1. This heresy leads to a perverse idea about God's mercy, by erroneously holding that the State of Grace, the friendship with God, is not sufficient for salvation.
You admit your BoD premise, that it would be incompatible of God's mercy (in your thinking) for Him to withhold salvation from anyone. That's heretical. No one is owed salvation. As St. Augustine said, this thinking opens the "vortex of confusion". Why isn't it incompatible with God's Mercy that unbaptized infants are lost? Why isn't it incompatible with God's Mercy that some receive certain graces while other do not? You open up a can of worms and arrogantly PRESUME to tell God what is merciful and what is not.
2. It leads to a false idea that God is bound to the externals.
That's a heretical denial of the necessity of the Sacraments. Plus it's utterly ridiculous. Of course God is not bound by anything; what's at issue is the economy of salvation to which He has bound US.
BoD is predicated upon another heretical premise, namely that anything is IMPOSSIBLE for God. God can bring the Sacraments to His elect just as He can give them any other grace.
3. It leads to the idea that the Popes can allow heresy or grave errors against the Faith to be taught in catechisms, dogmatic theology manuals, commentaries on the Code, and explanations from the Holy Office. To follow this position, one would never trust the Church again.
You're barking up the wrong tree here, Ambrose. Matthew is a sedeplenist and therefore by definition believes that Popes can allow heresy or grave errors against the Faith. You demand allegiance to pre Vatican II theologians but then hypocritically refuse it to the UNANIMOUS TEACHING OF ALL THE BISHOPS OF THE WORLD AT VATICAN II. You follow the ridiculous caricature that many sedevacantists make of infallibility that a Pope can never err. That's patently false. Vatican I Fathers cited numerous examples of errors and contradictions in authoritative papal teaching. They used these to come up with their definition of papal infallibility and the notes of infallibility.
4. It exalts the role of individuals to be the judge of what Catholics must believe and destroys the necessity of submission and trust to the Popes and bishops.
You judged Vatican II to be erroneous and unworthy of submission, hypocrite. Where was your submission to the Pope and Bishops of Vatican II?
5. It holds that private interpretation of Council docuŠ¼ents supersedes the common understanding and interpretation of the Doctors and theologians.
YOU, again hypocritically, are the one who interprets. We are taking the Council definitions of EENS at face value. We believe that when Our Lord taught that one must be born again of water AND the Holy Spirit, that Our Lord meant exactly that. YOU are the one who interprets this to mean, of water OR ELSE AT LEAST the Holy Spirit. When numerous dogmatic definitions have taught that pagans, heretics, and schismatics CANNOT BE SAVED, we take that at face value. YOU are the one who makes pages of distinctions to basically tell us in your heretical hubris that WE are heretics for accepting the formula as it's written, and that we are heretics for not believing that the EXACT OPPOSITE is somehow dogma. What a mockery you make of the Church's magisterium.
6. It holds the arrogant belief that Catholics can hold dissenting opinions against the consensus of the theologians.
And yet you're allowed to reject the teaching of the bishops of the entire world teaching in Council?
7. It holds that Catholics can privately evaluate the teaching of the Fathers against the common teaching of the theologians.
And yet you can privately evaluate the teachings of the bishops of the entire world teaching in Council?
8. It holds a position contrary to the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, which has consistently taught Baptism of Desire and Blood always and everywhere.
Was not the Universal Ordinary Magisterium in play when the bishops of the entire world unanimously taught us Vatican II?
9. It holds a position directly opposed to the Council of Trent, which has explicitly taught Baptism of Desire, and the reason St. Alphonsus states it was de fide.
Trent never taught BoD.
One heresy / hypocrisy after another, Ambrose, and yet you have the audacity to call us heretics.
Topic: Effects of the Heresy of Denying Baptism of Desire (Read 34030 times)