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.
My question: If he wasn't excommunicated for heresy, then why would he be required to recant anything when the excommunication was lifted?
What????? He wasn't required to recant anything.
I suggest you sober up and try again tomorrow.