Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)  (Read 39300 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline trad123

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2033
  • Reputation: +450/-96
  • Gender: Male
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #210 on: August 27, 2022, 09:25:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • St. Gregory nαzιanzen, who explicitly rejected salvation by a BoD, also said that there were some who, while not good enough for "glory" (aka beatific vision, entry into heaven) were also not bad enough to be punished.


    https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310240.htm


    The Oration on Holy Baptism.

    Oration 40



    Quote
    XXIII. And so also in those who fail to receive the Gift, some are altogether animal or bestial, according as they are either foolish or wicked; and this, I think, has to be added to their other sins, that they have no reverence at all for this Gift, but look upon it as a mere gift — to be acquiesced in if given them, and if not given them, then to be neglected. Others know and honour the Gift, but put it off; some through laziness, some through greediness. Others are not in a position to receive it, perhaps on account of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circuмstance through which they are prevented from receiving it, even if they wish. As then in the former case we found much difference, so too in this. They who altogether despise it are worse than they who neglect it through greed or carelessness. These are worse than they who have lost the Gift through ignorance or tyranny, for tyranny is nothing but an involuntary error. And I think that the first will have to suffer punishment, as for all their sins, so for their contempt of baptism; and that the second will also have to suffer, but less, because it was not so much through wickedness as through folly that they wrought their failure; and that the third will be neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed and yet not wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong. For not every one who is not bad enough to be punished is good enough to be honoured; just as not every one who is not good enough to be honoured is bad enough to be punished. And I look upon it as well from another point of view. If you judge the murderously disposed man by his will alone, apart from the act of murder, then you may reckon as baptized him who desired baptism apart from the reception of baptism. But if you cannot do the one how can you do the other? I cannot see it. Or, if you like, we will put it thus:— If desire in your opinion has equal power with actual baptism, then judge in the same way in regard to glory, and you may be content with longing for it, as if that were itself glory. And what harm is done you by your not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have the desire for it?



    For infants I can see a lack of punishment if while in Limbo their minds remain that of child, incapable of grasping and understanding the pain of the of loss of the Beatific Vision.

    But I do not think the same can be said for any adults that may be in Limbo.
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4 

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48032
    • Reputation: +28376/-5309
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #211 on: August 27, 2022, 09:30:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Don't each of the Just receive a crown, and the greater the extent of the state of sanctification the greater will be the crown that is awarded?

    Perhaps not crowned with the crown of martyrs.

    But St. Ambrose hopes that Valentinian could also be washed by his zeal/desire.

    Yet elsewhere he teaches:
    Quote
    Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”

    And this also addresses your question about the remission of sins only happening through Baptism.

    He posits elsewhere when delivering the famous oration for Valentinian that he could be "washed".

    He seems to be distinguishing between a "remission of sin" (in terms of the guilt that would prevent entering the Kingdom) and a "washing" from sin (which would be a release from the punishment due to sin).

    It would probably be worth looking at the Latin.

    Either he's contradicting himself (or changing his mind) with Valentinian, or he  means something different between "washing" and "remission" of sin.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48032
    • Reputation: +28376/-5309
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #212 on: August 27, 2022, 09:32:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • But I do not think the same can be said for any adults that may be in Limbo.

    So, would unbaptized martyrs go to hell?

    Offline trad123

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2033
    • Reputation: +450/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #213 on: August 27, 2022, 09:34:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So, would unbaptized martyrs go to hell?


    If perhaps they have no mortal sin on their soul, and only original sin, then it would be Limbo, which is in hell.

    2 Corinthians 4:3-4 

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline trad123

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2033
    • Reputation: +450/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #214 on: August 27, 2022, 09:40:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I"m only seeing St. Thomas mention children, regarding Limbo, not adults:


    https://www.newadvent.org/summa/6001.htm#article2


    [. . .]


