So they say St. Thomas Aquinas mentions the man in the forest who will be saved in invincible ignorance and then infer that he said or suggested that the man in the forest is personally known.The saint was referring to a hypothetical case. He did not say that he personally knew of someone saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water. He does not say it but the Dominican theologians will infer that he said this. Then they will conclude that being saved in invincible ignorance refers to known cases ( for this to be an exception to EENS).Since there are these are known cases, there is salvation outside the Church. But we do not know of any such case and neither did the saint claim we personally knew of any such exception.
After the Baltimore Catechism (1891) was issued theologians began to re interpret St. Thomas Aquinas.This Catechism placed being saved with the baptism of desire and blood in the section on the Baptism of water and its effects. They were wrongly implying that being saved with the baptism of desire and blood, without the baptism of water, was possible and it was known in particular cases. Since it was known in particular cases, the effects would be the same as the baptism of water.
We now know that no one has seen a case of the baptism of desire or blood (without the baptism of water) and neither can the baptism of desire or blood be administered like the baptism of water. So in this sense they are not the same. Nor do we know any case of the results of the baptism of desire being the same as the baptism of water in Heaven. So this was all speculation.
However since the Baltimore Catechism inferred that these hypothetical cases were explicit, theologians began interpreting St. Thomas Aquinas' man in the forest in ignorance, as also being explicit and personally known. Then they would conclude that St.Thomas Aquinas said there were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the man in the forest was an exception.
But the text of St. Thomas Aquinas does not state this.He only mentions a hypothetical case and concludes that God would send a preacher to the man in the forest.So he too would receive the baptism of water before he dies.
This irrationality, which I call Cushingism, is the theology at Norcia where they offer the Traditional Latin Mass.About a year back I wrote to Prior about this.He never replied.Fr.Cassian Folsom OSB is the Prior at the Monastery in Norcia.
Norcia is associated with the Aquinas Institute Magnus Center for Scholastic Studies and the Monastery of St. Benedict in Norcia, Italy who are using the liberal, irrational interpretation of St. Thomas Aquinas and so do not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as he did. They also interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism, so the Council is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis of Assisi , St.Dominic, St.Catherine of Siene...