If invincible ignorance exists, then how does it not apply to infants, either aborted or not?  Yet, the Church holds that unbaptized infants go to Limbo and not heaven.  But an unbaptized adult, who (as Scripture infallibly tells us) falls AT LEAST 7 times a day (assuming he's "somehow" a just man, that means just venial sins...that's a big assumption), he can be saved?  
.
So an unbaptized infant, who has no sins on his soul, and is totally ignorant of anything and everything, goes to Limbo.  But an unbaptized, "good willed" adult, who has sinned at least 7x a day, for his entire life, gets to go to heaven?
.
Then we have protestants, who don't follow the 10 commandments (i.e. they sin mortally, as "allowed" by their false religion), they deny multiple articles of Faith, they make up the rules to their religion...but they also can go to heaven, but not an unbaptized infant?
.
Makes no sense.

Several points

First, we aren't (well, I can only speak for myself) asserting that invincible ignorance *itself* saves, it just creates the possibility of not being damned.  Supernatural faith is still needed, *at least* that God exists and that he rewards and punishes (Xavier said the Trinity and Incarnation as well as some theologians did).  An infant presumably wouldn't have supernatural faith.  You'd also need perfect contrition for any mortal sins, otherwise you'd lack charity.

Does that happen all the time?  I seriously doubt it.  In fact maybe it never actually happens.  But we're not arguing about probabilities here, but principles.

As far as Protestants just committing mortal sins constantly, well there's a variety of opinions among Protestants, some do really believe in trying to believe a holy life, though even then without the sacraments and prayer life of the Church, they're certainly in an unfortunate spot.

And yeah, I agree with Ladislaus that if they are in fact saved, they're Catholic, but I think what the discussion comes down to is whether someone explicitly has to have formulated "I believe whatever the Church says as my rule of faith" *and* to have correctly identified that Church with the papacy in order to be saved, in all cases, and some of us aren't convinced of that.

An infant presumably wouldn't have supernatural faith.

Just a clarification.  Baptized infants do have supernatural faith, as a merely infused virtue.  Once they reach the age of reason, however, and they do not follow it up with explicit faith, this supernatural virtue fades away and is lost.

And this illustrates another point regarding my difference with Xavier.

Let's say a missionary finds some animist baby and baptizes him.  This child is raised as an animist, reaches the age of reason, and then never has any explicit faith (for the sake of argument, let's say not even in a Rewarder God).

According to Xavier's thesis, this person would continue to have supernatural faith until he were to explicitly commit a mortal sin against faith, i.e. embrace heresy.

According to the CATHOLIC opinion, however, the supernatural virtue of faith would be lost at the age of reason without his having embraced it explicitly (in its minimums).

Let's add now that this animist does end up embracing belief in a Rewader God at the age of reason.  Does that suffice?  No, because there's no supernatural motive.  Rewarder God theory can be arrived at by the use of natural reason, but supernatural faith (as per the teaching of Vatican I) requires a supernatural MOTIVE as well.

Elsewhere, St. Augustine had told a heretic: "Do not say you believe in the Gospel. You believe what you choose in the Gospel and you reject what you choose. You believe in yourself rather than in the Gospel." That's the classic case of a formal heretic.

This definition includes every single Protestant.  And in fact it's practically THE definition of Protestantism.  They claim that they believe in the Gospel, but they pick and choose how to interpret it, setting themselves up as the ultimate RULE of faith, and rule of interpretation, rather than having the infallible rule of faith in the Church's teaching that is required for supernatural faith.

You just destroyed your entire position with this quote.

This has already been addressed.  I alluded to this teaching myself.  Notice the litmus test that they must be "prepared to be set right when they have found [the truth]".

How many Prots are there who when they are told, "the Church teaches that the Pope is infallible under certain circuмstances" are "prepared to be set right" on the issue.

Practically ZERO.

You're confounding this, on purpose, with SINCERITY of belief.  They'd be "prepared to be set right" ... if they would be convinced that it's actually the truth.
In other words, it's the same crap that only those are lost who know the Church to be the true Church and refuse to enter it anyway ... which basically includes only a small handful of Satanists.

In other words, Universal Salvation.