    Quote
    Say, then, that every man who has the use of free-will is adapted to obtain eternal life, because he can prepare himself for grace whereby to merit eternal life [Cf. I-II:109:5-6]; so that if he fail in this, his grief will be very great, since he has lost what he was able to possess. But children were never adapted to possess eternal life, since neither was this due to them by virtue of their natural principles, for it surpasses the entire faculty of nature, nor could they perform acts of their own whereby to obtain so great a good. Hence they will nowise grieve for being deprived of the divine vision; nay, rather will they rejoice for that they will have a large share of God's goodness and their own natural perfections. Nor can it be said that they were adapted to obtain eternal life, not indeed by their own action, but by the actions of others around them, since they could be baptized by others, like other children of the same condition who have been baptized and obtained eternal life: for this is of superabundant grace that one should be rewarded without any act of one's own. Wherefore the lack of such a grace will not cause sorrow in children who die without Baptism, any more than the lack of many graces accorded to others of the same condition makes a wise man to grieve.

    2 Corinthians 4:3-4 

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.


    Offline trad123

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2033
    • Reputation: +450/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #215 on: August 27, 2022, 09:42:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Were the writings in the Supplement portion of the Summa written by St. Thomas, and only compiled by another?
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4 

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48032
    • Reputation: +28376/-5309
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #216 on: August 27, 2022, 09:48:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • So, there are two aspects of sin, the guilt of sin and the debt of sin.

    Let's say I steal $1,000 from someone.  I got to Confession and receive forgiveness.  Yet the debt of the sin remains.

    On the other hand, I could steal the $1,000, never Confess and receive remission for the sin, but return the $1,000.  In this case I no longer owe the debt, but I also have not had the guilt of the sin remitted.

    Here's the hypothetical I posed before:

    You have two people, neither of whom are Catholic, and so eventually end up not being saved.

    Person #1 steals $1,000.  But he later regrets it, returns the money, and then even spends the rest of his life giving all his possessions away to the poor (beyond a bare minimum that he lives off of).

    Person #2 steals $1,000 and keeps it, never returns it.

    Let's say that these are the only sins ever committed by these two individuals (or else all their other sins in life were exactly equal).

    With your understanding of there being no remission of sin outside the Church, Person #1 and Person #2 would suffer the exact same punishment in hell, and there would be no mitigation of the suffering for person #1 at all, since none of the good things he did count for anything.

    I don't really accept that.  That would seem contrary to the Justice and Mercy of God.

    Now, neither one would be "forgiven" in that they never had supernatural contrition, but the "punishment" due to each one would differ greatly, and I believe that this is the key to the distinction washing and remission.

    Offline trad123

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2033
    • Reputation: +450/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #217 on: August 27, 2022, 09:54:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Person #1 steals $1,000.  But he later regrets it, returns the money, and then even spends the rest of his life giving all his possessions away to the poor (beyond a bare minimum that he lives off of).

    Person #2 steals $1,000 and keeps it, never returns it.

    Let's say that these are the only sins ever committed by these two individuals (or else all their other sins in life were exactly equal).

    With your understanding of there being no remission of sin outside the Church, Person #1 and Person #2 would suffer the exact same punishment in hell, and there would be no mitigation of the suffering for person #1 at all, since none of the good things he did count for anything.


    I think person # 2 would suffer a greater punishment, and person # 1 would suffer a lesser punishment.

    I don't know what to say in regards to the rewarding of natural virtue.

    Right now, I'm trying to find what others have written regarding any reward for natural virtue.
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4 

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.


    Offline trad123

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2033
    • Reputation: +450/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #218 on: August 27, 2022, 11:10:29 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Denzinger


    https://patristica.net/denzinger/#n1000



    Quote
    ST. PIUS V 1566-1572

    Errors of Michael du Bay (BAII) *

    [Condemned in the Bull "Ex omnibus afflictionibus," Oct. 1, 1567]



    (. . .)


    1025   25. All works of infidels are sins, and the virtues of philosophers are vices.



    2 Corinthians 4:3-4 

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline trad123

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2033
    • Reputation: +450/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #219 on: August 27, 2022, 11:16:26 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Summa Theologiae, Supplement, Question 14

    https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5014.htm#article2


    Question 14. The quality of satisfaction


    Article 2. Whether, when deprived of charity, a man can make satisfaction for sins for which he was previously contrite?





    Objection 1. It would seem that if a man fall into sin after being contrite for all his sins, he can, now that he has lost charity, satisfy for his other sins which were already pardoned him through his contrition. For Daniel said to Nabuchodonosor (Daniel 4:24): "Redeem thou thy sins with alms." Yet he was still a sinner, as is shown by his subsequent punishment. Therefore a man can make satisfaction while in a state of sin.

    Objection 2. Further, "Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love or hatred" (Ecclesiastes 9:1). If therefore one cannot make satisfaction unless one be in a state of charity, it would be impossible to know whether one had made satisfaction, which would be unseemly

    Objection 3. Further, a man's entire action takes its form from the intention which he had at the beginning. But a penitent is in a state of charity when he begins to repent. Therefore his whole subsequent satisfaction will derive its efficacy from the charity which quickens his intention.

    Objection 4. Further, satisfaction consists in a certain equalization of guilt to punishment. But these things can be equalized even in one who is devoid of charity. Therefore, etc.

    On the contrary, "Charity covereth all sins" (Proverbs 10:12). But satisfaction has the power of blotting out sins. Therefore it is powerless without charity.

    Further, the chief work of satisfaction is almsdeeds. But alms given by one who is devoid of charity avail nothing, as is clearly stated 1 Corinthians 13:3, "If I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor . . . and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." Therefore there can be no satisfaction with mortal sin.

    I answer that, Some have said that if, when all a man's sins have been pardoned through contrition, and before he has made satisfaction for them, he falls into sin, and then makes satisfaction, such satisfaction will be valid, so that if he die in that sin, he will not be punished in hell for the other sins.

    But this cannot be, because satisfaction requires the reinstatement of friendship and the restoration of the equality of justice, the contrary of which destroys friendship, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. ix, 1,3). Now in satisfaction made to God, the equality is based, not on equivalence but rather on God's acceptation: so that, although the offense be already removed by previous contrition, the works of satisfaction must be acceptable to God, and for this they are dependent on charity. Consequently works done without charity are not satisfactory.

    Reply to Objection 1. Daniel's advice meant that he should give up sin and repent, and so make satisfaction by giving alms

    Reply to Objection 2. Even as man knows not for certain whether he had charity when making satisfaction, or whether he has it now, so too he knows not for certain whether he made full satisfaction: wherefore it is written (Sirach 5:5): "Be not without fear about sin forgiven." And yet man need not, on account of that fear, repeat the satisfaction made, if he is not conscious of a mortal sin. For although he may not have expiated his punishment by that satisfaction, he does not incur the guilt of omission through neglecting to make satisfaction; even as he who receives the Eucharist without being conscious of a mortal sin of which he is guilty, does not incur the guilt of receiving unworthily.

    Reply to Objection 3. His intention was interrupted by his subsequent sin, so that it gives no virtue to the works done after that sin.

    Reply to Objection 4. Sufficient equalization is impossible both as to the Divine acceptation and as to equivalence: so that the argument proves nothing.





    2 Corinthians 4:3-4 

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline trad123

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2033
    • Reputation: +450/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #220 on: August 27, 2022, 11:29:04 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I don't really accept that.  That would seem contrary to the Justice and Mercy of God.



    I posted this once, but it must have been in a thread that XavierSem had started, and consequently was deleted when his account was taken down.


    St. Robert Bellarmine, On the Church Militant (De Controversiis)


    Quote
    Augustine distinguished Catechumens from the faithful, which other Fathers also do. Moreover, it is certain that the Church is the body of the faithful. Therefore, Catechumens do not have the right to any sacraments, nor to other things which are common to the universal Church. Therefore Catechumens do not pertain to the Church properly or in act. Therefore, how, you will ask, are they saved, if they are outside the Church? The author of the book on Ecclesiastical dogmas (cap. 74) clearly responds, that Catechumens are not saved. But this seems too harsh.


