Apparently I hit a nerve. You really did not address the OP. Telling.

Would you like to discuss St. Alphonsus' definition of BOD and what Trent actually taught, or no?

Take note, EENS-deniers, that EENS is most certainly de fide, since it's been defined.  There's no definition ever of BoD.

So those of you who deny EENS, you are in fact heretics, and it's also heretical to be a Pelagian and to deny that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation ... which nearly all BoDers do.  Most of you therefore hit the Trifecta of heresy.

Of course, if you believe non-Catholics can be saved, which is distinct from BoD per se, but again few BoDers do not believe this, since it's the very point of their clinging to BoD with cold / dead brains, not because they're concerned about the rare case of a Catechumen who dies in a car crash on the way to his Baptism ... if you believe non-Catholics can be saved, you're a schismatic also, since every purported error of Vatican II depends on and derives from the ecclesiology that derives from this error, so in rejecting Vatican II, you're in schism, as it only teaches what you yourselves believe.

St. Alphonsus was wrong about the theological note, citing one source that was just a letter to a bishop, before Vatican I had made the necessary definition, and in a similar letter Pope Innocent also declared that Mass was valid if the priest merely thought the words of consecration, an error for which St. Thomas Aquinas took him to task.  Father Cekada also did a survey of theologians and found that of about 27 or so that he could find at all, few of the sources agreed with St. Alphonsus that it was de fide.

But what is meant by "Baptism of Desire" (a term that appears nowhere in any Magisterial source)?

Finally, explain how Feeneyites deny Trent, you dunce.  Trent teaches that justification cannot happen without the laver or the votum.  "Feeneyites" believe this.  They merely distinguish between justification and salvation.

Please explain where this distinction is "heretical", since, well, the respected Dominican theologian Melchior Cano, writing after Trent, made the exact same distinction, where he held that infidels could be justified but not saved.

So please produce the condemnation of Melchior Cano for teaching heresy.

Until then, shut your arrogant trap, ya moron.  None of you can refute anything, but you regurgitate the same talking points that have been refuted a thousand times, even after it's demonstrated to you that it's false.

And 95% of you are in fact heretics who deny the dogma that there's no salvation outside the Church.

What would it mean if someone was justified and died justified but not saved?  Would they go to Limbo, or something like that?

What would it mean if someone was justified and died justified but not saved?  Would they go to Limbo, or something like that?

The Church's canon law recognizes that catechumens studying before entering the Church could die before baptism, and if they do, they are afforded a requiem Mass for their souls. This is an official recognition of baptism of desire. It means they could have gone to purgatory, and the Mass is to help them get to heaven.

What would it mean if someone was justified and died justified but not saved?  Would they go to Limbo, or something like that?

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 have not read this entire thread, so I apologize if this has already been mentioned.  This pertains to the query about dying justified, but not saved.

As stated, we do not know for certain.  On this point, what do y'all think about the divinely-revealed statement that there will be a new heaven AND a new earth?  Is it wild to think that someone who dies without sanctifying grace AND without any actual sin for which to atone might be an inhabitant of the new earth (a place of unending yet merely-natural happiness)?

If one cannot see the Face of God, but also is not deserving of a painful, everlasting banishment, where would they go?  Limbo, as understood within the present reality (i.e., before everyone is resurrected), seems untenable where eternity is concerned.

If something along these lines is NOT the case, what purpose would an unpopulated new earth serve?

The divinely-revealed New Heaven and New Earth is a single place, not two different places [Apocalypse 21 and 22].

It is the new Paradise that has been both restored and perfected.

It is described as a city:

21...And the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.  22 And I saw no temple therein. For the Lord God Almighty is the temple thereof, and the Lamb.  23 And the city hath no need of the sun, nor of the moon, to shine in it. For the glory of God hath enlightened it, and the Lamb is the lamp thereof.  24 And the nations shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory and honour into it.  25 And the gates thereof shall not be shut by day: for there shall be no night there. [Apoc. 21]

and as a garden:

1 And he shewed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb.  2 In the midst of the street thereof, and on both sides of the river, was the tree of life, bearing twelve fruits, yielding its fruits every month, and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.  3 And there shall be no curse any more; but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and his servants shall serve him.  4 And they shall see his face: and his name shall be on their foreheads.  5 And night shall be no more: and they shall not need the light of the lamp, nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God shall enlighten them, and they shall reign for ever and ever. [Apoc. 22]

This is after the General Judgement. At that point there are only those living in the NHNE and those in Gehenna.

The Church's canon law recognizes that catechumens studying before entering the Church could die before baptism, and if they do, they are afforded a requiem Mass for their souls. This is an official recognition of baptism of desire. It means they could have gone to purgatory, and the Mass is to help them get to heaven.

False.  At the very most, one might interpret it as the Church remains open on the matter, i.e. has not definitively condemned BoD.  Prior discipline had the Church refusing Christian burial.  Mass is that of Christian Burial, not just to get them to Heaven, and throughout the history of the Church catechumens were in this gray area, where they were permitted to be called Christian (thus Christian burial), but were not admitted to the Sacraments or to Mass.

So, ONE place but TWO distinct names/places/words?  Are the old heaven and the old earth ONE?  No.  Why should the new ones be so?  Two places, two distinct words.

Let's say you are correct, what happens to the billions of aborted babies, for example, who cannot see God in the Face nor can be justifiably buried in hell for all eternity?  FWIW, this is not intended to be a gotcha question or meaningless subject.  Where do you think they go?  Are they living within the NHNE, but unable to see God in the Face, living a happy life but not united to Him via sanctifying grace?  Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts.

I recall there being Magisterial statements that Limbo is part of hell. Of course, hell with be there for eternity.

This I do remember with ability to point to the source:
 

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Letentur coeli


“We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.

The "punishment" of those infants would be deprivation of the beatific vision, but no real suffering. I can't recall if that is just theory or if there are Magisterial statements directly supporting that.