You're hopelessly bankrupt in the faith, Xavier.

The problem here is that you are assuming that there are only two binary possibilities, either that every single person who has not formally embraced the faith is damned, or else that only those who explicitly know the faith is false and still reject it are damned 
First of all, you're ignoring the fact that even if knowledge at the church is true and still rejection is the criteria for damnation on that point, there are still other mortal sins that can damn that soul, because perfect contrition is not a guarantee. So even if for the sake of argument I'm right, it doesn't mean that every single Protestant that doesn't know the church is the true church will automatically be saved. They would still need to have perfect contrition for their other mortal sins.
Furthermore, I think people are a little bit more complicated than you give them credit for. God alone knows whether a soul is sincerely seeking the truth or whether some worldly motive is standing in their way. I realize that Eastern Orthodoxy is not the true church, but I've heard of Lutheran pastors who thought it was and yet still refused to convert to an ultimately because their wives threatened to divorce them if they converted. I would seriously assume such souls are damned unless they repent before they die, because some OTHER Factor is higher for them than seeking the truth. And I think that's true for most people, I think that's kind of built into the notion of imperfect contrition.
Furthermore, well I do not presume to be his judge, but I suspect that someone like my dad has invested a lot into the Baptist Church where he is a pastor, and I seriously suspect based on my conversations with him that that is a stronger factor than seeking the truth at all costs. Again he wouldn't overtly admit to that, but I really get that vibe when I see how he doesn't answer me when I ask him basic questions like how we get the canon
I will admit, I wonder what exactly the criteria for being willing to set right is. It may be the criteria is as low as, if a Catholic tells him the church teaches something and he doesn't immediately accept it that he is automatically damned. That's certainly a possibility and it wouldn't fundamentally undermine the premises of my argument. However, it may also be looser than that, it may be at the point where the person puts some other factor above seeking the truth above all things that they would be condemned. Even if that's true it's not a guarantee that all sincere Protestants are saved because they still don't have a mechanism besides perfect contrition  which is hard to reach, that can save them from their mortal sins

First, we aren't (well, I can only speak for myself) asserting that invincible ignorance *itself* saves,

Xavier is.
.

(invincible ignorance) just creates the possibility of not being damned.

1.  I hold that invincible ignorance does not exist.  No one is *invincibly* or unable to hear the Truth.  If they do not hear it, then God withheld it due to their sins.  That's dogma.
.

Supernatural faith is still needed, *at least* that God exists and that he rewards and punishes (Xavier said the Trinity and Incarnation as well as some theologians did). 

1.  How does one have supernatural faith if he is invincibly ignorant of the Church, without which we cannot have supernatural faith?
2.  You say that "rewarder God" is sufficient, but Xavier says the Trinity/Incarnation are required.  Do you understand the WIDE, WIDE difference between these 2 requirements?
3.  A belief in a "rewarder God" is not = supernatural faith.  Belief in (generically) "the supernatural" is not = supernatural faith.  Where do you get your definition for supernatural faith? because it's an uncatholic one.
4.  If one believes in a "rewarder God", then how are they still invincibly ignorant?  If they are truly sincere, are you saying that God will keep them ignorant of the Church?  Isn't that a denial of God's salvific providence?
5.  If one believes in the Trinity/Incarnation, how are they invincibly ignorant of the Church? 
.

An infant presumably wouldn't have supernatural faith.  You'd also need perfect contrition for any mortal sins, otherwise you'd lack charity.

1.  No one can have supernatural faith, outside of the Church.  This is what baptism gives us.  BOD does NOT supply this.  This lack of faith applies to all those unbaptized, infant or not.
2.  No amount of perfect act of contrition can erase Original Sin.  Only baptism can.  An act of contrition can only erase regular sins, which an infant would have none.
3.  This is what happens when people mix BOD with invincible ignorance - it makes no sense and it's wrong.  Trent lays out the requirements for justification, which do not apply to infants (who go to Limbo) and it ALSO does not apply to invincibly ignorant adults. 
.
An adult who is sorry for his sins, but who does not know about the Church or baptism cannot desire baptism, thus he cannot gain heaven.  He would go to Limbo if he was repentant and died with only Original sin on his soul.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation" actually means that everyone is saved except for those who believe that outside the Church there is no salvation.

