The Traditionalists only say they are traditionalists while they have accepted the new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.
The SSPX only says it affirms Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In reality the SSPX, like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ,accepts Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani's premise and inference in 1949.It was an irrational break with EENS and the old ecclesiology.
The FSSP only says they accept EENS while they consider I.I and BOD to be exceptions to St.Maximilian Kolbe and Don Bosco's concept of EENS.
The sedevantists CMRI only say they affirm EENS. For them too the BOD and being saved in I.I are explicit.They refer to personally known cases in the present times.People you could see on the streets. This is the Marchetti-Cushing premise and inference used against Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.The CMRI uses it to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition and then blames Vatican Council II.
The traditionalists MICM ( Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Fr.Leonard Feeney's communities in the USA) say and do affirm EENS.They have been sincere.They also accept BOD and I.I followed by the baptism of water.However they interpret Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) etc as being exceptions to EENS.So there are exceptions to EENS for them too.This comes across in their interpretation of Vatican Council II.
The sedevacantists MHFM also say and do affirm EENS but reject BOD and I.I as not being compatible with the dogma.For them too, LG 16 is an exception to EENS. So they infer that these cases are explicit for us in the present times.Vatican Council II becomes a break with Tradition.-Lionel Andrades