SO, Here, after long and diligent searching, I have found the complete theological vindication of the strict interpretation of Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salvus, not at the hands of an modern theologian, but Francisco Vitoria, a 16th Century Dominican who wrote SPECIFICALLY on the case of natives in invincible ignorance, particularly the American Indians. His writing is extremely important, because he cites other theologians and admits certain views are opposed to a great number of theologians who hold opposite views.

http://www.constitution.org/victoria/victoria_4.htm

Reflections on the Indians lately discovered.

In this work, he takes up and examines two positions in regard to invincible ignorance, both of which arrive at the same conclusion, but differ as to whether ignorance in relation to divine matters is always sinful, or a punishment for sin.

An excerpt:



However, interestingly, he goes on to say:



So he admits many theologians before him did NOT admit anyone was in invincible ignorance regarding that which was needed for belief unto salvation. Nevertheless, he takes up the opinion of St. Thomas, and admits that in regard to the faith, they are in invincible ignorance:



BUT he comes to the same judgment as Hugh of St. Victor, that all who do not believe and are baptized are condemned for other mortal sins BESIDES the unbelief of which they are invincibly ignorant:



Therefore, in accordance with the teaching of Catholic theologians who lived at the same time as the council of Trent, it is permissible and allowable to assert one of two opinions, either:

A. All those who are in ignorance of the gospel are not excused from their obligation to hear and to know it, and if they die in the sin of unbelief, it is due to their own negligence and refusal to pursue baptism. Such was the opinion of the great theologian Hugh of St. Victor as well as many other theologians.

B. All those who are in invincible ignorance of the gospel do not sin in their unbelief, but their unbelief is a punishment for their OTHER mortal sins, for which they will be damned. Their lack of confessing Christ and their lack of baptism are punishments for unrepentant mortal sin and a failure to correspond to actual graces.

I take the second because it is more in accord with St. Thomas Aquinas and the later teaching of Popes.

The conclusion of both is the same- Even a person who is invincibly ignorant of the truth, should they die without the gospel and baptism are damned on account of their mortal sins.

Therefore, if any are saved they will infallibly embrace the faith and infallibly enter the Church. So many examples of such things happening could be given, but here is just one:

 

He who has ears to hear!

Another denier of the dogma of infallibility of the Church! I think that's the 4th person now. Amazing how the Feeneyites are slowly coming out of the woodwork and revealing their true colors now.

I'm even more amazed that you people seem to have never heard of this dogma! Do you guys have books at home on the Catholic faith, or you do you just have comic books? This dogma is mentioned everywhere! Look at the CE article on Infallibility alone - there is an entire section called, "Proof of the Church' s Infallibility".

For you others who have blatantly denied this dogma, here are a few more quotes for you:


First Vatican Council:
"...for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell."


Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Creed Ninth Article:
33 Q: Can the Church err in what she proposes for our belief?
A: No, the Church cannot err in what she proposes for our belief, since according to the promise of Jesus Christ she is unfailingly assisted by the Holy Ghost.

34 Q: Is the Catholic Church infallible, then?
A: Yes, the Catholic Church is infallible, and hence those who reject her definitions lose the faith and become heretics.

Somebody is mistaking heresy in people's idea of Church teaching and the Church being in error.  The Church cannot err and She teaches Baptism and the Church are necessary. Saints can make mistakes.  The Church cannot.  

Let's ask Bosco or Humpty Dumpty (with their parodic views on infallibility) why the Church did not condemn the works of Francisco Vitoria at the time. One may think She would have done so if his works were in error, but She did not.

Does that mean that Vitoria was right?

Ah, but are we not bound by the unanimous consent of theologians? That is the arena in which BoD and BoB is taught.
So are YOU now opposing the Papal Magisterium to theologians? Are the theologians perhaps not so unanimous you assume?
Or are you simply not reading the Papal Magisterium in an internally coherent fashion?
And here's the bottom line- if you die ignorant, you go to Hell, because your ignorance is a punishment for unrepentant mortal sins.
That's the whole point.

Perfect contrition cannot be had apart from faith.

Ah, but are we not bound by the unanimous consent of theologians? That is the arena in which BoD and BoB is taught.
So are YOU now opposing the Papal Magisterium to theologians? Are the theologians perhaps not so unanimous you assume?
Or are you simply not reading the Papal Magisterium in an internally coherent fashion?
And here's the bottom line- if you die ignorant, you go to Hell, because your ignorance is a punishment for unrepentant mortal sins.
That's the whole point.

Perfect contrition cannot be had apart from faith.

The Creed, Ninth Article, The Church in Particular: 29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.

Stop and look at what you are suggesting here. You are saying that anyone can write an opinion on a doctrine of the Church, and if he or someone else calls him a theologian, his "vote" counts against the unanimous consent of theologians! That's not how it works. Guardian Angels have never been solemnly defined, but they are taught by unanimous consent. According to you then, a self proclaimed "theologian" can come along and print a booklet saying Guardian Angels don't exist, and then the Church will have to proclaim, "What a shame, unanimous consent has been broken for Guardian Angels, so the faithful no longer need to believe in them". Give us a break Greg!
 
What you are doing is pulling quotes from an obscure book from centuries ago, interpreting it as you see fit, and coming to a conclusion which is false. No one is challenging that perfect contrition cannot be had apart from faith. Popes have spoken on this. People who are invincibly ignorant can have faith and perfect contrition, as we see in the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X:
 

 
Stop playing games and submit to what the Popes teach!
 

Ok, I will. Please list the theologians or popes that teach those who die in ignorance without the virtue of faith can be saved.