CathInfo.com

Given in that context, I suppose this is where I would place my position along with the Dimonds on justification. As the justification of the OT Patriarchs is wholly different than the justification Fr. Feeney proposes for the unbaptized after the Resurrection, as those under the Old Covenant were still able to attain justification by the merits of the OT sacrifices and rites which were made in the hope of the Redemption to come. So their sin offerings were accepted only insofar as they were united with Christ in the Redemptive Sacrifice of the Cross at the close of the Old Covenant.

This is not possible for the unbaptized because after the establishment of the Church and Sacraments, post-Resurrection, the only means of justification would be by those same Sacraments. They are the only way to be justified, as there is no other way that the unbaptized can receive the remission of actual sins without the laver of regeneration. And we all know that without God's grace, it is impossible for adults to be free from actual sin, so even if they died with a single sin on their soul they would still merit hellfire. Unlike unbaptized infants who cannot commit actual sin, and therefore lose the Beatific Vision, but do not merit hellfire.

So to say they would go to a Limbo not unlike that of the infants, is extremely unlikely.

Again, if one dies justified, one is saved....

I asked him repeatedly, repeatedly, if I was correct in believing that he held the view that it was impossible to be saved without the sacrament of baptism, and he never denied that.

Again, if one dies justified, one is saved. You can make as many distinctions between justification and salvation as you want - obviously, you're not saved until you go to heaven, for example - but if you die in a state of justification, you will be saved.