CathInfo.com

De Lugo:

The same must be said about the Jews, if there are any who are invincibly mistaken about the Christian religion; for they can still have a true supernatural faith in God, and about other articles, based on Sacred Scripture, which they accept, and so, with this faith, they can have contrition, 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.

This was explicitly rejected by the Holy Office (cited above), which stated that explicit faith in Christ is in fact "necessary by necessity of means".

Someone who holds to the Augustinian position would have to hold she was also secretly baptized somehow. Thus, the Augustinian and Thomistic views are practically identical, since, as we know, and as the Holy Office indicated, someone can be baptized if he believes explicitly in Christ i.e. in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, in an emergency. Both the Augustinian and Thomistic views are very close.

I disagree that any adult will remain in a limbo-like state forever, but I agree with the salvation-justification differentiation.

No, someone who holds the Augustinian position would NOT "have to hold that she was also secretly baptized somehow."  Xavier, we don't do theology based on anecdotal stories.  You hold stuff like this to be theological proof for some of your positions.  In fact, we do it the other way around.  In holding the Augustinian position, we hold that if she was not Baptized, then that is evidence that she did not enter heaven and have the Beatific Vision for all eternity.

St. Ambrose clearly taught that there can be no "crowning" (aka entering the Kingdom, the Beatific Vision) even for martyred catechumens without the Sacrament.  St. Simplicius taught that "each and every one" of those desiring Baptism would lose "the Kingdom" without actually receiving the Sacrament.  Why is it that you persist in holding the Sacrament of Baptism to be, essentially, superfluous, as the Council of Trent declared?  That is essentially what you're saying here.  You're effectively promoting salvation by faith alone.  What is the role of Sacrament of Baptism in this story?  HOW did the Sacrament play ANY ROLE WHATSOEVER here?  You don't even make a token mention of it vis-a-vis the alleged salvation of this woman.

Assuming this story of the converted Jew were true, then she may have experienced a certain degree of justification, which would alter her eternal fate, but she could not arrive at the Beatific Vision had she not received the Sacrament of Baptism.  Now, COULD God have sent an angel to baptize her?  That same angel St. Thomas holds could come to instruct her in the faith could also just as easily baptize her.  This "story" doesn't prove anything theologically.