Call me when another Herod kills 100's of unbaptized children of Catholics. It has not happened again in 2000 years. Your question is no different than what all the BODers ask, "what if a sanctified pagan dies by accident before he can be baptized" ?  My answer is, why are you killing him before God completes what He started? Why are you killing those modern day "Holy Innocents" before they are baptized?

The difference between you BODers and I,  is that you believe that a person is born and dies by chance in the time and place where he is, and that he learns the faith by his own volition. I believe that every person is placed in their time and place ( a pre-Columbian Indian in South America) by a just and merciful God, and that the faith is ONLY learned by God's Grace.  

What about Socrates?  Was he placed there by accident?  Yet, St Justin Martyr said he was saved, and used him as an example to refute the Romans strawmanning Christians as saying there was nobody who lived reasonably before Christ.

Honestly I'm more concerned with the philosophical principles here than the "practical" workthrough.  I don't mind if you want to believe that not a single native american was saved prior to Columbus crossing the ocean.  But to say it was literally impossible seems to reduce to philosophical nominalism unless you *also* reject St Justin's argument, at which point we're not having a "unanimous consensus of the Fathers" argument anymore.

Byzcat, St Padre Pio bilocated to hear the confession of a dying man, trapped in an avalanche.  Why was this needed if an act of contrition would suffice?
.
Columbus wasn’t the first person to sail to America, so the notion that God abandoned the poor, “saintly” natives is not only blasphemous but historically wrong.  Fact is, most American natives worshiped the devil, practiced human sacrifice and were constantly killing each other. They were not saintly but savages.  
.
Even then, God sent multiple saints (bi-location miracles) to preach the faith.  Leif Ericsson visited America in the 1000s with crosses etched into stones all over New England to prove it.
.
God does not need BOD to save people.  He can, and has, worked miracles to provide baptism.  BOD for non-catechumens is simply Protestant “faith alone” salvation, which Trent condemns.  It’s also “self baptism” and “personal church” heresy.  Gain heaven without need for the pope, or a priest or even water.  Music to the non-Catholic’s ears!

That its *categorically impossible* that someone meeting these criteria could exist in 35 AD, but its possible in 35 BC, doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I have no idea what you mean here.  You often provide no examples in your posts, (ie “that’s nominalism”).  You have a Protestant background, most of us don’t.  Your posts are often cryptic to me.  You use different language than im used to.  
.
Secondly, St Justin Martyr was 1 out of 20+ Church Fathers.  He’s not infallible.  You cant be a “St Justin Martyr Catholic”.  Doctrine = a consensus of the Church Fathers, not just one of them.  St Cyprian was excommunicated for his heresy on baptism until he recanted.  

I’m coming to the conclusion that most Traditional Catholics have more or less lost the faith.

I arrived at the same conclusion several years ago.

I'm saying "If X happens, then Y."  If that was true before Christ came, it should be true *after* Christ came also, given the same criteria.

Well, neither the Church Fathers nor St. Thomas et al. would agree with this.  They struggled with the question of how people were saved prior to the promulgation of the Gospel, with some attributing it to circuмcision, others to hope of the coming Messiah.

Well, neither the Church Fathers nor St. Thomas et al. would agree with this.  They struggled with the question of how people were saved prior to the promulgation of the Gospel, with some attributing it to circuмcision, others to hope of the coming Messiah.

st justin martyr said neither, which is my point.  and i get he’s not the consensus so you don’t have to agree with him, but my point has always been this undermines your whole unanimous consensus 
both of the theories you cite above would be more conducive to a absolutist non BOD position  but then justin has to wrong

but my point has always been this undermines your whole unanimous consensus

Unanimous consent of the Fathers only relates to 1) Complex Scriptural passages which cannot be read literally, and which unanimous agreement proves that the Apostles taught the Church Fathers all the same thing, which proves that this teaching came from Christ.
.
2) Tradition - that is, non-scriptural teachings are proven to be from the Apostles, from Christ.
.
.
St Justin Martyr's musings on how salvation worked in the Old Law does not prove BOD.  The unanimous consensus against BOD is a separate issue because, again, the Old Law was different than the New.
.
Based on your earlier complaint that God is unfair for the Old Law being different than the New, I would argue that the Old Law is more lenient, more open and more merciful than the New (from a human perspective).  In reality, both Old and New are the same merciful rules, because God is all-mercy and unchanging.
.
The old law is different because Israel's purpose was not to spread out and preach to all nations (as is the Church's purpose).  Israel's purpose was to be a "candle in the darkness" in the midst of a pagan world.  Her message was to spread the coming Redeemer/messiah and for people to convert to the natural law and belief in Christ.  Thus, it's possible that Socrates could be saved if he believed in the Messiah (I'll grant this for argument's sake).  
.
But...when the Church came through Christ, which was a fulfillment and perfection of the Old Law, thus the New Law was perfect and the requirements for salvation were more strict.  With the culmination/maturation of the Roman Govt, God made sure that (humanly speaking) the Church/Apostles could spread the Church fairly and practically, even though God also worked multiple, quadrillion upon quadrillion of miracles in the first 5 centuries so that people would know that the Church as true.
.
The Old Law spread by word-of-mouth, but could be fulfilled by the 10 commandments and faith.  It was easy to hear the truth and easy to keep it.  The Old Law's salvation rules were based on belief because that is how God revealed Himself to people of the time.  
.
The New Law spread by word-of-mouth but in addition to the 10 commandments and faith, the additional requirement was VISIBLE acceptance and VISIBLE membership in a VISIBLE church, because God was no longer loved by faith alone, for He had come to earth VISIBLY, and thus, to love Him required VISIBLE union with His Church (i.e. baptism) and VISIBLE union with Him (i.e. Holy Communion).  So Christ sent out VISIBLE Apostles to spread the Faith, who worked VISIBLE miracles and used VISIBLE sacraments.
.
The Old Law requirements for salvation were less stringent because knowledge of God was less.  The New Law is a perfect union of God with man, so more is required for us to be united to His Church.  There is no contradiction here.  God deals with all men equitably, based on the requirements He lays down.  He is an all-loving King; He is the most wise ruler, He is an all-just Judge.

Based on your earlier complaint that God is unfair for the Old Law being different than the New, I would argue that the Old Law is more lenient ...

Right.  We have many cases of this.  Our Lord spoke about how God tolerate things (like divorce) due to the hardness of people's hearts and not because it was His plan or desire.  He gets rid of that concession.  Then he strengthened the law ("do not kill" -> any malice against others, even just calling them fools).  Of course, he did get rid of the ritual handwashing and other such physical observances.