CathInfo.com

Father Sullivan on Cano:

However, Cano could not bring himself to depart from the traditional doctrine about the necessity of explicit faith in Christ for ultimate salvation. His solution was to distinguish between what would suffice for justification (the remission of original sin) and what would suffice for eternal salvation. Thus, a person could reach the state of grace without explicit faith in Christ, but, somehow, before his death, he would have to arrive at explicit Christian faith in order to be worthy to share the beatific vision.

Fr. Sullivan's reading into it there where he adds that "a person could reach the state of grace".  His first characterization of Cano was correct, that justification means a "remission of original sin", but that does not inherently translate into "state of [supernatural] grace" as Fr. Sullivan reads into it there.  I read Cano's original Latin (as well as deLugo) when XavierSem first posted the references.

Looks like Soto (whom I did not read) held a similar opinion originally but then later changed his mind.

DeLugo does claim that they can be both justified AND saved, but nevertheless implicit in his thinking is the same distinction between justification and salvation that's made by Cano, between justification and salvation

This distinction between a justification that did not quite suffice for salvation is the precursor to Father Feeney's position, and I have to imagine that Father Feeney studied them (especially de Lugo, as they were both Jesuits).

Unfortunately, for some reason St. Alphonsus was a big fan of deLugo and while he himself did not hold the position, stated that deLugo's position was merely "less probable".

Apparently St. Alphonsus was unaware of the Holy Office decree that rejected the implicit faith Rewarder God theory for salvation.

DeLugo:

by which they can be justified and saved, provided that explicit faith in Christ is not required with a necessity of means, as will be explained later on.

It would be interesting to find the passage to which he refers "as will be explained later on".

Unfortunately for deLugo, the Holy Office later declared that explicit faith in Christ is in fact necessary by necessity of means for salvation.

So let's say the Church had ruled in his lifetime that it was required by necessity of means.  Would he have said that these were neither justified nor saved, or would he have fallen back to the Cano position where they could be justified but not saved?  I should think the latter.

But in all these authors, the distinction between justification and salvation are clearly there, even if deLugo believes these infidels can be even saved without explicit faith.

And yes, if one dies the state of justification it follows that they received the grace of final perseverance.