Let me break it down for you: it is perfectly possible to believe something hypothetically true yet posit a theory that apparently contradicts the hypothesis.
For example, there is an ongoing dispute in the Church regarding the nature of predestination and election, and there are like 5 schools of thought all of which affirm different things and contradict one another in different ways. But they all seek to keep within the bounds of defined dogma.
A particular instance is the Augustinian school of the understanding of Grace and predestination. Now, we know it is a heresy to teach that grace considered generally is irresistible. But it is NOT a heresy to posit intrinsically efficacious grace is infallibly efficacious. What's the difference? One says mans will is compromised by God, the other that God can infallibly woo man and appeal to his freedom in such a way that man always responds. So there can be an apparent contradiction that when properly explained is no contradiction, but is easily confused because phenomenological lay the results are practically indistinguishable, in this case between the Calvinist irresistible grace and the Augustinian Victorious delight of grace.
Similarly there can be apparent contradictions between the saints fathers popes and councils, yet the understanding can be harmonized and synthesized in such a way that the contradiction is only apparent, skin deep. And since dogma has priority, all theological opinions must be reconciled in the direction of dogma.
So you can have one saint say all the elect are predestined to be water baptized, as St. Augustine says. You can have a council define that outside the Church there is neither sanctity nor remission of sins, and you can have a pope teach in an encyclical that the invincibly ignorant can be saved.
What then is a consistent and non-contradictory understanding? That firstly there is no remission of sins outside the Church, nor is there the infusion of charity, which is salvation. Therefore, we can say with Augustine that all the elect are predestined to be actually baptized, and grant Pope Pius IX his theological opinion, that those who are good willed but ignorant can be enlightened, but their enlightenment will come through the mediation of the Church in accordance with those means which are necessary by a necessity of means: Explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity, and water baptism.
None of this denies the invincibly ignorant can be saved nor does it deny that those who sincerely resolve to receive water baptism can be justified by that resolve. It simply completes the posited scenarios in such a way that satisfies many of the teachings of the other fathers and theologians and the simple facts of history regarding extraordinary miracles that have taken place specifically SO the ignorant could be baptized.
Any contradiction or denial you see is apparent and comes from the fact that you are merely systematizing a bias rather than trying to SYNTHESIZE the fathers, councils, saints and facts.