I apologize for some editing and formatting mistakes in my earlier post. It didn't end up like I wanted.

Dear Jehanne, if you want to speak of St. Thomas, please explain this passage which Fr. Garrigou Lagrange cites and John of St. Thomas treated most excellently.

Quote

A difficult problem: On the justification of a pagan child who, when he arrives at the full use of reason, does what lies in his power, with the help of actual grace, to love God above all things.

St. Thomas writes, Ia IIae, q. 89, a. 6: “When a child begins to have the use of reason, he should order his acts toward a proper end, to the extent that he is capable of discretion at that age.” And again in the answer to the third objection: “The end is first in the intention. Hence this is the time when the child is obliged by the affirmative command: ‘Turn ye to Me. . . .’ But if the child does this, he obtains the remission of original sin.” It is an excellent form of baptism of desire. St. Thomas and Thomists reconcile this doctrine with the legitimate interpretation of the axiom: “To one who does what in him lies (with the help of actual grace), God does not deny habitual grace,” and in the present case God does not deny what is necessary for justification, that is, the supernatural presentation of the truths of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, at least that God “is, and is a rewarder” in the order of grace.

However, since this thesis is extremely difficult and very complex, demanding the refutation of numerous objections, it will be well to offer here a recapitulation of its proof while at the same time solving the principal difficulties. (Cf. especially on this subject John of St.  Thomas, De praedestinatione, disp. 10, a. 3, nos. 40-41, and the thesis of Father Paul Angelo, O.P., La possibilità di salute nel primo atto morale per il fanciullo infedele, Rome, the Angelicuм, 1946.)

Why do you not see you that some of you are rushing in recklessly where Angels and Saints quite literally have feared to tread. The matter is far more complicated than you think. The ways of divine Providence are infinite and the greatest minds of the Church after the deepest reflection and greatest study have held different opinions and clearly told us both opinions are allowed.

I frankly deny the opinion of Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay, or Pope Francis for that matter or any of the others on this point are heterodox in the least. They have been held since antiquity by many competent men, masters of sacred doctrine and the spiritual life.

The obvious incident in Scripture is that of Cornelius and the Prince of the Apostles in Acts 10. Read the chapter. The Angel tells St. Peter that Cornelius was a just man when yet he did not know Christ. How can this be? Some say He was justified in the foreknowledge of God. Others with a purely natural justice. But both explanations are unsatisfactory and contrary to the plain sense. But a later statement is even more difficult to explain, St. Peter says in truth God shows no partiality but in every nation those who fear God and work justice are acceptable to Him. This is even more difficult to explain obviously since to work justice seems to imply a habitual state of sanctifying grace.

Finally, St. Peter after preaching of the Trinity and Incarnation says Cornelius has received the Holy Ghost just as the baptized disciples have. St. Augustine, St. Thomas and many others say Cornelius was baptized by desire and a great many authorities see implicit faith taught here.

Hence for example Scotus says that opinion which denies that explicit faith in Christ is so necessary that no one attains justification without it is quite improbable.

The precise question is - Is faith in God with a merely implicit faith in Christ itself sufficient for justification in some cases, or is it only a disposition to justification? Both opinions are eminently defensible, I have my own, but neither is heretical at all and those who claim it is themselves run the real risk of a true schism, which I pray and hope they avert.

This what I've repeated is traditional theology, nothing added, nothing subtracted. You will read of it in the greatest manualists and theologians. We didn't make it up, we received it and handed it on. Those who have learned it well can say with Archbishop Lefebvre, I have passed on what I received. St. Basil says those who have learned theology well will not let fall the slightest point of their instruction without standing up for it. Pope Pius IX reminds all of us and informed Catholics in particular of our duty to hold to the common and constant consensus of theological teaching.

It is a point I have been trying to make for a very long time.  Water Baptism is not necessary by intrinsic necessity unless you are aware of its necessity by Divine Institution.  If you are aware of its necessity and refuse to get baptized you will be damned.  But God can cleanse the soul on His own quite handily without the use of water.  That is the object fact of the matter.  Why people are sooo insistent on rejecting this undeniable fact is beyond me.  

Sorry, Jehanne, you are mistaken. I think sedevacantism has hardened you, since what you used to say on this matter was something else, which I thought was better, even when I disagreed.

For sin to be mortal, one must be culpable for it, otherwise there is no internal effect, whether that be loss of sanctifying grace or supernatural faith. This is true for all mortal sin, and for the mortal sin of heresy and schism in particular.

But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics. Were it not that I believe you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you.

St. Thomas discourses in the same sense.

Quote from: Pelele

Maybe someone can post it.

http://www.romancatholicism.org/therese.htm

All that such "proves" is that there are canonized Saints who contradict each other

Nor do ANY of those quotes suggest that St. Therese believes people outside the Church can be saved.  When she speaks of the "lesser saints", she's referring to the degrees of saints WITHIN what she calls the "Garden of the Lord" while those outside the Church in natural goodness but invincible ignorance she calls homely wildflowers.  At no point does she say or even imply that they're saved.