CathInfo.com

Sortof, I think.  Father Feeney, when asked, said "I don't know.  Neither do you."  I'll agree with that, but am speculating.

I think there's not only a "Limbo" of perfect natural happiness, where there are infants, but there's something of a continuum in this entire Limbo-like border region, with varying degrees of happiness vs. unhappiness depending on how you lived your life.  Even the EENS definitions say that there are greatly different degrees of suffering.

Unbaptized Martys end up perfectly happy, and likely enjoy even a greater happiness than the infants who die without baptism.

I believe that the greatest motivation for wanting to reject EENS dogma is that some Jєωιѕн or Lutheran grandmother who lived a virtuous life, kept natural law, possibly even made a heroic sacrifice by giving her life for her children, that she ends up in the same monolithic cauldron of fire as Satanists, serial killers, blasphemers, etc.

Most people have that binary idea, where it's either unbridled joy in Heaven or eternal tortures in Hell.

This is where the distinction between natural reward / punishment /justice and the unmerited supernatural gift of the Beatific Vision, the distinction that St. Thomas first articulated eloquently comes into play, and not just for infants who die unbaptized.  No, as Pius IX teaches, those who haven't committed actual sins do not receive eternal punishmetns for those.

So, just as everyone says that there are degress of happiness and glory in Heaven, and then degrees of suffering in Hell, why wouldn't there also bed degrees of natural happiness in Limbo, from perfect happiness, to more happiness than sorrow, to the opposite, etc.  I think it's a sliding scale of happiness and unhappiness, and not just two monolithic places:  Heaven or Hell.  Either you're a saint next to the Cherubim or playing checkers with Joe Stalin and Judas Iscariot.

Then, because of this binary construct people tend to have in their brains, they reject EENS, since that Lutheran grandmother I mentioned before ... she doesn't really deserve to be cruelly tortured fo eternity just because she grew up in Lutheranism, so then they try to get her into Heaven somehow, to prevent that consequence of EENS dogma.

But if you realized that Heaven is an unmerited free gift that nobody deserves, and that our nature cannot even imagine what it's like since it's so beyond us ... then there's no punishment in not receiving the Beatific Vision.

St. Gregorn nαzιanzen, in rejecting BoD, said that there are some who are not good enough to be glorified but not bad enough to be punished.  Somewhere between the punishment (of Hell) and the glory (of Heaven and the Beatific Vision, there's another Limbic type of realm, where unbaptized infants go, but quite possbily others.  St. Ambrosed said that martyrs are "washed but not crowned".  That's clearly a reference to having their sins washed (at least in terms of their punishment), but not entering the supernatural Kingdom, with the Crown, and the Beatific Vision.

From St. Augustine and for about 7-8 centuries it was ... there's either the glory of Heaven, Beatific Vision, etc. ... or else the fires of Hell.  Eastern Fathers were a little more mysical or enigmatic about some speculative other place, such as St. Gregory's statement above.  Even Our Lord said that those who believe and are baptized will be saved.  But those who do not believe will be condemned.  That leaves a logical middle area, where you believe (and so are not in the condemned group), but are not saved (are not baptized).  So if not saved and not condemned ... where do you go?

I could be wrong, but I suspect part of the issue (along with people just being annoying and stubborn about their preconceived notions) is that you are a theologian so you're using terms the way theologians use them, and a lot of people aren't.

I don't know if most people assume "kind Jєωιѕн grandmother" is being threatened with the *same* cauldron as Stalin, but I do think most people are assuming Hell is gonna be unbearably horrible for everyone even if its more unbearably horrible for some people than for others.  Like maybe Stalin's fire is ten million degrees and the fire of the "kind Jєωιѕн grandmother" is one million degrees... its still an unbearably horrible fate nobody would wish on their worst enemy.  And nobody wants to think (I know "nobody wants to think" isn't really an argument but... sometimes it becomes one even if it shouldn't be) their generally good relatives who don't have the faith are going to experience that kind of torment.  

Whereas honestly, what you're describing that people outside the church/not baptized could get... actually seems rather like what a lot of Protestants think of as salvation.  There is no longer suffering or death, and you get to reunite with your loved ones, presumably people in Limbo aren't deprived of the ability to pray or to praise God in some sense (I mean, I'm filling in the gaps here, you get my point).... they just don't get the Beatific vision.


If this is the idea I almost think it could be reformulated as "the highest level of salvation is not found outside the church"... but I understand why the church wouldn't want to do that.  But I think most people would understand what you are getting at earlier.

When I was Catholic, my motivation was less these kinds of emotional concerns.  It was more so "How could Archbishop Lefebvre and all the trad clergy just be completely wrong about this?  They must be onto something that I'm not."  I get that this was sometimes maybe annoying in our arguments about this, but that was ultimately what it came down to for me.  I was not going to conclude that all the trad clergy are wrong and some people online are correct.  That just "seemed" off.

Of course we have the same dynamic in Orthodoxy, and its a bit more emotional for me now now that I (in the past two months) lost my grandfather, who was baptized Protestant.  He and I were  very close and I cannot bear the thought that I would never see him again.  His death was also peaceful (I was in the room) so that's something I have to take into account, although I continue to pray for him daily and will do so for the rest of my life.  And interestingly when I talked to a very wise and very well read Orthodox friend about his fate, many of his speculations were very similar to yours. 

But anyways, yeah, I was just interested in your position and I think I may not have realized this nuance at first.

Trent teaches that Justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration. This right here tells us that no sacrament = no justification.
Trent goes on to say that justification cannot be effected without the desire for the laver of regeneration.

Which is saying both the sacrament and the desire for the sacrament are necessary for justification. Even if someone disagrees with this, they must admit that nowhere does Trent say the desire alone is all that is needed to be saved. Heck, Trent does not even say that about the sacrament. 

Right, that is what I believe as well. I also believe that Trent made clear what was being taught when immediately after that part it says "as it is written [John 3:5]"

Well, what does John 3:5 say?

3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

This is not an "either/or" scenario. Our Lord says "water" [the Sacrament] and the Holy Ghost [Justification from the Holy Ghost effected by the Sacrament and the desire/proper dispositions].

No one is "born again" with just the Water, or just the Holy Ghost.

That is why Trent specified the laver and desire

No man is Justified by the "laver of regeneration" if he does not have the "desire thereof". No man is Justified by the "desire thereof" if he does not have the "laver of regeneration"