[Hermann the Cherusker]

Actually, there are canon lawyers who dispute the legitimacy of Fr. Feeney's "excommunication". In fact, he never arrived in Rome for his 'hearing' because the Vatican did not allow him his canonical right to be represented by a Canon Lawyer, nor did they ever notify him of the nature of the original charges they were bringing against him. And it is very strange that it was the Church itself, (through Cardinal Medeiros), that requested the Vatican lift the censure against Fr. Feeney, which they did without asking him to recant anything, but merely asked him to make a profession of faith.

Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience, not heresy. So to be reconciled, he would not be required to make a "recantation" of his "heresy", since he was not censured for such an act to begin with. How stupid do you take the rest of us for?

Oh, and who are these "some canon lawyers" who dispute the excommunication? Is the Acta Apostolicae Sedis not the official publication of such decrees? Is the decree of excommunication not contained within it?

None of your aruments are convincing, and that nonsensical cunard that I am excommunicated

No, an interdict. You are forbidden from the Sacraments until you confess, because the dissemination is a mortal sin. Read the decree. Its quite clear.

And I'm sorry that Decrees of the Holy Office are not "convincing" to you. Perhaps damnation will be, when you discover that the Holy Office really does have authority to forbid the dissemination of this work.

He got shafted by the modernists who seek to change the Catholic Church just as surely as Melanie Calvet did.

Sorry, he disobeyed the command to come to Rome for a Canonical trial. He was not "shafted". He refused legitimate authority, just like you.

And since the La Sallette apparition is fully approved, and Melanie Calvet's 1879 brochure has the Imprimatur of the Bishop of Lecce, we have the assurance there is nothing doctrinally unsound contained in the prophesies.

An Imprimatur is an approval to publish, not a statement that there is nothing doctrinally wrong with a work (that is a nihil obstat). Given the numerous condemnations of this so-called secret, the Imprimatur here is not worth the paper it is written on.

[As you well know...]

And I'm sorry that Decrees of the Holy Office are not "convincing" to you

It is weird to read in these threads certain Catholics citing their favorite layman in opposition to the Magisterium.

I was learnt that was the approach/position/attitude of a protestant.

I have yet to see any of these individuals explain how their approach is not protestant.