CathInfo.com

"it is obvious that there would have been no reason for introducing this unwonted and unhelpful change, if the translators had not been intending to get rid of even the slightest hint of the Catholic doctrine of predestination, and to insinuate the idea of universal salvation instead. There is thus a Pelagian tinge to this flight from an idea of a distinction between some men and others."

Iota Unum, p. 620 (photo attached)

Ordinarily we mean by the phrase, "God wishes all men to be saved," all men capable of moral acts. . .  When we say that God gives to all men sufficient grace to save their souls, we are of course referring to those capable of producing moral acts. 

Here it only remains for us to answer the objection which is drawn from children being lost when they die before

Baptism, and before they come to the use of reason. If God wills all to be saved, it is objected, how is it that
these children perish without any fault of their own, since God gives them no assistance to attain eternal
salvation? There are two answers to this objection, the latter more correct than the former, I will state them
briefly.

First, it is answered that God, by antecedent will, wishes all to be saved, and therefore has granted universal
means for the salvation of all; but these means at times fail of their effect, either by reason of the unwillingness
of some persons to avail themselves of them, or because others are unable to make use of them, on account of
secondary causes [such as the death of children], whose course God is not bound to change, after having
disposed the whole according to the just judgment of His general Providence; all this is collected from what
Saint Thomas says: Jesus Christ offered His merits for all men, and instituted Baptism for all; but the application
of this means of salvation, so far as relates to children who die before the use of reason, is not prevented by the
direct will of God, but by a merely permissive will; because as He is the general provider of all things, He is not
bound to disturb the general order, to provide for the particular order.

The second answer is, that to perish is not the same as not to be blessed: since eternal happiness is a gift entirely
gratuitous; and therefore the want of it is not a punishment. The opinion, therefore, of Saint Thomas-----is very
just, that children who die in infancy have neither the pain of sense nor the pain of loss; not the pain of sense, he
says, "because pain of sense corresponds to conversion to creatures; and in Original Sin there is not conversion
to creatures" [as the fault is not our own], "and therefore pain of sense is not due to Original Sin"; because
Original Sin does not imply an act. [De Mal. q. 5, a. 2] Objectors oppose to this the teaching of Saint Augustine,
who in some places shows that his opinion was that children are condemned even to the pain of sense. But in
another place he declares that he was very much confused about this point. These are his words: When I come to
the punishment of infants, I find myself [believe me] in great straits; nor can I at all find anything to say" -
Epistle 166. And in another place he writes, that it may be said that such children receive neither reward nor
punishment: "Nor need we fear that it is impossible there should be a middle sentence between reward and
punishment; since their life was midway between sin and good works" [De Lib. Ar. 1, 3, c. 23] This was directly
affirmed by Saint Gregory nαzιanzen: "Children will be sentenced by the just judge neither to the glory of
Heaven nor to punishment". Saint Gregory of Nyssa was of the same opinion: "The premature death of children
shows that they who have thus ceased to live will not be in pain and unhappiness".


https://lci-goroka.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/saint-alphonsus-liguori-prayer-the-great-means-of-salvation-and-of-perfection.pdf