CathInfo.com

Perhaps I should've looked more carefully to determine *what* infants we were talking about.  The Holy Innocents were killed for the faith, because herod wanted to kill Christ.  And they were in Israel, which was the "church" of the Old Testament.  It sure seems to me that hypothetically speaking, an unbaptized child of a Catholic parent who was martyred (say ISIS killed the whole family for being Catholics) would be equivalent to something like that, and that seems like a pretty reasonable application of Baptism of *Blood*.  Now if you wanna say that the child of some random infant who dies (with their death having nothing to do with the faith, not being for the faith even in an indirect sense) it seems less likely BOB would apply, and more likely they'd end up in Limbo.  But to say that children who die under equivalent circuмstances to the Holy Innocents end up in Limbo because of some arbitrary legal change from God seems more like Protestant style nominalism where God arbitrarily decides whether to impute guilt or not than it does the logic of Catholicism/

My opposition to BoD comes not from the Diamond Brothers, as Xavier keeps calumniating me, nor even from Father Feeney.  It comes from the Church Fathers, whose faith most closely reflects what Our Lord revealed.

Yes, St. Thomas et al. believed in BoD but not for those who were not visibly united to the Church by at least the profession of the faith. Even on that, they were mistaken.  There’s zero proof that this is revealed, and if anything was revealed, it was the opposite ... as the Patristics scholar Fr. Jurgen asserts.  I agree with him 100%.  Nobody has ever theologically proven BoD.  They just keep parroting each other and gratuitously stating that it exists ... with a false circular chain of authority that all leads back to St. Augustine, who actually rejected his youthful speculation in his more mature Pelagian days.