In most traditional circles I know of Garrigou-Lagrange is a go to theologian in his interpretation of St Thomas and he is placed in opposition to the modernist theologians who succeeded him. (Perhaps my circles are not traditional enough....)

But I'm interested to know if any of you have read his life everlasting....

I was re-reading some of it this week, take a look at the following taken from the section "on the number of the elect"

"To conclude: some insist on the mercy of God, others on the justice of God. Neither one side nor the other gives us certitude. And the reasons of appropriateness which each invokes differ very much from the reasons of appropriateness invoked in favor of a dogma which is already certain by revelation, whereas here we are treating of a truth that is not certain. Theologians in general are inclined to fill out what Scripture and tradition tell us by distinguishing the means of salvation given to Catholics from those that are given men of good will beyond the borders of the Church. Restricting the question to Catholics, we find the doctrine, generally held especially since Suarez, that, if we consider merely adults, the number of the elect surpasses that of the reprobate. If adult Catholics do at one time or another sin mortally, nevertheless they can arise in the tribunal of penance, and there are relatively few who at the end of life do not repent, or even refuse to receive the sacraments. But if we are treating of all Christians, of all who have been baptized, Catholic, schismatic, Protestant, it is more probable, theologians generally say, that the great number is saved. First, the number of infants who die in the state of grace before reaching the age of reason is very great. Secondly, many Protestants, being today in good faith, can be reconciled to God by an act of contrition, particularly in danger of death. Thirdly, schismatics can receive a valid absolution. If the question is of the entire human race, the answer must remain uncertain, for the reasons given above. But even if, absolutely, the number of the elect is less great, the glory of God's government cannot suffer. Quality prevails over quantity. One elect soul is a spiritual universe; Further, no evil happens that is not permitted for a higher good. Further, among non- Christians (Jєωs, Mohammedans, pagans) there are souls which are elect. Jєωs and Mohammedans not only admit monotheism, but retain fragments of primitive revelation and of Mosaic revelation. They believe in a God who is a supernatural rewarder, and can thus, with the aid of grace, make an act of contrition. And even to pagans, who live in invincible, involuntary ignorance of the true religion, and who still attempt to observe the natural law, supernatural aids are offered, by means known to God. These, as Pius IX says, [679] can arrive at salvation. God never commands the impossible. To him who does what is in his power God does not refuse grace. [680] We cannot arrive at certitude in this question. It is better to acknowledge our ignorance than to discourage the faithful by a doctrine which is too rigid, to expose them to danger by a doctrine which is too superficial. The important thing is to observe the commandments of God. St. Augustine [681] said, and the Council of Trent repeats: [682] "God never commands the impossible. But He warns us to do what we can, and to ask of Him the grace to accomplish what we of ourselves cannot do, and He aids us to fulfill what He commands." Let us put our confidence in Jesus Christ, [683] "the victim of propitiation for our sins," [684] "the Lamb of God, . . . who taketh away the sin of the world." [685] "Let us go with confidence to the throne of grace that we may obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid." [686] "

the Pope Pius IX citation which is "Denz., no. 1677.  "Those who labor under invincible ignorance in regard to our most holy religion, and who observe conscientiously (this presupposes the help of grace) the natural law whose precepts are inscribed by God in their hearts and are ready to obey God, can lead an honorable and righteous life , by the operation of divine light and grace, and arrive at eternal life"

Has he essentially captured the tradition on this, or is he going too far? I need to read more to see how he squares this with EENS.

Perhaps my assessment of GL is incorrect and he is regarded as a modernist, I would like to know your views on him and his writing...

This is so horrific that I don't know where to start.

He is among those whom the Popes have condemned as reducing EENS to a meaningless formula, a tautology ... and it's all a direct precursor to Vatican II ecclesiology.

He rightly points to (I say, at) Suarez as a chief culprit.  Until about the year 1600 when those Jesuits began tampering with EENS, no Catholic anywhere believed that anyone outside the Church could be saved.

In most traditional circles I know of Garrigou-Lagrange is a go to theologian in his interpretation of St Thomas and he is placed in opposition to the modernist theologians who succeeded him. 

In the country of blind men, the one eyed man is a king.

Well, +Lefebvre too was a sworn enemy of Modernism.  But he, like Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, missed the fact that very subjectivism that was the driving force behind Modernism was likewise behind the emerging soteriology and, therefore, ecclesiology.

So do you reject this statement by Pius IX:

"Those who labor under invincible ignorance in regard to our most holy religion, and who observe conscientiously (this presupposes the help of grace) the natural law whose precepts are inscribed by God in their hearts and are ready to obey God, can lead an honorable and righteous life, by the operation of divine light and grace, and arrive at eternal life"

We've been through Pius IX a thousand times.  What I reject is your misinterpretation of Pius IX.  Your reading of his text would make him a Pelagian.

Notice how Wenceslas inserts his own editorial comment as well.

His translation also misplaces the phrase "by the operation of divine light and grace", which actually goes with being able to attain salvation.

St. Pius X quoting Benedict XVI in Acerbo Nimis:

And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: "We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect."

There's a certain core set of mysteries of faith which "must be known and believed in order to be" saved.  This has always been the teaching of the Church.

It says there that schismatics can receive valid absolution. Is this true? I believe I heard their sacraments are valid, so I suppose that applies to confession, but I'm not sure.

But I suppose it's an irrelevant question as they never confess and repudiate the mortal sin of schism.

Their sacraments, when things were good, were considered valid, but who knows these days?

If he is talking about final absolution when death is imminent, there is this from Trent: Session 14 Chapter 7 which applies to both the priest and the penitent.

"Nevertheless, for fear lest any may perish on this account, it has always been very piously observed in the said Church of God, that there be no reservation at the point of death, and that therefore all priests may absolve all penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins and censures whatever: and as, save at that point of death, priests have no power in reserved cases, let this alone be their endeavour, to persuade penitents to repair to superior and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution".