CathInfo.com

And I didn't say it was. I just meant that I wonder if it still has some expiatory value for the person who dies for someone else because of that text.

I for one believe that natural virtue can in fact offset some of the temporal (sensible) punishment in hell for those who practice it.  People forget that hell is not a single monolithic place, but admits of varying degrees (this is even taught in one of the dogmatic definitions of EENS).  There are probably (IMO) some people who are in hell, strictly speaking, who approach the natural happiness of a limbo due to their practice of natural virtue, who suffer very little, and may in fact be enjoying the equivalent of the "happy hunting ground".  God is perfectly just and rewards/punishes each accordingly.  One of the greatest pushbacks against the Church dogma of EENS comes from this misconception regarding the nature of hell.  Now, if such a one existed who practiced natural virtue nearly flawlessly, why wouldn't God give them the grace of entering the Church?  Well, #1 it's a grace, and #2 perhaps God knows that if made this offer the person would reject it and in fact end up with a significantly worse eternal fate.  We know also, then, that God is perfectly merciful.  We do not find in hell a virtuous Jєωιѕн grandmother who gave her life to save her children standing right next to Joe Staling and burning in the same intensity of flame.  Yet, regardless of how great natural virtue is, it cannot ever merit sanctifying grace and the beatific vision.  No person can merit such a thing, and the privilege belongs only to God and those with whom He wills to share it.  In fact, our natures is INCAPABLE of supporting such a vision, since it is beyond the capabilities of our nature, and that is why the souls in limbo suffer not at all, since they can't even begin to understand what is is they are missing, and the lack of this supernatural vision is not in any way a defect of their nature, nor does it compromise their natural happiness.

Does any serious theologian (I realize Poche is not a theologian) say that people can be saved outside the Church?  or would they just speculate that there are lots and lots of people who are inside the church despite not being visible members?

Because in the latter case, while I see too much speculation as likely dangerous, that's different than saying its heretical.  But saying someone can be saved outside the Church would be literally heretical.

Am I missing something?

ByzCat,
What I quoted above is from Unitatis Redintegratio

"though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church...  "some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too... "it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained."

Yes, "serious" theologians actually believe this. It's in official Church docuмents. This docuмent states that God is using heretical and schismatic congregations as means of salvation. Also, stating these assemblies experience a life of grace.

We know with absolute certitude that in order to be saved you must:
1) Profess the Catholic Faith whole and entire
2) Die inside the Church
3) Die in a state of grace

Any other speculation is just that, speculation.