    2 Corinthians 4:3-4 

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.


    Offline trad123

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2033
    • Reputation: +450/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #221 on: August 27, 2022, 11:35:46 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here we go:



    Summa Theologiae, Supplement, Question 14

    https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5014.htm#article2


    Question 14. The quality of satisfaction




    Article 5. Whether the aforesaid works avail for the mitigation of the pains of hell?




    Objection 1. It would seem that the aforesaid works do not avail for the mitigation of the pains of hell. For the measure of punishment in hell will answer to the measure of guilt. But works done without charity do not diminish the measure of guilt. Neither, therefore, do they lessen the pains of hell.

    Objection 2. Further, the pain of hell, though infinite in duration, is nevertheless finite in intensity. Now anything finite is done away with by finite subtraction. If therefore works done without charity canceled any of the punishment due for sins, those works might be so numerous, that the pain of hell would be done away with altogether: which is false.

    Objection 3. Further, the suffrages of the Church are more efficacious than works done without charity. But, according to Augustine (Enchiridion cx), "the suffrages of the Church do not profit the damned in hell." Much less therefore are those pains mitigated by works done without charity.

    On the contrary, Augustine also says (Enchiridion cx): "Whomsoever they profit, either receive a full pardon, or at least find damnation itself more tolerable."


    Further, it is a greater thing to do a good deed than to omit an evil deed. But the omission of an evil deed always avoids a punishment, even in one who lacks charity. Much more, therefore, do good deeds void punishment.

    I answer that, Mitigation of the pains of hell can be understood in two ways: first, as though one were delivered from the punishment which he already deserved, and thus, since no one is delivered from punishment unless he be absolved from guilt, (for an effect is not diminished or taken away unless its cause be diminished or taken away), the pain of hell cannot be mitigated by works done without charity, since they are unable to remove or diminish guilt. Secondly, so that the demerit of punishment is hindered; and thus the aforesaid works diminish the pain of hell—first because he who does such works escapes being guilty of omitting them—secondly, because such works dispose one somewhat to good, so that a man sins from less contempt, and indeed is drawn away from many sins thereby.


    These works do, however merit a diminution or postponement of temporal punishment, as in the case of Achab (1 Kings 21:27, seqq.), as also the acquisition of temporal goods.

    Some, however, say that they mitigate the pains of hell, not by subtracting any of their substance, but by strengthening the subject, so that he is more able to bear them. But this is impossible, because there is no strengthening without a diminution of passibility. Now passibility is according to the measure of guilt, wherefore if guilt is not removed, neither can the subject be strengthened.

    Some again say that the punishment is mitigated as to the remorse of conscience, though not as to the pain of fire. But neither will this stand, because as the pain of fire is equal to the guilt, so also is the pain of the remorse of conscience: so that what applies to one applies to the other.

    This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.


    2 Corinthians 4:3-4 

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline trad123

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2033
    • Reputation: +450/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #222 on: August 27, 2022, 11:47:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    I answer that, Mitigation of the pains of hell can be understood in two ways: first, as though one were delivered from the punishment which he already deserved, and thus, since no one is delivered from punishment unless he be absolved from guilt, (for an effect is not diminished or taken away unless its cause be diminished or taken away), the pain of hell cannot be mitigated by works done without charity, since they are unable to remove or diminish guilt.


    It seems my understanding holds, there are no sins forgiven outside the Church.

    There is no diminishment of punishment where there is no absolution from guilt.



    Quote
    Secondly, so that the demerit of punishment is hindered; and thus the aforesaid works diminish the pain of hell—first because he who does such works escapes being guilty of omitting them—secondly, because such works dispose one somewhat to good, so that a man sins from less contempt, and indeed is drawn away from many sins thereby.


    It seems good deeds done in a state of mortal sin do not have an eternal reward.

