Ok, I guess I will have to provide authentic documentation again.
-THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED-
"Moreover, the notion that infants who die without Baptism are deprived of the beatific vision, which has for so long been regarded as the
common doctrine of the Church, gives rise to numerous pastoral problems, so much so that many pastors of souls have asked for a deeper reflection on the ways of salvation. "
"20. So great was Augustine’s authority in the West, however, that the Latin Fathers (e.g., Jerome, Fulgentius, Avitus of Vienne, and Gregory the Great) did adopt his opinion. **Gregory the Great asserts **that God condemns even those with only original sin on their souls; even infants who have never sinned by their own will must go to “everlasting torments”. He cites Job 14:4-5 (LXX), John 3:5, and Ephesians 2:3 on our condition at birth as “children of wrath”.[42]
Wow, a pope taught infant damnation!
“22. In the developments of medieval doctrine, the loss of the Beatific Vision (poena damni) was understood to be the proper punishment for original sin, whereas the “torments of perpetual hell” constituted the punishment for mortal sins actually committed.[47]
In the Middle Ages, the ecclesiastical magisterium affirmed more than once that those “who die in mortal sin” and those who die “with original sin only” receive “different punishments”.[48]”
"24. The theologians who taught, in one form or another, that unbaptised children are deprived of the vision of God generally held at the same time a double affirmation: (a) God wills that everyone be saved, and (b) ***God, who wills that all be saved, wills equally the dispensations and the means that he himself has established for this salvation and that he has made known to us by his revelation. ***The second affirmation, of itself, does not exclude other dispositions of the divine economy (as is clear, for example, in the witness of the Holy Innocents). As for the expression “Limbo of Infants”, it was forged at the turn of the 12th-13th century to name the “resting place” of such infants (the “border” of the infernal region).
"Together with Catholic theologians of the Augustinian school, the Jansenists vigorously opposed the theory of Limbo. **During this period the popes (Paul III, Benedict XIV, Clement XIII)**52]
defended the right of Catholics to teach Augustine’s stern view that infants dying with original sin alone are damned and punished with the perpetual torment of the fire of hell, though with the “mildest pain” (Augustine) compared with what was suffered by adults who were punished for their mortal sins.
" The study of history shows an evolution and a development of Catholic teaching concerning the destiny of infants who die without Baptism. This progress engages some
foundational doctrinal principles which remain permanent, and some secondary elements of unequal value. In effect, revelation does not communicate directly in an explicit fashion knowledge of God’s plan for unbaptised children, but it enlightens the Church regarding the principles of faith which must guide her thought and her practice. A theological reading of the history of Catholic teaching up to Vatican II shows in particular that three main affirmations which belong to the faith of the Church appear at the core of the problem of the fate of unbaptised infants. (i) God wants all human beings to be saved. (ii) This salvation is given only through participation in Christ’s paschal mystery, that is, through Baptism for the forgiveness of sins, either sacramental or in some other way. Human beings, including infants, cannot be saved apart from the grace of Christ poured out by the Holy Spirit. (iii) Infants will not enter the Kingdom of God without being freed from original sin by redemptive grace."
It has been shown that the constant teaching of popes and approved theologians since the time of Augustine and onward, that Unbaptized children do not have the beatific Vision.
But I will admit:
In summary: the affirmation that infants who die without Baptism suffer the privation of the beatific vision has long been the common doctrine of the Church, which must be distinguished from the faith of the Church. As for the theory that the privation of the beatific vision is their sole punishment, to the exclusion of any other pain, this is a theological opinion, despite its long acceptance in the West. The particular theological thesis concerning a “natural happiness” sometimes ascribed to these infants likewise constitutes a theological opinion.
So, it is not mere OPINION that unbaptized children suffer the pain of loss of the Beatific vision, in fact, it’s considered a common doctrine of the church, though different from the faith of the church.
The theory part comes into play as to whether this is the ONLY pain they suffer (Which implies they may suffer more, not less!). And whether or not they have a natural happiness (Which means they could suffer from not being in God’s presence.)
BUT, Like I said,** I hold to Limbo because it is the clearest and most consistent doctrine taught by the church**, and is firmly built on Catholic Dogma. I really don’t see how it could be toppled, honestly.
And if it is getting old hearing me state the Churches teaching on a topic, it is getting old being contradicted by those who have not researched the issue, and SOME who typically reject the fundamental dogmas upon which Limbo is built.
