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.
bump for later
"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."
BCM: If this is indeed his position, then I would say it is a stricter interpretation than what the Church authoritatively holds, but is most likely not heretical.
As for the Saint you mentioned, he might have been from the East, and venerated by the Orthodox, but based on the link, he sure looks like he was united with the Church to me. They may claim him as well, but I think there are probably many such cases. The Church decides who was within her. Tell me if I am reading this wrongly.
http://www.catholicism.org/pages/MsgrDeery2.htm
This letter to the lead canonist for the diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts dated May 4, 1988, shows the wide ranging "interpretation" of the dogma that is allowed by Catholics in good standing. The letter from the canonist, after consultation with Cardinal Ratzinger, says the following:
“It would seem that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith holds the doctrine to have been defined and consequently definitive. It is its theological interpretation and speculation which they see as problematical.
“In our discussions with the Congregation it seemed rather clear that proponents of a strict interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as those who hold more liberal views.”