Ecclesia Militans, continued: Your primary argument against those who hold that one cannot be saved without the afore-mentioned Sacrament seems to be that because Father Feeney disobeyed Pope Pius XII, and did not go to Rome when summoned, he was disobedient, and was therefore outside the Catholic Church. This is false!

Ecclesia Militans, continued: Disobedience does not throw one outside the fold. It does not make one a schismatic or anything along those lines. If there were no good reasons for disobeying the Pope, then certainly it would have been a sin. But is it a sufficient reason for one to be declared to be outside the Catholic Church? I think not.

Ecclesia Militans, continued: The refusal of obedience to various orders does not mean that one is outside the Catholic Church. In the state of sin, most probably - depending upon the order which was disobeyed. The "order" to go to Rome were canonically defective, as Father Feeney pointed out to Cardinal Pizzardo who was the one who gave Father the "summons." If you wish to learn more concerning this issue, I would recommend that you visit the following URL and read the information contained there concerning the entire "excommunication":

Ecclesia Militans, continued:In the first place, disobedience does not make one a non-Catholic, nor cast one outside the Catholic Church. In the second place, the summons were canonically defective, as Father Feeney pointed out.

From Griff:

Response, continued: These are historical facts, not disputed by anyone. Furthermore, he was excommunicated. That legislative act in and of itself most certainly DID put him outside the Church, even if he weren't already outside by virtue of his four above heresies. Cardinal Cushing was so far out in left field that I truly doubt that he either knew or cared whether Fr. Feeney taught the above four heresies or not. And for me it always comes down to the same question: "Why didn't he go to Rome?" And by that I don't merely mean "What canonical defects can he find to excuse himself from the otherwise absolute moral obligation to go and see the Pope?" That much is given in the reference above. No, I mean by it "What interest did Fr. Feeney have in seeking any canonical defects in that command in the first place; why not take advantage of this clear opportunity which saints have clamored for?" That has never been answered, satisfactorily or not. I can venture that I think it was because he was afraid that the Pope might have gotten wind of his doctrinal novelties and might say to his face "You MUST give up these novelties!" And if he were determined not to, then he would be excommunicated vitandus for heresy by the Holy Father himself, not merely by some relatively minor Vatican functionary for the disobedience (which was what had attracted the hierarchy to his case) but for heresy. Rather than face that risk, he chose to be merely "disobedient" and remain doctrinally a cipher to the Vatican. An excommunication for disobedience is, after all, far less serious than an excommunication for teaching heresy. This refusal to forward his claims in an important forum when he had such a ready opportunity reeks of one who prefers things to be gray and ambiguous and unresolved, one who is afraid to face the truth. Had it been me, I would have gone. Even in the present situation, if John Paul II were to offer to bring me to Rome to see him and explain my beliefs about traditional catholicism, I would go in a heartbeat! What sort of person wouldn't?

And let us make this point most emphatic, this is the most important thing that the Church has to do with regard to all those outside the Church; to tell them that God requires that they enter the Church.

To tell them their strict obligation, there are three main duties, to believe in the full deposit of faith which only the Church teaches, to receive the sacrament of baptism whereby one is brought into the Church, and to submit to the authority of the supreme pontiff.