The fact that all those theologians, the not insignificant majority of them, do not hold that a denial of BoD is heresy is telling. Very telling. I never really realized it until this thread, after all these years. It would be more accurate to say that I never saw need to look at it from the angle of BoD denial being heresy, since there are a lot of Feeneyites on this site and most of my engagement in the BoD controversy around here has been against the assertion that the actual receipt of the sacrament is necessary - which is contrary to the Catechism of Trent and all those theologians and doctors saying otherwise. I don't see how one can make that claim in light of the history of discussion of BoD by virtually all theologians and doctors post-Trent, and in light of the Magisterium's failure to censor such grave theological error, and in fact not only fail to censor it, but make those who publicly taught BoD contrary to Trent (so say the Feeneyites) its greatest teachers by bestowing the title of doctor on them (most notably St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus).
But now we're starting to see the opposite around here: rather than an attack on BoD, a claim that those who deny it are heretics and/or in mortal sin. If the theologians Father Cekada cites are reliable evidence, denying BoD is not heresy, but merely a wrong opinion or a theological error, and you don't segregate or separate from the body fellow Catholics who are in error.
The only way you can reasonably advance that claim is perhaps with a showing that the Holy Office letter (Suprema haec) altered the field and post-Holy Office letter theologians became unanimous in that denial of BoD post-Holy Office letter is heresy. Good luck with that - for various reasons. Most if not all of Father Cekada's theologians were pre-Suprema haec, and there's absolutely no legitimacy to the opinion that Feeneyism is heresy before issuance of the Holy Office letter: you're not a heretic for theological error or a wrong opinion.
I'd be interested in seeing an argument that Feeneyism is heresy post-Holy Office letter. But, as I said, good luck with that. You'd have about 15 years between the Holy Office letter and the rot of the Vatican II session's close, so finding not only a convincing consensus, but even indisputably reliable theologians, would be near impossible.
So neither BoD nor Feeneyism is heresy. Both are, at worst, theological error, wrong opinion, to the opposing sides. To make either more than that, whatever side you're on, is itself error, and to act upon that error by separating yourself in your faith from other Catholics is schismatic.
The pro-BoDers have the Catechism of Trent as "ordinary Magisterium" on their side, but all of those theologians who found denial of BoD less than heresy wrote and opined after that Catechism, and their majority opinion that denial of BoD is not heresy defeats any assertion based upon the Catechism that it is.
So perhaps the best resolution for both sides on this issue is to shut up already.
That would suit me fine. :)
No you have misunderstood things. I can see though that you are not a troll nor an autist, so let me explain.
The Church does not always go around condemning people unless the error arises. Nobody really denied this until Fr. Feeney. That's the point. This is the way the Church works. So it is not a tell the fact that there was no censures before.
Secondly, You may not be aware, but there are layers below those notes. There is "probable opinion" and "tolerated opinion". This is where Cathinfo discussion comes in. You can have all kinds of chat about that and be a fool and yet, still get to heaven. So the reason I put that table up was to show that this is absolutely NOT something you have a right to disagree on. At the very least you are committing a grave sin being temerarious (rash). THE VERY LEAST.
This is what seems to be hard for the Feenyites here to realize.
But it's ok. I didn't know that either until I looked it up. So we learn things. It's all good.