Keep your restless Dimondide minds at ease. Unlike you, I don’t relay solely on one source. All I am trying to demonstrate here is how many hoops you have to jump through and how ridiculous your stance is while doing so.

Pax,

You deny Pope Pius IX Tuas Libenter (1863),DZ 1683.  Find one theologian of pre asteroid era that was not teaching this unanimously with others in the last century. Even Foul Mouther is aware of this, that’s why he is mentioning alleged consensus opinion of suffering infants.

Pax, if “BOD is still in the 'theological opinion' tier” then the cult leaders would not ever go to denounce anyone under the sun as heretics left, right and centre. Unfortunately, self proclaimed theologians get their ammo right from upstate NY and do inconceivable damage in trad world.

Foul Mouther,

“theologians were unanimous regarding the Augustinian opinion that unbaptized infants suffered (albeit mildly) in Hell.” & “Which of these near-universal consensuses of theologians was infallible and irreformable”

Another lie by you, Foul Mouther:

“And so also in those who fail to receive the gift [of baptism]…perhaps on account of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circuмstance through which they are prevented from receiving it, even if they wish…will be neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed [by baptism] and yet not wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong. For not every one who is not bad enough to be punished is good enough to be honored; just as not every one who is not good enough to be honored is bad enough to be punished.”
-Saint Gregory nαzιanzus, Oration 40 on the Topic of Baptism, AD 329-390)

not punished=no suffering

Foul Mouther, would you care to give the list of these supposed 7 Fathers so I can destroy more of your lies?

“Catholic theologians who were evidently a rule of faith just before Vatican II suddenly were no longer such a rule of faith when they all universally accepted V2 and the NOM as Catholic”

Gee, Foul Mouther, let’s try this one shall we? Popes were the proximate rule of faith for 2 millennia and all of the sudden stopped being during Vatican II, so? Did something important maybe change?

But not to scandalise your hardened Dimondide heart, explanation is very simple. Ratzinger, Rahner, Counger et al were brought in for their 5 minutes of glory to strike a deathblow to catholicism. Or shall we count them catholic theologians? But let’s count them as proper theologians for the sake of the argument for a moment.

“With the advent of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960's, Guérard des Lauriers became concerned with the events taking place in the Church. In 1969, he co-authored the Ottaviani Intervention which was a critical study of the New Mass. In 1970, Pope Paul VI made public a docuмent demanding the resignation of certain conservative professors at the Pontifical Universities of Rome, among them Guérard des Lauriers.”

Did Guérard des Lauriers flow with the current? Did he resist? So there is your unanimous teaching of heresies out of the window.

Guérard des Lauriers put more fight against it than your pope (Siri) that went with the revolution. Does Guérard des Lauriers count?

Stubborn, as I said hardly you will come across a person in your life that would be in this position, I am baptised. 

Check the dates, moron.  I said from St. Augustine til about 1100 ... yet you paste something from St. Gregory nαzιanzen in the mid 300s ... ironic also because St. Gregory nαzιanzen explicitly rejects BoD.  This is explained in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Limbo.  Look it up where it details how it was universally held until first challenged by Abelard.

Check the dates, moron.

But keep lying, scuмbag.

 since you're a bad-willed dirtbag.

This idiotic and malevolent turd

You remind me of Luther with that snake's tongue, Mr Tourette. You just keep spitting poison every time you speak.