It’s false, and one of the condemned Jansenist propositions, that there can be no natural virtue without supernatural grace.  There absolutely can be and is.  Common sense alone tells us there is and we see the difference all around us.  Of course such virtue does not have supernatural merit, but you’re absolutely failing to distinguish between the natural and supernatural, something which St. Thomas did masterfully.

Failing to understand Catholic theology has led to some Jansenism among Trads here.

As I said:
"Well, for me it's a mute point because of original sin, wherein man enters this world and lives their whole life inclined to evil (whether baptized or not), negating any hope of "naturally-virtuous"  - which is the heresy of Naturalism, even if in some ways they may come across to us as being so. I do not believe an adult outside of the Church can live his life naturally virtuous, impossible."

Perhaps I should have used the term "efficaciously virtuous" instead of naturally virtuous, which will never send  anyone unbaptized to Limbo nor save them from hell.

But of course unbaptized adults can be and many times are in fact "naturally virtuous," they help little old ladies across the street, feed the poor and give to charities etc., but they cannot please God without the faith - this is Scripture - Heb. 11:6.

Nor can adults live life without sinning and as such will end up in hell with or without baptism and without the faith. Terrible? Yes, extremely, but it's not complicated even if it is hard to swallow. The EENS dogma means that there is no hope whatsoever for those who die outside of the Church.  

As Fr. Wathen put it: "If this seems to you overly severe, I remind you, it truly *is* severe..." - (I try to remember to remind myself of this somewhat often).

Perhaps I should have used the term "efficaciously virtuous" instead of naturally virtuous, which will never send  anyone unbaptized to Limbo nor save them from hell.

You're still conflating the natural and the supernatural.  No, natural virtue is not efficacious for salvation, but Limbo is not salvation, merely an absence of any punishment or suffering.  There is no "efficacious virtue" in infants either, but they could be in Limbo (if you believe in it) due to an absence of punishment.  You speak of Limbo as if it were some kind of "reward".  It's not.  You don't "earn" Limbo due to your natural virtue.  It's merely the absence of punishment.  This is where I hold, for instance, that a martyr who dies unbaptized would go to Limbo, since the martyrdom would remove all punishment due to sin (just as a martyr who has been baptized removes the punishment due to sin that would otherwise await him in Purgatory, and thus go straight to Heaven).  St. Ambrose spoke of unbaptized martyrs being "washed but not crowned," and he speculated that someone like Valentinian might end up in a similar state, having had the punishment due to sin washed from him similar to a martyr.

You're still conflating the natural and the supernatural.  No, natural virtue is not efficacious for salvation, but Limbo is not salvation, merely an absence of any punishment or suffering.  There is no "efficacious virtue" in infants either, but they could be in Limbo (if you believe in it) due to an absence of punishment.  You speak of Limbo as if it were some kind of "reward".  It's not.  You don't "earn" Limbo due to your natural virtue.  It's merely the absence of punishment.  This is where I hold, for instance, that a martyr who dies unbaptized would go to Limbo, since the martyrdom would remove all punishment due to sin (just as a martyr who has been baptized removes the punishment due to sin that would otherwise await him in Purgatory, and thus go straight to Heaven).  St. Ambrose spoke of unbaptized martyrs being "washed but not crowned," and he speculated that someone like Valentinian might end up in a similar state, having had the punishment due to sin washed from him similar to a martyr.

My idea of Limbo is that after all the OT saints were released, is now a place for unbaptized infants, I do not believe there are any adults whatsoever in Limbo - I could be wrong but that's my opinion.

The infants will never see God or know eternal bliss, but otherwise do not suffer pains of the senses because they did not commit any actual sins. I picture the place itself as a big empty space, not cold or not, but lit plenty bright enough so the infants do not suffer darkness, and so on. 

I believe that God would never let any "virtuous" unbaptized adult die without the means of salvation who had the will and wanted to be saved and had whatever virtue you want to call it, but lacked the means for salvation. No way. God would do everything that needed to be done for that adult to provide the means of salvation for that adult so that he would spend his eternity in heaven, not Limbo, not hell.    

I hold to the strict Augustinian position, namely, that the unbaptised who die unsullied by personal sin still go to the hell of the demons. BUT, in keeping with the voice of the Magisterium, I do not exclude the possibility of a natural paradise for these souls, a place apart from heaven but not the hell of the reprobate. Nevertheless, this is not to be found in the Deposit of Faith. So, whilst I do not exclude the possibility of Limbo infantorum, I find it to be highly improbable and, therefore, the souls go to hell with the demons.

But what I hold does not matter except to me gor my own salvation. What matters is a full, nuanced explanation of what the Church teaches and what she tolerates.