I am looking for as many Saints, Catechisms and whatever can be found that teaches explicitly or implicitly someone can be saved without faith in Jesus Christ.

I am well aware of Singulari Quadam, Singulari Quidem and Quanto Conficiamur and have concluded that they are not teaching people can be saved in ignorance of the true faith.

One of the reasons why is because such a teaching cannot just appear out of nowhere in the 19th century.

The other reason is because it seems to me the meaning of the texts is simply that those who honestly seek God will find Him in this life and the other meaning would contradict defined dogma.

I attached a book listing Sources for BoB and BoD because of which I still believe in both, however, until I see at least some Saints, theologians and Catechisms teaching invincible ignorance I cannot even consider it.

In the entire book there is only one quote from Theologia Moralis (a hard read) and the Cushing decree (which is basically worthless).

Theologia Moralis, Lib.III, Cap 1, Q. 2:

2. Is it required by a necessity of means or of precept to believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation after the promulgation of the gospel?

The first opinion and more common and held as more probable teaches belief is by necessity of means; Sanch. in Dec. lib. 2. c. 2. n. 8. Valent. 2. 2. d. 1. qu. 2. p. 4. Molina 1. part. qu. 1. a. 1 d. 2. Cont. Tourn. de praeceptis Decal. cap. 1. art. 1. §. 2. concl. 1. Juven. t. 6. diss. 4. a. 3. Antoine de virt. theol. cap. 1. qu. 2. Wigandt tr. 7. ex. 2. de fide n. 22. Concina t. 1. diss. 1. de fide cap. 8. n. 7. cuм Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc. Also Salm. tr. 21. c. 2. punct. 2. n. 15. Cuniliat. tr. 4. de 1. Dec. praec. c. 1. §. 2. et Ronc. tr. 6. c. 2. But the last three say that in rare cases it may happen that one can be justified by implicit faith only...

But the second opinion that is also sufficiently probable says by necessity of precept all must explicitly believe in the mysteries. However, for necessity of means it is sufficient to implicitly believe in the mysteries.
So Dominicus Soto (in 4. sentent. t. 1. d. 5. qu. un. art. 2. concl. 2.) where he says: Even though the precept of explicit faith (in the Trinity and Incarnation) absolutely obliges the whole world, yet there also are many who are invincibly ignorant [of the mysteries] from which the obligation excuses.
Franciscus Sylvius (t. 3. in 2. 2. qu. 2. art. 7. and 8. concl. 6.) writes: After the promulgation of the gospel explicit faith in the Incarnation is necessary for all for salvation by a necessity of precept, and also (that it is probable) a necessity of means…
Card. Gotti (Theol. t. 2. tr. 9. qu. 2. d. 4. §. 1. n. 2.) says: In my judgment the opinion which denies that explicit faith in Christ and in the Trinity is so necessary that no one can be justified without it is very probable. And he adds that Scotus holds this opinion…
Elbel. (t. 1. conferent. 1. n. 17.) writes today that this opinion is held by notables. DD. Castropal. part. 2. tr. 4. d. 1. p. 9. Viva in Prop. 64 damn. ab Innocent. XI. n. 10, Sporer. tr. 11. cap. 11. sect. 11. §. 4. n. 9. Laym. lib. 2. tr. 1. cap. 8. n. 5. who teach this is not less probable than the first, with Richard. Medin. Vega, Sa, and Turriano. Card. de Lugo, de fide d. 12. n. 91. calls the first speculatively probable, but defends this second view at length and in absolute terms as more probable, with Javell, Zumel, and Suarez d. 12. sect. 4. n. 10. the writings of Lugo likewise seem to be the opinion of St. Thomas 3. part. qu. 69. a. 4. ad 2. where the Doctor says: Before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit.

Wherefore, argues Lugo, just as Cornelius freely obtained grace by implicit faith, so even one can obtain the same in a place where the gospel is not perfectly promulgated. He will be able in such a place to obtain the same who is invincibly ignorant of the mysteries in a place where the gospel has not been sufficiently promulgated. They say it is repugnant to the divine goodness and providence to damn invincibly ignorant adults who live uprightly in accordance with the light of nature whereas Acts 10:35 says, “But in every nation he that feareth him and worketh justice is acceptable to him.” They respond that even though all the Scriptures and Holy Fathers’ testimonies oppose this opinion, their opinion is more easily explained by necessity of precept, or because ordinarily almost none are saved without explicit faith in the mysteries, because after the promulgation of the gospel almost no one labors out of invincible ignorance. Or that, says Lugo, they can be explained by implicit faith or explained by desire…

In the end, the quote actually supports the view that men cannot be saved without faith in Jesus Christ and it most certainly states such a view is allowed.

