First off it's Fr. Feeney. Secondly, he's written many books. Thirdly, I have not quoted Fr. Feeney ONCE! He is a nobody in this discussion. The liberals and enemies (the enemies of those who believe in the traditional 1900 year old strict interpretation of EENS), use Fr. Feeney as a diversion, so that they don't have to address all the real inconsistencies in their fallible theories. The Fr. Feeney diversion, is a type of ad-hominem attack. AND by the way for the tenth time the followers of Fr. Feeney like the author of this thread, are in union with Rome. Rome does not consider them in error or heretics.
“does not consider them in error or heretics”
I’m not sure you quite understand what a heretic is.
What’s the difference between a heretic and a schismatic?
I asked that you didn’t reply.
It’s never been the issue with any of the SSPX folks over heresy. Nor with Freeny, and his belief that there is no salvation outside the Church.
The reason I bring him up is because he advocates the same position that you do. It is pertinent, that when people choose to espouse his opinion, that we confront the source.
I’m aware that you and him both argue that this dispute goes back to the ancient church. I am in agreement with you on this part.
Where we disagree is whether it is the doctrine of the church that no one who is outside of the Church will be saved. This I disagree. There’s the argument over the invicibly ignorant, which is one. There’s also the argument wrt to the Patriarchs. Are they a part of the Church when the Church did not exist in his time? What about John the Baptist? Just who is considered to be a part of the Church?
If you are arguing that unless you are baptized in the Catholic church, you are condemned to hell, that’s not what Lumen Gentium teaches (which has already been quoted in the thread).