Actually the OUM is when all the bishops in all the world with the Pope teach that a doctrine is to be considered revealed by God. It is absolutely NOT the common holding of an opinion.

THIS ^^^

That's the Vatican I definition, but these idiot dogmatic sedevacantists effectively extend infallibility to pretty much anything that has any approbation from any ecclesiastical authority whatsoever.  It's absurd and makes infallibility into a laughingstock.

If it was you would have to admit the OUM at the end of the first and the beginning of the second millennium taught positive infant damnation in hellfire. After all, it was the common teaching for 800 years after Augustine and the bishops were all consistent in teaching it. So why do you reject it now? Because St. Thomas did? Pshaw! Who is one man to stand against the unanimous opinion of all the saints up to his time!

Perfect example of the category into which BoD falls.

Yet these hypocrites refuse to admit that the doctrine held by ALL CATHOLICS WITHOUT A SINGLE EXCEPTION for 1600 YEARS, that explicit belief in Jesus Christ, the Incarnation, and the Holy Trinity are required for salvation they blow off as just some minor opinion and in no way "universal".

This interaction between the heretical priest and Eskimo in the above image exemplifies the lack of Faith, logical fallacy, contradiction & stupidity of the Novus Ordo counterfeit church.

Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. ~ John 3:5

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 – 1445):
“[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

No, it's possible that invincible ignorance is a thing - especially if one is an indigenous Eskimo in subarctic Canada.

Those kinds of people are only ever reached by Evangelicals, who preach a form of Christianity with no God or sin and none of the sine quibus non of Our Faith. It is to them, all about being "saved", which is their excuse for any bad actions.

No, it's not really "a thing" in the sense that ignorance can be salvific.  To say so is Pelagianism.  Implications of invincible ignorance are only that there's no active sin of infidelity.  One must still have supernatural faith in order to be saved, and the existence of invincible ignorance cannot change that.

No, it's possible that invincible ignorance is a thing - especially if one is an indigenous Eskimo in subarctic Canada.

So tell me, why God would not let the lonely eunuch from the Bible perish in his "invincible ignorance" in the middle of Africa; but instead send Peter with the sole purpose of instructing him and water baptizing him?

If there is an example of a true invincible ignorance working, we find it in this lonely Ethiopian eunuch. Because he is sincere and truly seeking, God, Who searches all hearts and knows all dispositions, makes sure to send him a missionary in the middle of nowhere. A true, salvific invincible ignorance is that which is so strong that actually calls God to send someone to offer the tangible Sacraments to the poor, persistent soul who is calling, instead of letting him perish without that which is much necessary for salvation, according to what has been divinely revealed.