You mental model is all wrong.  You think the exception makes excuses for people who could do something about their "ignorance" and overcome it. That is not what Invincibility means.

Let me ask you, what if you were a child living in some remote area of Tibet in the Himalayas. Your parents were Buddhists. No Catholic priest or missionary had ever been to your village. No one had ever heard of the Catholic Church. Then you, the child, dies as the age of ten years old (above the age of reason). Prior to your death, you never violated any of the moral precepts of the Natural Law, and you sought to do the divine will as best you were taught by the Buddhists around you.

Where do you think you would end up after death? Do you think you would burn in Hell for eternity even though you committed no faults?

  Ok, now you're switching up the argument because your previous argument failed.  In your example above, the 10 year old, who was of good-will, would be "enlightened by divine light", no?  That's what the pope says.  That's what you said.

And if they are enlightened by divine light, then they would be enlightened to the FULL divine law (i.e. commandments 1-3).  That's what the pope says.

Heretics will attempt to say that this...

Faith orders Us to hold that out of the Apostolic Roman Church no person can be saved, that it is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever will not enter therein shall perish in the waters of the deluge

...does not mean exactly what is says. That "No person can be saved" does not actually mean "no person can be saved"


They will then attempt to say that this...

On the other hand it is necessary to hold for certain that ignorance of the true religion, if that ignorance be invincible, is not a fault in the eyes of God. But who will presume to arrogate to himself the right to mark the limits of such an ignorance, holding in account the various conditions of peoples, of countries, of minds, and of the infinite multiplicity of human things?

...means that a person may be "saved", if their ignorance is invincible. For some reason, they believe that ignorance of what is necessary for salvation is somehow meritorious. Pius IX teaches that they will not be punished for not doing what they do not know. What Pius IX rightly does not say is that they will be rewarded for not doing what they do not know



The heretic also ignores this part...

let us hold firmly that which the Catholic doctrine teaches us, that there is only one God, one Faith, one Baptism; to seek to penetrate further is not permitted."

...and posits that those "invincibly ignorant" may be saved in their ignorance. In other words, he "[seeks] to penetrate further"


The heretic attempts to say that when Pius IX taught this, he did not mean exactly what he said...

"The Church clearly declares that the only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian faith, which teaches the truth, scatters the darkness of ignorance by the splendor of its light, and works through love. This hope of salvation is placed in the Catholic Church which, in preserving the true worship, is the solid home of this faith and the temple of God.

...because if we were to believe what the heretic claims, which is that, immediately after Pius IX taught that the "only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian faith", he also teaches that the invincibly ignorant can attain salvation in their invincible ignorance, then Pius IX would be contradicting himself:

Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control."

Of course, Pius IX doesn't contradict himself. If what Pius IX said immediately prior to this is true, which it is, we take this to mean that the "hope" that the invincibly ignorant can have for salvation is only through the Christian Faith. As the "invincibly ignorant" do not know the Christian Faith, we must take this to mean that they will come to know the Christian Faith at some point in their life..because as Pius IX literally just said, the "only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian Faith".

Heretics will attempt to say that this......does not mean exactly what is says. That "No person can be saved" does not actually mean "no person can be saved"


They will then attempt to say that this......means that a person may be "saved", if their ignorance is invincible. For some reason, they believe that ignorance of what is necessary for salvation is somehow meritorious. Pius IX teaches that they will not be punished for not doing what they do not know. What Pius IX rightly does not say is that they will be rewarded for not doing what they do not know



The heretic also ignores this part......and posits that those "invincibly ignorant" may be saved in their ignorance. In other words, he "[seeks] to penetrate further"


The heretic attempts to say that when Pius IX taught this, he did not mean exactly what he said......because if we were to believe what the heretic claims, which is that, immediately after Pius IX taught that the "only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian faith", he also teaches that the invincibly ignorant can attain salvation in their invincible ignorance, then Pius IX would be contradicting himself:Of course, Pius IX doesn't contradict himself. If what Pius IX said immediately prior to this is true, which it is, we take this to mean that the "hope" that the invincibly ignorant can have for salvation is only through the Christian Faith. As the "invincibly ignorant" do not know the Christian Faith, we must take this to mean that they will come to know the Christian Faith at some point in their life..because as Pius IX literally just said, the "only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian Faith".