Byzcat, here's what doesn't make sense to me, about your views.  I think you're overcomplicating it.  Xavier is just lost in theory and is confusing himself because he wants a certain outcome.  But you...you're a convert!  
.
You've lived and experienced God's providential grace, spiritual promptings, and guidance towards the Truth/Church.  You've come from error to Truth.  You were ignorance but sincere.  You were confused but had good will.  Didn't God take care of you?  Didn't God show you the way?  Didn't God enlighten your blindness?
.
Will He not do that for EVERYONE who wants it?  How can there be invincible ignorance for those of good will?  Did God not plan for the birth/life/death of EVERY SINGLE HUMAN SOUL, from before the world was even created?  He knew us all, from all eternity.  Yet, He will allow one who is sincerely seeking Him and His Church to stay ignorant?  Does this sound Catholic?  Is this what a loving God would do?

Well in the first place, I was blessed with a number of advantages that not everyone has. I was born in a family that was already Christian, I don't mean truly so but in the sense that they already had a high regard for sacred scripture and taught us likewise, I also always had a critical thinking brain that tended to question things when they didn't make sense. So I'm not sure you could analogize my situation to say the situation of a virtuous Mayan living in 200 AD.  Now sure, I'm not disputing that God could if he wanted send an angel to that person in order to convert them to the faith. But it didn't take anything like that to get me to become Catholic. I could perhaps argue that I got some signs in my own life but nothing that was so clear that I could not possibly have imagined it. Definitely no overt angelic miracles.
Now if you want to believe that every single person who has perfect condition and goodwill will be given some type of angelic miracle or some other miraculous confirmation of the faith before they die I guess we're kind of swiveling over something small because obviously I believe that everyone who is in heaven has the true faith. So if we're really just squabbling over whether every single person is consciously aware before they die or if some people become consciously aware right after they die I'm not sure how worthwhile that argument is. I don't see how it would make God less loving one way or the other, whether he sent an angel to tell them right before they died, or whether they died and appeared at the judgment seat and were like yeah this is Jesus this is what I always wanted and they know the truth at that point. What I think wouldn't be loving of course is for them to be abandoned to damnation if they would have or could have been saved.
I think for me it's less that I care about the specific conclusion as far as prots are concerned and more that I'm bothered by what it does to our church if you guys are right. Like I already have the baseline that the church is in crisis right now, and I'm siding with the traditionalist wing that is primarily defined by archbishop Lefebvre and those principles that he defended over and against the modernism that came about as a result of V2 at its aftermath. I feel like it takes an extra step of faith, and one I'm not persuaded is reasonable, to believe no no no actually the archbishop was also modernist and just didn't realize it he may have been a good will but ultimately he wasn't a trustworthy leader on these kinds of issues. I feel like once you get to that point it gets really hard to argue that the gates of hell have not prevailed over the church from a conceptual standpoint. I think it's more reasonable to just believe feeney and wathen and a few online guys have gone too far

Well in the first place, I was blessed with a number of advantages that not everyone has. I was born in a family that was already Christian, I don't mean truly so but in the sense that they already had a high regard for sacred scripture and taught us likewise, I also always had a critical thinking brain that tended to question things when they didn't make sense. So I'm not sure you could analogize my situation to say the situation of a virtuous Mayan living in 200 AD. 

Well, we need to discuss protestants or ignorant indians, but not both.  They are not the same.  This thread is about protestants, and your situation is analogous to MANY of them, as my chapel is filled with protestant converts. 
.

Now sure, I'm not disputing that God could if he wanted send an angel to that person in order to convert them to the faith. But it didn't take anything like that to get me to become Catholic. I could perhaps argue that I got some signs in my own life but nothing that was so clear that I could not possibly have imagined it. Definitely no overt angelic miracles.

Right, i'm saying that most people convert like you did.  Slowly, step by step, following their inner conscience, following the Holy Ghost's inspirations and realizations that x or y doesn't make sense and that the Truth must be somewhere else.  Again, most everyone i've ever talked to that has converted to Catholicism does not do so because of a miracle.
.
I'm not talking about native indians or muslims living in anti-catholic nations.  These 2 types of peoples convert through miracles (i.e. St Juan Diego in Mexico in the 1500s and the many muslims in present times in the Middle East) because their situation is not politically or religiously calm, so God works wonders to save them (if they want to be saved).
.

