for salvation then this clearly rules out the "invincible ignorant", as if that could exist. (There is no ignorance that God cannot vinco.) The ignorant by definition cannot know anything from the Deposit of Faith, which he needs as the object for his Divine faith.

JoeZ

Here's the quote from the Holy Office (1703 Responses to Questions from the Bishop of Quebec)

“Question: Whether a missionary is bound before Baptism is conferred on an adult, to explain to him all the mysteries of our faith, especially if he is at the point of death, because this might disturb his mind. Or, whether, it is sufficient if one at the point of death will promise that when he recovers from the illness, he will take care to be instructed, so that he may put into practice what has been commanded him.

“Response: A promise is not sufficient, but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.” (Denz. 2380)
-----------------------------------------------
Question:  Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given to him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and punishing, according to the remark of the Apostle ... from which it is to be inferred that a barbarian adult, in a certain case or urgent necessity, can be baptized even though he does not explicitly believe in Jesus Christ.  Response:  A missionary should not baptize one who does not explicitly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized. (Denzinger 2381)

This is a direct rejection of Rewarder God theory, and upholds the principle even "in a certain case or urgent necessity" or "for one at the point of death", there's more than just Rewarder God that is necessary by a necessity of means.