In summary: I have yet to come across a single authority teaching salvation in ignorance and can't see why anyone would believe in this.

Therefore I would like to see some other quotes provided if they exist.

There should be no quotes or evidence to support it due to the danger it could cause to people's salvation by causing religious indifferentism.

There should be no quotes or evidence to support it due to the danger it could cause to people's salvation by causing religious indifferentism.

Yes, I've said this before.  At the very least, such theological speculation can do a lot of harm, and no good.  Sometimes these theologians, St. Alphonsus included, just like to think out loud, considering their work merely an academic exercise, with theologians as their audience.  In books written for the faithful, St. Alphonsus repeatedly stated without qualification that those born among the infidels were ALL lost.

If I were pope, even if short of condemning BoD, at least initially until a study could be conducted, I would ban under pain of mortal sin any speculation regarding the possible salvation of people who are not essentially card-carrying Catholics.

Question for believers in salvation without belief in Christ:

I assume you acknowledge unbaptized infants go to Hell (limbo). At what point does an infant mature enough to have an "implicit baptism of desire".

If someone is a "vegetable", intellectually akin to an infant, is he capable of an "implicit baptism of desire"?
If yes, why not an infant?

If no, how is a mental barrier to receiving baptism any more just than a physical barrier?

It seems that salvation in ignorance doesn't even ameliorate the supposed problem it is trying to solve.

Everyone has to admit that ignorance cannot be salvific, but merely exculpatory.  To hold that exculpation can be salvific in and of itself is actually the very definition of the Pelagian heresy.

So the only thing invincible ignorance means is that there's no obstacle placed in the way of God's grace by way of a culpable ignorance.

This is all that Pius IX was teaching in those much-abused passages.  To say otherwise would be to make him a Pelagian heretic.

So, once we rule out Pelagianism, the conversation turns to what is the minimum amount of explicit faith required for supernatural faith and therefore for salvation.  In those without the use of reason (infants and others like them), the Sacrament of Baptism can infuse the supernatural virtue of faith without any explicit act of the intellect.

For all others, some explicit act of the intellect is required to make a supernatural act of faith.  Dispute is whether one must believe explicitly at least in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation (with the rest being able to be implicit) or else it suffices to believe in a God Who rewards the good and punishes the wicked.

Former has all of Catholic authority behind it.  It was believed unanimously by the Church Fathers, expressed in the Athanasian Creed, and taught / believed by all for the first 1500 years of Church history.  Around that time a Franciscan and some Jesuits came up with "Rewarder God" theory ... reacting (emotionally) to the discovery of the New World, with people wondering how God would allow all those to be lost.  St. Francis Xavier and St. Isaac Jogues answer that for them (as per above).

At some point, the Holy Office rejected a request to baptize those who believed only in a Rewader God, and insisted that they must believe at least those "mysteries of faith that are necessary by necessity of means for salvation".  Vatican I taught that supernatural faith requires knowledge of mysteries that can ONLY be known through Revelation (that rules out belief in a Rewarder God sufficing, since as Vatican I also taught, those can be known with certainty by reason).  St. Pius X also taught about how certain types of ignorance (ignorance of the explicit mysteries) are required for salvation ... so that explicitly guts the Pelagian interpretation of Pius IX.

There's no support anywhere in the Magisterium for Rewarder God theory, and it's been explicitly rejected by the Holy Office and implicitly by Vatican I.

Instead of finding saints supporting salvation without faith in Christ I found the opposite:
Here again we see St. Francis Xavier eliminating any idea of salvation for “the invincibly ignorant,” excluding from salvation even those ignorant souls whom he thought would embrace the Faith if they were taught it!

You pretty much said it all in the OP when you said: "...those who honestly seek God will find Him in this life."

Invincible ignorance will not be used as an excuse among people who have the capacity to reason. Our Lord said in Mat 16:9 that not believing in Him, in His Church, is a sin. No disclaimers, no exemptions of any sort, He said it's a sin. To die in that sin will put one in hell. In Mat 7:23 He said He will say: "I never knew you, depart from me you that work iniquity."

He says those who choose to remain ignorant are iniquitous, not virtuous.


  

I found this book to be MOST edifying:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040211163059/catholicism.org/TTAS/contents.htm