You say limbo is semi-pelagian. Auctorem Fidei condemns the proposition that belief in limbo is pelagian.
Your position is condemned. You need to retract it.
Or you can rave about babies being thrown into the flames like a self-righteous maniac.
You aren't a feeneyite are you?
Once again, you fail to make distinctions. Aquinas's understanding of Limbo is not semi-pelagian so long as he maintains it as a part of hell, WHICH HE DOES.
My position is not condemned, because the Saints held the position I hold. Augustine, Bellarmine, Fulgentius, Isidore, etc...
Auctorem Fide dis not issue a single anathema. I definitely adhere to it, and I agree with what Pope Pius VI said. I am not a Jansenist.
The pelagian understanding I attribute to the laity. They seem to think Limbo exists outside of Heaven and Hell, or worse, as a part of Heaven. This is clearly false. TO maintain that unbaptized infants can possibly enjoy blessedness without baptism in some middle realm is a heretical fantasy, condemned by the XVI Council of Carthage which was Presided over by St. Augustine, which in turn was Promulgated by at LEAST two Popes, Innocent I and Zosimus, and Ratified by the Council of Ephesus and the Second Council of Nicea.
History is a beautiful thing. as I said, St. Augustine's view was promulgated by the Church for over 800 years. St. Thomas's milder views have been promulgated for almost the same amount of time. In terms of doctrinal longevity, it's currently a pretty even split.
I choose the Councils of the Church, the Popes, and the teachings of perhaps the most influential saint as my authority.
For example:
The canons of Carthage XVI are considered to be infallible by Roman Catholic theologians because Pope St. Innocent (-417) and Pope St. Zosimus (-418) approved of them as a rule of the faith. The canons include the following.
“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my house there are many mansions”: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5],
what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left [cf. Matt. 25:41,46].”
Augustine wrote that the Pelagian doctrine of an intermediate state had been condemned by the “councils and the Apostolic See.”
St. Augustine: “He who is not on the right is undoubtedly on the left; therefore, he who is not in the kingdom is beyond doubt in eternal fire. [...] Behold, I have explained to you what the kingdom is, and what eternal fire is; so that when you profess that a child is not in the kingdom, you may acknowledge that he is in eternal fire.” (Sermon 294, 3)
St. Augustine: “If a child is not wrested from the power of darkness, but remains there, why do you marvel that he is in eternal fire who is not permitted to enter the kingdom of heaven?” (Unfinished Work to Julian III, 199)
“Be it therefore far from us so to forsake the case of infants as to say to ourselves that it is uncertain whether, being regenerated in Christ, if they die in infancy they pass into eternal salvation, but that, not being regenerated, they pass into the second death. Because that which is written, “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men,” cannot be rightly understood in any other manner.” (The Gift of Perseverance 30)
WHat does self-righteousness have to do with anything?
No, I am not a Feeneyite. Fr. Feeney held beliefs that are neither part of the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium of the Church, and I reject those.
I told you, I am an Augustinian of the old Rigorist school, a legitimate theological school and position admirably defended by several theologians of the church in the face of the moral laxity and "tolerance" of the Jesuits.