...the Latin Church does not hold a blanket condemnation of Holy Orthodoxy or the Orthodox. The condemnation of the Feeneyites, which I assume is authoritative as I said, pretty clearly does.
To be better informed, you ought to know what led up to the so-called excommunication of Fr. Feeney, what the nature of the process was, of what it consisted and how it was eventually "lifted." By the way, the Church does not condemn a group of people, but only a false doctrine or proposition that anyone can hold. The Church cannot condemn a person, either. Excommunication is the extent of her power, which has temporal and supernatural implications, but is not a "condemnation" of the person. In any event, excommunication must be based on some specific denial of dogma. Disobedience, per se, is insufficient, because it presumes the order disobeyed was an absolutely just order.
To be better informed, you should also pay attention to the response the Feeneyites made to a "liberal" (Fr. P.J. Donnelly, S.J.), who published a theological paper at the time, in their next issue of From the Housetops, which includes this:
...in the modern liberal presentation of the Churchs doctrine concerning salvation outside the Church, there are contained THE FOLLOWING ERRORS:
1. One can be saved outside the Church.
2. One can be saved without having the Catholic Faith.
3. Baptism is not necessary for salvation.
4. To confess the supremacy and infallibility of the Roman Church and of the Roman Pontiff is not necessary for salvation.
5. One can be saved without submitting personally to the authority of the Roman Pontiff.
6. Ignorance of Christ and His Church excuses one from all fault and confers justification and salvation.
7. One can be saved who dies ignorant of Christ and His Church.
8. One can be saved who dies hating Christ and His Church.
9. God, of His Supreme Goodness and Mercy, would not permit anyone to be punished eternally unless he had incurred the guilt of voluntary sin.
10. A man is sure of his salvation once he is justified.
11. One can be saved by merely an implicit desire for Baptism.
12. There are two Churches, the one visible, the other invisible.
13. There are two kinds of membership in the Church.
14. Membership in the Church can be invisible or even unconscious.
15. To know and love the Blessed Virgin is not necessary for salvation.
Ever since that reply, there has been a mysterious silence from Rome, except to refer back to the so-called condemnation. These 15 false propositions have not been dealt with, as challenged there in that little old magazine, long ago. So, why the silence? They've had plenty of time. It's been 57 years, now. Are they waiting for the entire generation of people who were alive then to die off or something? Let's keep it in perspective: when Abp. Lefebvre consecrated 4 new bishops, the new Vatican cranked out her response in a couple of days!
You have to recall the climate and history of the time. Post WWII, nuclear warfare, Red China rising, Israel setting up shop, Communist USSR rattling sabers. IOW, lots of problems. It's fairly well known now that he was considering an ecumenical council, but to address the dangers to the faith, which would have had to include Communism. It could be that Pope Pius XII was looking toward the definition of the Assumption, the preparatory texts of which must have been already in the works, even early 1949. Did he expect that would cure all his ills? And remember, it was he who appointed Annibale Bugnini to high office. Not to excuse his reticence, but he was certainly kept busy those last years by ecclesiastics with an undercurrent of common purpose: delay the council until a more liberal pope can be its head.
Any way you look at it, the 15 points above, at odds with Catholic Tradition, have yet to be answered by the Vatican. In fact, each one of them has become conspicuously larger over the years, as successive popes have added to the appearance that the Church officially approves them.
You know, db, it is a minefield. I suppose I should just be pharisaical and say thank God I worhip God the way my people have for 1700 odd years and believe the same things in the same way they did. Truth be told, if there is never a reunion, it won't change my life one whit. Sometimes it does seem to me that if there is a reunion, however, my life might change decidedly for the worse.
They've been condemned a hundred times over in countless documents. Because the Vaticn did not reply to this particular liberal bill of goods in the Feeneyite newsletter therefore these liberal propositions stand approved by the Vatican? Give me a break.
You seem to operate with the principle the friend of my enemy is my enemy.
Fr. Feeney was never condemned. He was excommunicated by name for disobedience, and was later reconciled by making a simple profession of Faith (recitation of the Athanasian Creed).
The letter of the Holy Office "Suprema haec sacra" condemned the position taken against implicit baptism of desire. Since this is to be found in the manuals of St. Alphonsus, for example, whom the Holy See had already entirely approved, this is hardly a surprise.
It must be nice to know so much about canon law. I'm sure you can cite authorities for this ridiculous claim, right? It's needless to give the many historical instances of excommunication for disobedience, or to consider the writings of so many and so renowned doctors and theologians on the matter, or to consider the fact that the Code of Canon Law imposes an excommunication latae sententiae upon anyone who procures abortion or commits willful murder.
Excommunication can be imposed for any grevious sin. See St. Thomas, Supplement, question 21 (on the definition, congruity and cause of excommunication), especially article 3: "And since by injuring a man in his body or in his temporalities, one may sin mortally and act against charity, the Church can excommunicate a man for having inflicted temporal injury on anyone."
THey never replied to the Abbe de Nantes either. Big deal
Canon 332 §1 The Roman Pontiff acquires full and supreme power in the Church when, together with episcopal consecration, he has been lawfully elected and has accepted the election.
Canon 16 §1 says, Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator (the Pope)and by the one to whom the legislator ( the Pope) has granted the power to interpret them authentically.
Canon 333 § 3 There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff.
*Y'all can cite any lay publication, sspx opinion piece, Remnant article, Catholic Family News special column, any suspended a divinis Fr. Gruener exhoratation, any statement issued by the Montana Pope, any Seatle Catholic "think piece," any Daily Catholic scribbling, and old dog-eared copy of of some long-discardedd Theological Manual, it makes NO DIFFERENCE
at least not to a Catholic