Why do you have to distort what I am saying?So Augustine and the other doctors of the Church before Vatican II are irrelevant to the new Novus Ordo religion? Seems like you're implying that Church dogmas can "evolve" and change over time.
Which is another condemned proposition, not that that means anything to you.
Augustine, like all the other ECF was brilliant. He had a lot to say that remains relevant in the Church today. It is because of Augustine we have our theology of Grace.
That Augustine was brilliant, a saint, and a doctor of the Church does NOT entail he got everything right. I respectfully disagree with his conclusions regarding unbaptized babies. I think it is possible that God may yet save them. All I maintain, sir, is that we need not abandon all hope for infants who die before being baptized. Again, I fail to see what, precisely, is wrong with--and you seem unable to unwilling to explain it--with commending them to the infinite love and mercy of God who wills the salvation of all people.
How would you comfort grieving parents of child who through no fault of their own died before baptism? "There, there.....your child has no hope of salvation. Sorry--but that is the definitive, infallible, and authoritative teaching of the Church..."
You just strike me as a person who sort of gets a kick out of having all the answers--and a theology that is absolutely certain about everything and anything---even when things are not as certain as you like to make us think.