CathInfo.com

Nonsense.  Just because the Church authorized the teachings of St. Alphonsus doesn't mean that every teaching of his has Magisterial force.  We have a fair number of theologians who disagree with a fair number of things taught by St. Alphonsus.  Doctors disagreed with each other.

There are theology manuals used in seminaries after Trent which characterized BoD as a disputed question.

I still think Stubborn's mentality is super problematic though.  It basically amounts to "All these saints were just dumb and didn't read Trent."

Its like Sola Scriptura with magisterial docuмents

Apologies if this topic has already been broached earlier in the thread, since I know you guys discussed double predestination, but in a quick glance I didn't find an answer to this in particular:

How does the death of an unbaptised infant not equate to double predestination? I saw it mentioned that the damnation of invincibly ignorant adults isn't double predestination because, through adhering to the natural law and corresponding to God's graces, they may be given a chance to convert. But an infant doesn't get that opportunity. I know they aren't sent to the Hell of the damned, but wouldn't such a child still have been predestined to not go to Heaven? I know Heaven is a reward and not a right, but it's still Biblical and Church teaching that God wills all men to be saved. So why would He bring into being a soul who had no opportunity to be? Even if an unbaptised infant is not damned, per se, they certainly aren't saved, nor had they any chance to be.

Apologies if this topic has already been broached earlier in the thread, since I know you guys discussed double predestination, but in a quick glance I didn't find an answer to this in particular:

How does the death of an unbaptised infant not equate to double predestination? I saw it mentioned that the damnation of invincibly ignorant adults isn't double predestination because, through adhering to the natural law and corresponding to God's graces, they may be given a chance to convert. But an infant doesn't get that opportunity. I know they aren't sent to the Hell of the damned, but wouldn't such a child still have been predestined to not go to Heaven? I know Heaven is a reward and not a right, but it's still Biblical and Church teaching that God wills all men to be saved. So why would He bring into being a soul who had no opportunity to be? Even if an unbaptised infant is not damned, per se, they certainly aren't saved, nor had they any chance to be.

It's key that they are not sent to Hell.  Human beings not only have no right in justice to the Beatific Vision, but we even lack the natural capacity to enjoy it.  It's a free gift of God.  So there's no natural deprivation in Limbo, the same thing that accounts for their natural happiness.  I believe that this is an act of God's Mercy and that all infants who die without Baptism were likely headed to Hell, and it was an act of God's Mercy to give them eternal natural happiness instead.