Hey, I would like some help knowing what to think about this.  Apparently H.H. Pius IX wrote the following very troubling statement in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863):

Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

This seems to say to me, first, that people who are ignorant of our religion can still "attain eternal life" just by following their conscience.  And second, that people who do not commit "deliberate sin" -- for instance, babies -- cannot possibly "suffer eternal punishments."  The first part sounds like the post-V2 heresy of saying non-Catholics can be saved just by being nice and adhering to the precepts of their own religions.  The "efficacious virtue of divine light and grace" somehow substitutes for baptism and confession?  The second part is especially troubling because it sounds like Pius IX is stating UNIVERSAL SALVATION for all babies, baptized or not, just because God is kind and friendly (no more wrathful God)?  The Sacred Council of Florence said, "But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains."  But Pius IX is saying that unless you commit deliberate sin God would not permit you to be punished at all.  I cannot work out how this is anything other than a direct, complete contradiction of Sacred Tradition.

So is this quote real?  It appears in reliable-looking places like papalencyclicals.net (where I quoted from), but does anyone know if it's, hopefully, just a mistranslation of the authoritative Latin or something?  And if not, was Pius IX teaching these modern heresies from the Chair of Peter in 1863?  Could this explain why John Paul II was so quick to beatify him in 2000?

That is, they can be saved, by Baptism of Desire.

Right, I believe in baptism of desire.  But it is for people who desire to join the Catholic Church, not just anybody who's invincibly ignorant of it, like Precolumbian Incas (who of course could have had no knowledge of the Church at all).  Are you saying that you think that just "observing the natural law and its precepts" and "living an honest life" is enough to gain baptism of desire, even if you have no desire to be baptized at all since you've never heard of the Church in the first place?

Those who are not guilty of deliberate sin are not subjected to eternal torments.  

I am not talking about "torments," but about punishments, since that is the word used in both the Pius IX quote and by the Council of Florence.  Pius IX says that God does "not permit anyone at all ... to suffer eternal punishments" unless they had committed deliberate sins.  Florence, on the other hand, says that souls dying even in nothing more than "original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished" (presumably eternally).  With "unequal pains," yes, but still being punished.  So Pius IX says no punishment; Florence says punishment.

Surely you see the contradiction?

Not just ignorant, but "invincibly" ignorant, meaning it is no fault of their own even indirectly for being ignorant.

Yes, "can" attain eternal life. Not "will", nor necessarily "be likely to". It is just a possibility without any real knowledge of probability in any particular case. It is the Lord's domain of mercy, and His business alone.

Beyond that, much has been written here on Cathinfo about baptism of (the) desire and the Feeneyite doctrinal errors. Click on the link at the bottom of any of my messages and search for a keyword to see some writings more particularly about the subject.

I am definitely no Feeneyite; as I said above, I fully believe in Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire.

But let's look at it this way.  Nobody could be more invincibly ignorant than an unborn child (fetus), since, after all, they are not capable of any cognition and are enclosed in a womb.  But as Traditional Catholics we believe that unbaptized babies who die or are aborted go to Hell, or at least to Limbo, understood as a part of Hell where there are no outright torments, but not a "third place" between Heaven and Hell.  And since there can be no basis for distinguishing between the merits, faults, and worthiness of one fetus versus the next, if one fetus is "invincibly ignorant" and gets to go to Heaven on that basis, then there can be no reason for denying that to any other except caprice, which God is never guilty of.  Thus we wind up at an outcome of universal salvation for unbaptized children, which is the complete opposite of what we believe in.

Pope Pius IX was not intending to suggest that those not guilty of deliberate sin necessarily go to heaven.

Perhaps not, but he was definitely intending to say that that can go to Heaven.  Florence denied this though, saying that they automatically descend to Hell.

And again, I am not talking about BoB or BoD.  To put a concrete example to it, let's take an Incan infant in the year 1000, who dies of hypothermia during an especially cold winter.  BoB is impossible, since this is not martyrdom; BoD is impossible too, since neither the child nor even his parents desire to join the Church, which they have never heard of.  Again, the Traditional view is that such a child dies guilty of the stain of original sin, and so goes to Hell to be punished according to the just wrath of God, at minimum by eternal deprivation of the Beatific Vision.  Pius IX's view, though, seems to be that God's niceness would "not permit" such a child to be punished.  Since there is no "third place" between Heaven and Hell, the only possible alternative to going to Hell to be punished is going to Heaven (I take it for granted that there is no possibility of going to Hell but not to be punished, like some sort of hellacious Just Visiting space in the Great Monopoly Game of Life).

Babies are stained with original sin and cannot go to heaven if they die unbaptized, they would go to limbo.
...
Babies cannot "desire" since they haven't reached the age of reason.

We're in agreement about that.  Pius IX doesn't seem to think so, though.

An adult in invincible ignorance who has baptism of desire is washed free of original and actual sin.

If you're so ignorant about the Church, how can you desire to join it?

He doesn't mean "anyone at all," period.  That sentence is part of a complete paragraph with a linear argumentation, so you have to read it in the sense of what came before.  He means "anyone at all" who is observing the natural law and its precepts.  Babies cannot "live honest lives," can they?  Again, babies are not at the age of reason so God cannot search their minds and hearts,  this passage does not apply to them.

That reading doesn't seem plausible at all; he doesn't say "... any such person," he says "anyone at all."  In any case, is your interpretation really that Pius IX would think that a good but unbaptized 12-year-old could go to heaven, because he has had some opportunities to "observe the natural law" and "live an honest life," while an unbaptized 4-year-old or newborn would surely be damned to Hell because he has not yet been afforded such an opportunity?  That's not a theory I've ever seen support for in traditional Catholic teachings.

Are you an adult convert?  If so, then you will know how you spent a long time searching, knowing that something was wrong with VII, but not knowing where to go.  In your heart you were -- probably -- Catholic at that time, before you found the true Church.  That is one example of how you can, theoretically, be in invincible ignorance.  God sees who WOULD embrace the truth if he were only able to find it.

Nope, cradle Catholic.  As to the conception you're putting forward here, it doesn't seem to have anything at all in common with the Traditional conception of Baptism of Desire, which was understood as applying to people like catechumens who were actively trying to join the Church but had to wait to be baptized.  If the type of directionless malaise and confusion you describe is sufficient for BoD, even among people who have never heard of the Church, then the doctrine is so fuzzy and ambiguous as to be nearly meaningless.