Heresy is a sin, a mortal sin, which is forgiven if the heretic decides to amend his life, make a good confession, etc., this privilege is enjoyed only by those already members of the Church, so I would like a snip if possible of whatever Fr. Fenton said in his long article about how a heretic, as one who is supposedly not even a member of the Church, can be absolved in confession.

Canon 23141 § 1. All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic:

1.° Incur by that fact excommunication;

§ 2. Absolution from the excommunication mentioned in § 1, sought in the forum of conscience, is specially reserved to the Apostolic See. But if, however, the delict of apostasy, heresy, or schism has been brought in any manner to the external forum of the local Ordinary, even by voluntary confession, that same Ordinary, but not the Vicar General without a special mandate, can by his own ordinary power absolve one duly recovered in the external forum, the prior abjuration being conducted juridically and observing those other things that in law ought to be observed; and one thus absolved can thereupon be absolved from sin by any confessor in the forum of conscience. Abjuration is considered juridically done if it happens in the presence of the same local Ordinary or his delegate and at least two witnesses.

An ordinary can absolve one who in the external forum wishes to abjure from his heresy if you hold the 1917 Code as valid. But as you see, there are conditions for abjurations. 

Yeah, if you hold that all the baptized are members of the Church, then you adhere to the Vatican II ecclesiology, that Prot heretics are in fact part of the Church of Christ and are separated brethren.

I hold that all baptized CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF REASON are members of the Catholic Church, until they are separated by heresy or schism.

That’s why Prot heretics/schismatics are NOT part of the Church (allowing for invincible ignorance as a mitigating circuмstance, which only God can adduce).

Here’s the proof:

An infant validly baptized in an heretical or schismatic sect would be in the state of grace.  But if he immediately died, in the state of justification, his salvation is certain (lest one imply there are justified souls forever punished in hellfire, even while simultaneously participating in the economy and divine life of grace).

For those who gratuitously advance the notion that those who died justified, but not as members of the VISIBLE Church, are sent to Limbo, you have overlooked one major, but fatal, detail:

There is no basis in Church history for the existence of a “third Limbo:”

The Limbus patrum passed out of existence, and the Limbus puerorum is for children who died in the STATE OF SIN.

We’re speaking here of the opposite (infants who died in the state of grace; a state radically incompatible with the destination of those who died in sin).

There is absolutely no basis for suggesting either a new third Limbo, or that those in the state of grace are in hell (which is where the Limbus puerorum is, along the border regions).  In fact, the suggestion of such a possibility is proximate to blasphemy, when one considers grace is a participation in the divine life of God...who would by this theory now be existing, in a certain way, in hell.

If anything is known by reason itself based on the nature of things, then it is open to interpretation, Divine Law is not open to interpretation.

You talk like a modernist, denying that the existence of God can be known with certainty by reason based on the nature of things.

You even deny the existence of ius divinum naturale. It's known by reason itself based on the nature of things.

You better study the basics before denying Church teaching.

I hold that all baptized CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF REASON are members of the Catholic Church, until they are separated by heresy or schism.

That’s why Prot heretics/schismatics are NOT part of the Church (allowing for invincible ignorance as a mitigating circuмstance, which only God can adduce).

No one is talking about prot heretics, well, Lad is, but that's because I asked him to quote Fr. Fenton's answer as regards heretics receiving absolution in confession, so he ignores that by bringing up baptized prots.

Canon 23141 § 1. All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic:

1.° Incur by that fact excommunication;

§ 2. Absolution from the excommunication mentioned in § 1, sought in the forum of conscience, is specially reserved to the Apostolic See. But if, however, the delict of apostasy, heresy, or schism has been brought in any manner to the external forum of the local Ordinary, even by voluntary confession, that same Ordinary, but not the Vicar General without a special mandate, can by his own ordinary power absolve one duly recovered in the external forum, the prior abjuration being conducted juridically and observing those other things that in law ought to be observed; and one thus absolved can thereupon be absolved from sin by any confessor in the forum of conscience. Abjuration is considered juridically done if it happens in the presence of the same local Ordinary or his delegate and at least two witnesses.

An ordinary can absolve one who in the external forum wishes to abjure from his heresy if you hold the 1917 Code as valid. But as you see, there are conditions for abjurations.

What this is telling you, is that a heretic, like the pope, can use the sacrament of confession to be forgiven from his sin of heresy. He can walk into the confessional just the same as you and I and come out absolved, just the same as you and I can.

This is something only members of the Church are able to do, which means all those excommunicated, all those in the sins of heresy, schism and Apostasy remain members of the Church. 

Beside your modernist heresies, one more error: Divine Law can be ius divinum naturale or can be ius divinum positivum. If you had the necessary basic knowledge, or had read my answers to your questions, you knew that.

No heresies, just basic Catholic truths you should have been taught as a child. The fact you are unable produce what is needed proves this.

The whole idea that the pope, heretic that he is, remains a member of the Church puts a stick right in the spokes for you doesn't it?

Rather than give clear answers to clear questions, or admit that per the Church you are wrong, you employ diversionary tactics against my person. Gee, that's original.

No one is talking about prot heretics, well, Lad is, but that's because I asked him to quote Fr. Fenton's answer as regards heretics receiving absolution in confession, so he ignores that by bringing up baptized prots.

Manifest heretics can't simply be absolved in Confession.  That's only for occult heresy, say you consented to a heretical proposition in your mind.  Once you become a manifest heretic, you have to be received back into the Church, make an abjuration of error and profession of faith.

You're confusing the sin of heresy with the public/manifest heresy, which excludes from membership in the Church, according to St. Robert Bellarmine and every theologian in history bar one.

The apostles were commanded to "feed my sheep".  That is sacraments, for the main part.  Now, if those sacraments are destroyed, like we have no valid priests, for WHO? changed that? since 1968 and Eucharist, the Mass, WHO? changed that?  

Is this not an outward sign, sacraments?  Is this not an outward sign, manifest, public, heresy.  Of Course!  Cardinal Manning and Pope Leo XIII discussed this, if a pope could go heretical in his pontificate?  Sure. Thank God for Vatican I.

So, this is simple, for the simple man to see the fruits are no good.