Yes, God provided the "the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace" and the invincibly ignorant person cooperated with that divine grace until he died. Why can't you understand this?

You are denying that Pius IX taught that "invincible ignorance" slightly modifies the original understanding of EENS. This is a valid development of the dogma. Anyone can look that up very quickly and see that your "interpretation" is bogus.

A "development of the dogma" which modifies the Dogma in such a way that the Dogma no longer teaches what it originally taught is not "valid", it is "heretical". We are to believe the Dogma as the Church "has once declared". What the Church "once declared" (at least 8 times, actually) is that there is no salvation Outside of Her and outside of the Catholic Faith 

Fortunately, Pius IX didn't do that

The ignorant who follow the natural law go to Limbo.  They do not gain heaven.  The invincibly ignorant are not saved.  But they are also not damned.  That’s what Limbo is - a middle state.

If you are claiming that is the Church's teaching can you please provide a source?

The ignorant who follow the natural law go to Limbo.  They do not gain heaven.  The invincibly ignorant are not saved.  But they are also not damned.  That’s what Limbo is - a middle state.

Which is exactly what I suggested in my first post on this topic. They are in a similar state that the "Fathers" were before Christ came. They did not yet know Christ because they were invincibly ignorant of him. They only understood him though the shadows of the OT Scriptures.

If you are claiming that is the Church's teaching can you please provide a source?

The Church has been officially silent on the matter as far as I know. But Aquinas mentions the concept in passing saying "nothing prevents Abraham's Bosom from remaining after Christ's coming." So it is not heretical to suggest it. I think it would be the most fitting abode for the "invincibly ignorant" until Christ's Second Coming, as Abraham's Bosom performed a very similar function prior to Christ's Resurrection. 

https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.IIISup.Q69.A4.C.3

"Accordingly, before Christ’s coming the limbo of hell and Abraham’s bosom were one place accidentally and not essentially: and consequently, nothing prevents Abraham’s bosom from remaining after Christ’s coming and from being altogether distinct from limbo, since things that are one accidentally may be parted from one another." 

Which is exactly what I suggested in my first post on this topic. They are in a similar state that the "Fathers" were before Christ came. They did not yet know Christ because they were invincibly ignorant of him. They only understood him though the shadows of the OT Scriptures.

Well, not quite. You didn't just suggest a "limbo", you said this:

What you say is absolutely true for "salvation," which means going straight to Heaven without a stop in any other abode after death. No one, who is not a baptized member of the Church has the chance "to benefit from the ecclesiastical sacraments and fasting, almsgiving and other offices of piety and exercises of the Christian soldiery that bring forth eternal rewards." These things prepare the white garment of the soul. And they are only available to Catholics. 
However, not all who are outside the Church will burn in Hell forever and never make it to Paradise. In fact, even most Catholics will suffer "the fires of Hell" in Purgatory for a long time before entering Paradise. 
The point is that there are other temporary places for those non-saved souls are "detained," and we shouldn't lose sight of that fact. Aquinas speaks of five places:

This is what is heretical, because the Dogma "as once declared" (~8 times) is there is no salvation outside the Church or the Faith. No salvation meaning just that. As declared, no salvation.

You say, "not all who are outside the Church will burn in hell forever and never make it to paradise".

Pope Eugene IV says, "all those who are outside the Church...cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels"

See the contradiction?

You say, "not all who are outside the Church will burn in hell forever and never make it to paradise".

Pope Eugene IV says, "all those who are outside the Church...cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels"

See the contradiction?

Also, this is the most explicit, word-for-word denial of the Dogma that I have ever seen from someone claiming to be Catholic. And that is saying something

Angelus is literally saying the exact opposite of what has been defined.

Pope Eugene IV: all those who are outside the Church...will go into the everlasting fire

Angelus: not all who are outside the Church will burn in hell forever

Pope Eugene IV: all those who are outside the Church...cannot share in eternal life

Angelus: not all who are outside the Church...will never make it to heaven

I mean, c'mon man

Also, this is the most explicit, word-for-word denial of the Dogma that I have ever seen from someone claiming to be Catholic. And that is saying something

Angelus is literally saying the exact opposite of what has been defined.

Pope Eugene IV: all those who are outside the Church...will go into the everlasting fire

Angelus: not all who are outside the Church will burn in hell forever

Pope Eugene IV: all those who are outside the Church...cannot share in eternal life

Angelus: not all who are outside the Church...will never make it to heaven

I mean, c'mon man

Again, you could replace the word Angelus above, with Pius IX. Are you saying that he denied the dogma?

Again, you could replace the word Angelus above, with Pius IX. Are you saying that he denied the dogma?

Angelus, you make Pius IX into a heretic by claiming he taught what he did not actually teach. What you claim he teaches contradicts Church Dogma as it has "once been declared" (again, ~8 times). So, please, stop. 
Read what the Church has infallibly taught regarding salvation first, and then apply it to what Pius IX taught. You will not misintepret him that way. You are going in the opposite order, taking your misinterpretation of Pius IX and applying it to Church Dogma. That is what leads to what you originally posted in this thread, which was a word-for-word denial of the Dogma. Please, read what has infallibly been taught regarding EENS. We must keep the faith "whole and undefiled" or we will, without doubt, perish eternally