Replies

Okay, since you DO say it, rather than SEEM to say it, I say you are ARE illogical, rather than merely SEEMING illogical.

It doesn’t matter whether Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience, or jaywalking, or failing to say “Mother, may I?” Or whether he was EVER excommunicated for ANYTHING.

That is totally irrelevant to whether Feeneyism is a heresy. Feeneyism is a heresy because it contradicts what the Magisterium of the Church teaches. Whether or not there ever WAS such a person as Leonard Feeney.

Leonard Feeney could be NOT-EXCOMMUNICATED a billion times—and Feeneyism would still be a heresy. The excommunication, whether or not it ever happened, or whatever it was or was not FOR, is simply, totally, absolutely UNRELATED to the question: Is Feeneyism a heresy?

And Feeneyism IS a heresy, because the Catholic Church teaches that water baptism and explicit membership in the Catholic Church are NOT absolutely necessary for salvation.

Or do I make myself clear?

Oh you make yourself clear all right but your premise does not become correct simply because you shout.

Feeney was reinstated later in life and was not required to recant anything. If he had been guilty of heresy it would have been necessary for him to recant his "error".

The RCC has never denied, though it has "reformulated" it's precise meaning, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - "Outside the Church there is no salvation."

That is what Feeney taught and it is not heresy.

Is this heresy?

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.

Of course, by the magic of "reformulation" the RCC has softened it's "infallible" teaching.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?[335] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.[336]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Remember this:

There is no teaching of the RCC which is so clear that it cannot be denied, modified, or reinterpreted as required.

Feeney was reinstated later in life and was not required to recant anything. If he had been guilty of heresy it would have been necessary for him to recant his "error".

Ted Kennedy has never been excommunicated, and he is allowed to give speeches in which he shrieks that abortion is a woman's right, and he is allowed to received Communion, and has never been required to recant any of his hundreds of statements that abortion is a wonderful, sacred freedom. So he must be proclaiming the truth, right?

And you have contradicted yourself, as Feeneyites always do on this point: You say: 1) Feeney wasn't excommunicated for heresy. 2) He was reinstated without having to recant anything.

My question: If he wasn't excommunicated for heresy, then why would he be required to recant anything when the excommunication was lifted?

Further question: Do you know the function of excommication? It is a "medicinal penalty." Its application is entirely a matter of prudential judgment. You are using the process of excommunication as though it somehow carried the full weight of the Church's infallibility.

The Church has ALWAYS engaged in reformulations of its teaching, precisely because previous formulations have been insufficiently explicit, or have been misunderstood. The Nicene Creed is later than, and more explicit than, the Apostles' Creed. Is the Nicene Creed somehow a dishonest "reformulation" of the Church's teaching? According to your principles, it is.

In the same way, later statements on "Extra ecclesiam..." have been more explicit than earlier statements--precisely because the earlier statements have been misunderstood and misused. The point on which the Church has been more explicit over time is that it is those who KNOW that salvation comes through the Church, and REFUSE to join, who cannot be saved.