This is actually why I started the BoD status quaestionis thread.
I believe that St. Alphonsus was wrong, but to call explicit BoD heresy is absolutely ridiculous, and not only are the Dimonds doing no service to the defense of EENS by making such extreme statements, but they're getting to the point of putting their own souls at risk.
As I've pointed out, BoD is a matter of speculative theology. BoD cannot be demonstrated as revealed due to unanimous consent from the Church Fathers, nor has it been demonstrated to derive implicitly from revealed dogma. Therefore it cannot be said to be part of the Deposit of Revelation. On the flip side, however, the rejection of BoD cannot be derived from existing Church teaching as to be understood as "de fide". Several Church Fathers rejected it explicitly, but again, that's not enough to say it was revealed anymore than it's enough for St. Augustine to have tentatively floated the idea for it to be seen as constituting revelation.
I've read the reasoning made by the Church Doctors who accepted explicit BoD, and ... with all due respect ... it's unconvincing and does NOT rely upon syllogism which would implicitly derive it from any defined Catholic dogma. Their arguments are very weak. St. Robert Bellarmine says that the contrary "would seem too harsh." That's it; that was all he had. He was writing after Trent, into which he had a lot of input, and failed to cite Trent in support of his argument. Theology manuals widely used in seminaries AFTER Trent treated explicit BoD as a disputed question. St. Alphonsus cites Trent for his argument, but I believe that he was wrong in its interpretation. St. Thomas' argument frankly makes no sense, but certainly again does not implicitly derive BoD for catechumens implicitly from any defined doctrine. He talks about how sacraments are visible signs of an invisible reality, and that the invisible can be had without the visible. Does that mean I can become a priest by desire and start offering Mass? No, like Holy Orders, Baptism is a sacrament that imparts character (which is another word for a supernatural faculty and potency), and the argument is just like Holy Orders cannot be had in its invisible reality, so Baptism cannot either because it's one of the "character" Sacraments. Yes, I can have perfect contrition combined with a desire to approach the Sacrament of Confession, and that can restore sanctifying grace, but that's not a "character" thing at all. It's a different kind of Sacrament. And St. Alphonsus DOES argue from an analogy with Confession, but IMO that's clearly wrong. Otherwise, I'll just go put on my priestly garments right now and offer Mass; you're all welcome to attend my Mass of Desire.
So in the status questionis thread, I asked for people to demonstrate how BoD can be considered derived truth and to get away from this endless battle of citations from one authority or another. It needs to be demonstrated how BoD or for that matter its rejection (cf. my problem with the Dimonds) derives from revealed dogma.
What's interesting is that you can come CLOSE to making the case for either one, and it's VERY TELLING to me regarding the status of BoD that BOTH sides have made claims of their position being "de fide". That BY ITSELF proves that this remains a disputed question. If two OPPOSITE opinions can be declared de fide by those who profess the Catholic faith (excluding overt modernists and the like), then it's clearly, by its very definition, in the state of disputed question.
Now, that's on the EXPLICIT BOD front.
On the implicit BoD side, if someone could convince me that this exists, then I see no reason to reject Vatican II in substance. That was what I was trying to flush out with my previous thread.
And I wonder if the Dimonds were reading that thread also. Here's the question I would pose to the Dimonds. I actually don't buy explicit BoD and think that the arguments against it far outweigh the arguments for it, but I don't think that those who accept explicit BoD are heretics. Does that make me a heretic?
On the other side, those who accuse "Feeneyites" and people like myself of heresy, what if I tell you that I would immediately and unquestioningly accept explicit BoD with the assent of unquestioning supernatural faith were the Church to formally define it, but that I disagree with St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas and St. Robert Bellarmine. While you might call me rash for doing so, does that make me a heretic given my statement that I would immediately accept with the assent of faith any dogmatic definition of the Church regarding the existence of BoD?
What's interesting is that I imagine both the Dimonds and the anti-Feeneyites (SSPV, Sanborn, Dolan, CMRI, etc.) would call me a heretic. In other words, I'd probably be denounced as a heretic by BOTH sides.