Instead of trying (badly) to be your own theologian, why not just read what non-Modernist theologians after Pius IX and before 1960 taught? What makes you think you are wiser than the teachers authorized by the Roman Catholic Church? You might learn something if you approach it with an open mind.

The heretic is not able to reconcile his heresy with what PPIX taught:


Q. What is the only hope of salvation for mankind?

A. The Christian Faith

Q. Can one outside the Church hope for salvation?

A. No, unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control

Q. Is he who is excused through ignorance beyond his control a part of mankind?

A. Yes

Q. What is the only hope of salvation for mankind, again?

A. The Christian Faith

So was Pius IX a heretic? Or was he contradicting himself intentionally? If not (and he certainly was not), why did he include these caveats when he discussed EENS?

No, he was not a heretic and he did not contradict himself. That is what you unfathomably cannot seem to understand

He said:
He then says:

If those who are invincibly ignorant can hope for salvation, and the only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian Faith, then you just have to put two and two together. Their hope for salvation is in the Christian Faith!

God will provide the means for salvation (the Catholic faith and baptism) to those struggling with invincible ignorance! If they believe and are baptised they will be saved, if they do not believe they will be condemned

What? I just said in the previous post that "he certainly was not" a heretic nor did he contradict himself. I have been saying that for dozens of posts. You are the one worried about contradictions. 

The perceived contradiction is resolved as I have already said. The dogma of EENS applies to people who are heretics and schismatics and others who are vincibly ignorant. The dogma is not intended for those who have never heard the Gospel. Those people are not culpable for being outside of a Church they have never heard of. And since they are not culpable, they will not be punished in Hell. But, presumably, they will also not see the beatific vision upon their death. 

Finally, in order to fall into this very rare category of people you are so concerned about, the person would need to BOTH 1) sincerely observe the natural law (which includes seeking divine favor) AND 2) be, through no fault of their own, ignorant of the true religion until death. Only when these two requirements are met, would the person be absolved from punishment for dying "Outside of the Church."

Why is this so hard for you to understand and accept?

If you believe that people can die invincibly ignorant, fine..but I don't see how that can be reconciled with what Pius IX actually taught. If you believe that some may not suffer the pains of hell, but will experience some happiness similar to the infants in limbo, okay. But they are not "excluded" from EENS. The Church has always taught "Salvation" to be the Beatific Vision, Heaven. No one who dies outside the Church can experience that.

And I have said that I don't believe anyone who dies "outside of the Church" experiences the beatific vision. I think the beatific vision is reserved BOTH for those who die in a state of sanctifying grace without temporal debt AND for those who go to Purgatory first but enter the beatific vision after their temporal debt is paid in Purgatory.

But you do realize that the beatific vision is not the end of the story for those souls, right?

And, while I admit I am speculating, it seems most fitting that the souls of those "invincibly ignorant of our most holy religion" who "observe the natural law" guided by "the divine light and grace" would go to something like the Limbo of the Fathers for the just people of the OT. But again, I don't think that is the end of the story for those people either.

The end of the story is the New Heaven and New Earth, which is a restoration and perfection of the original Paradise that was lost because of the sin of Adam and Eve. At that time of the NHNE, there will only be this new Paradise for all  the good people and Hell for all of the reprobate. 

The invincibly ignorant do not go to heaven, ever.  They don’t see God.  They don’t partake of the lot of the saints.  They go to limbo, forever.  End of their story.

The New Heaven and New Earth is the end of the story for the non-reprobate. This is after the disembodied souls enter the beatific vision. This is when those disembodied souls are united with their glorified bodies at the General Judgement.

And The New Heaven and New Earth occurs when Heaven comes down and merges with Earth. Apocalypse 21:

1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth was gone, and the sea is now no more.  2 And I John saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.  3 And I heard a great voice from the throne, saying: Behold the tabernacle of God with men, and he will dwell with them. And they shall be his people; and God himself with them shall be their God.  4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes: and death shall be no more, nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be any more, for the former things are passed away.  5 And he that sat on the throne, said: Behold, I make all things new.

This is right after the General Judgement. After the GJ, the people in "Limbo" (or whatever you want to call it) will enter the NHNE as well. They do not go to eternal Hell. And there are only two abodes after the GJ: the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Satan.