Now if you want to believe that every single person who has perfect condition and goodwill will be given some type of angelic miracle or some other miraculous confirmation of the faith before they die I guess we're kind of swiveling over something small because obviously I believe that everyone who is in heaven has the true faith.

Sometimes God works miracles, most of the time He doesn't.  The point is, every single person who has ever lived will be given the graces necessary to be saved.  If they don't cooperate on the natural level (i.e. 10 commandments) then God does not cast pearls before swine and give them religious truths (which they obviously will reject, having rejected basic morality).  But those who are *trying* to follow morality (i.e. this is what it means to be "good willed"), then God will INFALLIBLY lead them to the Truths of the Faith.  Now...they may reject such Truths or they may resist the Church, but we cannot say that God did not give them the opportunity.
.

So if we're really just squabbling over whether every single person is consciously aware before they die or if some people become consciously aware right after they die I'm not sure how worthwhile that argument is. I don't see how it would make God less loving one way or the other, whether he sent an angel to tell them right before they died, or whether they died and appeared at the judgment seat and were like yeah this is Jesus this is what I always wanted and they know the truth at that point. What I think wouldn't be loving of course is for them to be abandoned to damnation if they would have or could have been saved.

No, it does not have to be that explicit of a decision.  Rejecting the Church comes in many forms and many degrees.  Most people don't even put in the effort to learn about the Catholic Faith truly teaches, even if they are prompted by their conscience to investigate, because their current "religion" makes no sense to them.  Thus, they are damned because of spiritual laziness. 
.
Much like a teenager who knows that x, y, or z is a sin but still do it.  It is sufficient to know that something is wrong, even if you don't understand why.  Understanding only comes after accepting God's rules first.  Faith comes before Wisdom.
.

I think for me it's less that I care about the specific conclusion as far as prots are concerned and more that I'm bothered by what it does to our church if you guys are right.

What do you mean?
.

Like I already have the baseline that the church is in crisis right now, and I'm siding with the traditionalist wing that is primarily defined by archbishop Lefebvre

Well, +Lefebvre was one of many, many priests who left new-rome after V2.  I don't want to minimize what he did but I also want to point out that he wasn't the only guy out there.  He was just unique in being a bishop.  Yet, we can't hold his opinions as infallible because not everyone agreed with him even when he was alive.
.

and those principles that he defended over and against the modernism that came about as a result of V2 at its aftermath. I feel like it takes an extra step of faith, and one I'm not persuaded is reasonable, to believe no no no actually the archbishop was also modernist and just didn't realize it he may have been a good will but ultimately he wasn't a trustworthy leader on these kinds of issues.

Nobody is perfect.  Fr Feeney was preaching against universal salvation back in the 40s, before he even knew who +Lefebvre was.  Fr Wathen, in his book "Who Shall Ascend" quotes over 10 pages, word-for-word, from a priest in the 1800s who lays out the hard truths and strict orthodoxy of the dogma of "no salvation outside of the catholic church".  The battle over this dogma has been raging since the 1700s (and really, for centuries before that).
.
When we say that +Lefebvre has "modernist views" on EENS, we are not discounting his orthodoxy in all other areas.  We are not labeling him a modernist (i.e. like the communists at V2), but only that he is infected with modernism.  We are all prone to error and we must pray for God's protection.  Again, +Lefebvre is not infallible.
.

I feel like once you get to that point it gets really hard to argue that the gates of hell have not prevailed over the church from a conceptual standpoint. I think it's more reasonable to just believe feeney and wathen and a few online guys have gone too far

As I've pointed out already, Fr Feeney and Fr Wathen weren't the only guys to say what they said.  They pointed to multiple, multiple writings of the saints, of infallible councils, of respected theologians.  BOD is one thing that is debatable.  +Lefebvre went further and started talking about invincible ignorance and such things that have no historical, traditional or scriptural basis.  It's a totally new concept.