Any piece of paper claiming that Fr Feeney was 'called to Rome' or ex-communicated for not complying is fraudulent...
Some may prefer the lie, that is, the lie that says Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for having been resistant to the so-called doctrine of so-called baptism of desire, as if it had been some kind of error. Which obviously is impossible for three
, that there is no "piece of paper" of any official capacity that says any such thing, two
, so-called baptism of desire would have to be an established doctrine of the Church, adherence to which is required, said requirement for a priest to promote "it" being written in law (and it's not), in order for a priest to be so-called excommunicated for refusing to promote "it," whatever "it" is. Since "it" has never been defined, nobody really knows what "it" is. Finally, three
, to reinstate a priest who has been so-called excommunicated it would be necessary to require of him to abjure his error for which he had been so-called excommunicated. Whereas in fact, when the three men showed up at the front door of Fr. Feeney's residence to so-called reinstate him, they made no such demand of him. They did not tell him to abjure anything whatsoever. All they did was pray the Athanasian Creed with him, in Latin, in front of witnesses, something that they knew he had been doing every Sunday anyway since it had been part of his daily Breviary. Then they left. Nor was any document forthcoming attesting to the fact of what had happened in the presence of witnesses.