LastTrad,
Let me clear up what I think.  I don't know why you're getting bent out of shape here; you're the one who keeps saying that this-or-that in regards to Limbo is dogma.  I keep saying ALL details of Limbo are speculation.  It can probably be argued that the idea of Limbo is doctrine, but we can't say for sure who is or isn't there.
.
1.  You have argued that you "never heard" of adults going to Limbo.  I'll counter by saying I've never heard the term "limbo of infants", which implies adults can't go.
2.  For the 3rd time, Pope Innocent's quote on Limbo COULD include adults, since he does not say infants only, but says that those who die with only original sin go to Limbo.
3.  On the thread of 'salvation for native Indians' there was some saint who said that God could leave some "good natured" Indians in ignorance as a blessing because while they are good-willed on a natural level, He knew they wouldn't accept the Faith, so He did not have it preached to them, so they wouldn't be guilty for this grave sin.  Thus, they could die and their eternal suffering would be minimal.  ...This is obvious speculation, but it's the line of thinking that I am arguing.
4.  It's possible for an unbaptized, above-the-age-of-reason person to die without mortal sins.  Like a 7-10 year old.  Or even an adult "ignorant native".  Is it likely?  No.  Possible?  Yes.

On the thread of 'salvation for native Indians' there was some saint who said that God could leave some "good natured" Indians in ignorance as a blessing because while they are good-willed on a natural level, He knew they wouldn't accept the Faith, so He did not have it preached to them, so they wouldn't be guilty for this grave sin.  Thus, they could die and their eternal suffering would be minimal.  ...This is obvious speculation, but it's the line of thinking that I am arguing.

LT,
Limbo is PART of hell, not heaven (No revelations there) .  Limbo is a "paradise" in relation to the other parts of hell, but it's still not heaven (strawman) .  Please respond to YOUR quote from Innocent III who said that "those" (not infants, could be adults) who die in original sin (i.e. have not mortal sins on their souls) only go to Limbo.
.It's a "natural" paradise but still part of hell. (there are no torments in Limbo, your own quote says that the saints teach that the "native" suffers torments, yet you insist on making up your own better place than the saints. OK, so be it, put them then in a PARADISE better than anything on Earth. Saved Catholics have to suffer the torments of Purgatory, but your pagan goes to directly to a Paradise.  So be it. That's the end of the discussion. )

…. 2) (possibly, in theory, as a guess) certain 'naturally good' adults (i.e. the "invincibly ignorant" who were not enlightened by God...if such enlightenment even happens, which no one has to believe).
.
The difference between our views is this:  The group of infants/handicapped would have no PHYSICAL sufferings but also no INTELLECTUAL/SPIRITUAL sufferings, as they did not have the potential to know God being they died before the age of reason.
.
The group of adults would/could have INTELLECTUAL/SPIRITUAL sufferings, due to the regret in not being able to see God and knowing that they would've rejected the Faith had God given them the opportunity, yet in His mercy, He left them to their natural degree of perfection only.
.
If you want to call Limbo the place where there is "absolutely no suffering for infants", then ok.  And if you want to call my place of "mental suffering only" hell, then ok.  But I would call both places Limbo, because I would lump "no physical suffering" into 1 area.  At the end of the day, it's all part of hell, regardless.  We're just debating details, none of which has been defined.  So you may be correct.

There's a difference between the fate of unbaptized infants and people who commit mortal sin and die in that state. Are you saying St. Augustine didn't think the latter endure great suffering? I highly doubt this.

I never said that.  There's a difference, however, between the guilt of sin and the temporal punishment due to sin, which I hold can be mitigated by acts of natural virtue.

Again, take this example (both infidels who do not have the supernatural faith and cannot be saved):

1) one man steals $1,000 and dies unrepentant
2) another man steals $1,000, repents, returns the $1,000, and then gives another $10,000 to the poor to make up for this.  Then he gives up his life to save another person.

Are you trying to claim that the punishment of both of these is the same?

Of course, you, with your EENS denial, would likely claim that the second man goes to heaven.

Since I’d be accused of EENS denial by you, I want to clarify a matter.
I would NOT necessarily say the second man goes to heaven.  In and of itself, what you describe, I’d agree with you, would be only sufficient to lessen his torment in hell.
I only think he could go to heaven if he was invincibly ignorant, was joined to the Church via at least implicit desire to be a part of her, and had perfect contrition for his mortal sins.  I think that’s theoretically possible but do not know if it’s ever happened.
I realize you’d still disagree with that, but i at least wouldn’t advocate a pelagian idea that mere natural goodness can get a soul to heaven