CathInfo.com

Until you provide evidence for your claims, I guess one could say that your claims are also "fabricated out of thin air."

False.  You laid out this fanciful narrative about temporal punishment due to sin not being remitted by BoD.  Since you made these assertions, you prove them.  I can't and don't have to prove a negative.

Show me a single proof for your made-up narrative about temporal punishment due to sin not being forgiven by BoD.

You won't find any because there isn't any.  This is completely made up out of thin air.

Now, we do know that St. Alphonsus held this opinion, so my criticism of your post is at the same time a criticism of St. Alphonsus.  There is no proof that BoD does not remit temporal punishment due to sin.

I'll find the video from the Dimonds on Trent.  As Our Lord taught, one cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless one has been BORN AGAIN.  Rebirth means a complete regeneration (as Trent defines it also), including remission of all temporal punishment due to sin.  Trent makes that clear.  So if there's such a thing as BoD, it must be a rebirth or regenerations, and thus it must remit all temporal punishment due to sin.  This is yet another error made by St. Alphonsus on this matter.  I believe that St. Alphonsus was a bit too enamored of some Jesuits in his day, such as De Lugo, and even grants the latter's opinion regarding the possibility of salvation for infidels as "probable" (their word for "possible") ... though not holding it himself ... just because he had a high opinion of De Lugo.  But De Lugo's opinion was horrible and rejected 1500 years of teaching that explicit knowledge of Christ and the Holy Trinity are necessary for salvation.

Now, this was before the infallibiilty of the OUM had been defined by Vatican I, but if a teaching that was unanimously held and taught by the Fathers, and by all Catholics, for 1500 years is not infallibly taught by the OUM, then there's no such thing as the infallibility of the OUM.  Nobody doubted this teaching for 1500 years until a Franciscan and a few Jesuits came along and complete made up "Rewarder God" theory out of thin air ... so they could get the newly-discovered Native Americans saved somehow.

If it's not OK for us to reject BoD on the grounds that nearly all theologians have held it for the last 400 years, then why is it OK for these guys to come along and reject 1500 years of teaching to the contrary of their opinion?

Also, the Holy Office upheld the teaching that knowledge of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation are necessary by necessity of means for salvation.