I respect and admire how this conversation started out, and I am not sure which way I am swayed because I believe you are arguing over something which you both agree, at least in substance.
Now, when we begin to get into the individual examples and "what if?" scenarios, then we are playing God and going beyond what the Church teaches. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is the defined dogma. We all agree with that.
Now that applies to the individual examples and situations of each person is subjective, and of course, only God knows how His justice and mercy will be administered.
Whatever it is that happens with each and every individual person and his/her salvation is not for us to know. So why speculate on the "exceptional" cases. GBCDOJ, you speculate that the baptized turned Protestant due to parents dying is "ignorant." It does not matter. He has to be invincibly ignorant. And just because someone is invincibly ignorant (if indeed there is anyone), does NOT mean he/she will be saved. It means he/she will be judged in other ways by God. But once again, the Church has NO DEFINED TEACHING for the individual examples or cases you bring up other than Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. God is all just and He is all merciful. Everyone must be Catholic (the ordinary way is through baptism) and die in a state of grace to be saved.
In all my readings on this, and they have been many, I believe that Pope Pius IX, in Singulari Quadem, summarizes the entirety of this teaching in a nutshell:
"For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God.
"Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, religions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains 'we shall see God as He is' (1 Jn. 3:2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' (Eph. 4:5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."
Notive the ending caution. "it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry" That means we must try to evangelize others, give good example and bring them into the fullness of the Faith, but that we are NOT to speculate on the individual salvation or circumstances of individual believers. It is also erroneous to talk about "salvtion outside the Church," when we know the dogma is "Outside the Church, there is no salvation."
Grace can occur outside the Church, sacramental and actual, but sanctifying grace does not. And it is only because of the Church and through the Church, that this grace occurs. Once again, we must distinguish between Catholic teaching and how it applies to individuals. None of us know authoritatively who is in hell, nor who is in heaven, aside from canonized saints. Have any saints who have been canonized known to be non-Catholics?
"It is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry." I take this caution to heart. Outside the Church, there is no salvation.
I don't think we do. Pascendi's position, as I understand it, is that no one who is not a member of the Church is saved, and that that is a defined dogma. Therefore all catechumens, etc. are damned if they are martyred or killed before baptism. According to him, it is "modernist" to say otherwise.
Now that applies to the individual examples and situations of each person is subjective, and of course, only God knows how His justice and mercy will be administered.
Of course.
I gave the example only to show that the supernatural charity, while unable to exist outside the Church, can be in those who are not members. But you are right that ignorance is a difficult case, even when strictly dealing with hypotheticals.
To give another example, if ecclesiastical authority cuts off a man by valid but unjust excommunication, he is removed from membership in the Church but retains the supernatural virtues and interior communion. Since pascendi's whole argument is based on the idea that it is impossible to be in the Church without being a member, these (strictly hypothetical) examples show the problem with it.
Have any saints who have been canonized known to be non-Catholics?
There are martyred catechumens in the Roman Martyrology, and some of the Eastern Orthodox saints like Gregory Palamas, as well.