I have recently gone around with Sinkspur at length concerning this very subject, and the most convincing evidence that I could find was a book by Fr. Murphy issued under the Imprimatur and the Nihil Obstat of the Roman Catholic Vicar-General of Westminster.
Sinkspur was good enough to admit that Vicar-Generals shouldn't go around tossing off Nihil Obstats for teachings which he believes to be "Pure Speculations", and he basically admitted that such blanket approvals make a Mockery of the alleged authority of the Roman Catholic Church's so-called "Teaching Magisterium".
But since Sinkspur has been intellectually-honest enough to admit this obvious deficiency of operation in the Roman Catholic Church's alleged "Teaching Magisterium", it behooves me to demonstrate intellectual honesty in return: One Vicar-General's Imprimatur does not necessarily define the Dogmatic Teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
And thus I hold to the teaching of John Calvin, that "The Reprobate procure their own Damnation", God judging them by their Works; whereas of those whom He has ordained to die in Infancy, He has Elected to Save "by a secret operation of the Holy Spirit", Electing in a dispensation of Pure Mercy to apply the atoning Merits of Christ against the Original Sin of those who die with no Volitional Sin on their account (whether Baptized or not).
While John Calvin's teaching can not be precisely proved from Scripture, I believe his teaching to be a Biblically-Economic and Apparently-Correct Resolution of the dichotomy between God's determination to Judge the Wicked by their Works, and His Mercy towards Infants. And so it gives me great pleasure in this affair to be a Calvinist, and to uphold the teaching of Saint John Calvin -- the Anointed Reformer of the Most High God.
But YOU have claimed that the Teaching "Unbaptised infants do not enjoy the Beatific Vision in Heaven" could be found in the teaching of Second Council of Florence, Council of Trent, Aquinas, Trent Catechism, St. Pius X Catechism, The Douay Catechism of 1649, and various legitimate catholic teachings that you probably don't read or learn from.
Well, as an old-school College Debater, I seem to remember that THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE.
YOU have claimed that these many authoritative (indeed, Dogmatic and "Infallible") Roman Catholic sources do teach that "Unbaptised infants do not enjoy the Beatific Vision in Heaven". Unless you can present Evidence of this fact, Sinkspur can simply say "No, they don't!" And then it's nothing but He-Said, She-Said.
In other words, the "Homework Assignment" is not Sinkspur's, it is yours.
YOU have claimed that these Dogmatic (and supposedly "Infallible") Roman Catholic Sources do teach that "Unbaptised infants do not enjoy the Beatific Vision in Heaven". If you can present Evidence of this Fact -- YOU WIN THE ARGUMENT!! But if you can't, you don't. That's how Debate Rules work.
You have claimed that these Dogmatic (and supposedly "Infallible") Roman Catholic Sources do teach that "Unbaptised infants do not enjoy the Beatific Vision in Heaven". Do they, indeed? THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE.
Dear OP, this is more than fair and I have no problem with it, except for the timing and circumstances.
You see, as I have mentioned earlier to the good Doctor Steve, I do have all the material in front of me, and they have been here all along, for centuries. It's just that I do not wish to go off topic on this particular thread, and offered the good doctor to have this discussion another time, on a different thread. I shall promptly notify you when that happens. Fear not.
The reason I pinged you and the good doctor is only because I mentioned you both, and as a courtesy, alerting you of the reference of your debate with sinky on a different thread. BTW, you did beat up sinky pretty good, and you quoted the correct teaching of the Church "with Nihil Obstat" and its true authority attached to it.
Rome did not screw up as you claimed, but sinky screwed up, because he doesn't know the teaching, and even went so far as to claim "never heard of it" and suggesting that you IGNORE the "nihil obstat". That's pathetic on his part. Next time you would know who NOT to go to confirm a catholic teaching.
The crux of my posts in this particular thread is that the NCR is anti-Catholic trash, and those who promote it are not worthy of the name "catholic" and, sinky in particular, does not know Church Teachings but often times he pretends to. Fortuntately, most of us catholics on FR is quite aware of his hangups. In addition, he won't go research this even tho he claimed otherwise, that's his usual M.O.
If you do not wish to wait for my posting of the aforementioned Teaching later on, the references I gave are readily available on the net.
Again, this is not about my winning a debate, as I do know what my Church has been teaching all along, for centuries. So in that sense, I am in no big hurry.