    Situations that require a good deed being done, need to be done, lest a person sin by omission, and such good deeds can draw one away from other sins.
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4 

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline trad123

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2033
    • Reputation: +450/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #223 on: August 27, 2022, 11:53:10 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • https://isidore.co/aquinas/english/Creed.htm


    THE APOSTLES' CREED by St. Thomas Aquinas, translated by Joseph B. Collins, 1939

    PROLOGUE

    What Is Faith?




    Quote
    The Nature and Effects of Faith.—The first thing that is necessary for every Christian is faith, without which no one is truly called a faithful Christian. Faith brings about four good effects. The first is that through faith the soul is united to God, and by it there is between the soul and God a union akin to marriage. “I will espouse you in faith” [Hosea 2:20]. When a man is baptized the first question that is asked him is: “Do you believe in God?” This is because Baptism is the first Sacrament of faith. Hence, the Lord said: “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved” [Mk 16:16].Baptism without faith is of no value.

    Indeed, it must be known that no one is acceptable before God unless he have faith. “Without faith it is impossible to please God”[Heb 11:6]. St. Augustine explains these words of St. Paul, “All that is not of faith is sin” [Rom 14:23], in this way: “Where there is no knowledge of the eternal and unchanging Truth, virtue even in the midst of the best moral life is false.”

    2 Corinthians 4:3-4 

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48032
    • Reputation: +28376/-5309
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #224 on: August 28, 2022, 07:25:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1

  • It seems my understanding holds, there are no sins forgiven outside the Church.

    There is no diminishment of punishment where there is no absolution from guilt.

    It seems good deeds done in a state of mortal sin do not have an eternal reward.

    Situations that require a good deed being done, need to be done, lest a person sin by omission, and such good deeds can draw one away from other sins.

    I find your view of things to be perverse, entirely incompatible with the Mercy and the Justice of God.  That's because you're missing some crucial distinctions ... that I tried to outline with my example.

    1) there is in fact a distinction between the guilt of sin and the debt of justice for sin (we constantly make this distinction when we say that you can be forgiven in confession and yet still owe a debt).  If I leave this life owing someone $1,000 because I stole it during my life, I have to pay that debt back, whether in Purgatory (if I have been forgiven) or in Hell (if I have not been forgiven).  So the forgiveness and the amount of "debt" owed by sin are distinct and separable.

    2) Those in mortal sin do not have an "eternal reward" ... in terms of being able to acquire SUPERNATURAL merit for their good deeds.  This does not mean they cannot offset the temporal debt of sin.  "Eternal reward" refers to the supernatural merit that can be acquired by meritorious actions.

    Thus, my example, where the one person never pays back the stolen $1,000, but the other does, and then some.  Per your view, both would suffer exactly the same for all eternity.  I find that a perverse view that's offensive to God's justice and His Mercy.  Why should these two be treated the same?

    You're missing the distinction between the supernatural and the natural aspect of sin.  Applying that very real distinction solves the dilemma.

    And I think that this incorrect view of hell, eternity, punishment due to sin, etc. is what causes a lot of people to have an aversion to EENS dogma.

    I hold that natural virtue and natural goodness can offset the natural debt of sin that's owed, and that the sensible suffering experienced in hell is due to the and is proportionate to this natural debt of sin.

    People recoil at the thought that someone could spend his life doing good deeds, helping people, being generous, etc. and then be subjected to the exact same suffering in hell as someone who, say, committed the exact same sins as this person, except that they did no such good deeds.

    There's this confusion between the supernatural and the natural that cause a lot of confusion with regard to EENS dogma, and this actually caused the issue with St. Augustine's original notion that there's no such thing as a Limbo where people can have perfect natural happiness.  But St. Thomas finally understood that the supernatural aspect (since it is not within our natural capacity) does not compromise the potential for perfect natural happiness in a place like Limbo, since it is not the "lack of a due good".

    So, the post-Tridentine theologians explored this distinction, and you saw it manifested in Dante where he had a "noble" infidel like Saladin placed in Limbo.  He also had some of the pagan philosophers there.  This here is Gregory nαzιanzen's distinction between people who are not good enough for glory but not bad enough for punishment.