My approach is different from the St. Benedict Centers since I look at BOD etc, literally,first, and then with the old theology, which would be rational.I do not get into the common theology of BOD etc since I know that literally there are no BOD cases for us human beings.

My approach is different from the St. Benedict Centers, USA-whom I admire and support - since I look at the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) literally,first, and then with the old theology, which would be rational.I do not get into the common theology of BOD etc, since I know that literally there are no BOD cases for us human beings.So it is wrong to support a theology assuming there are known BOD cases.

Similarly with Vatican Council II, it is wrong to support a theology with known cases of LG 8, LG 14( theoretical case of the unknown catechumen) , LG 16( invincible ignorance) etc, when these are only references to speculative cases. 

The St. Benedict Centers have denied the existence of the BOD etc in theory and in reality and say that if it happened, even theologically, it would be followed by the baptism of water.I agree with them here.

Even though this is their correct conclusion, theologically, but based on some reasoning, they have not been looking at BOD, BOB and I.I literally. There are no physically seen BOD cases.

The St. Benedict Centers has always assumed that LG 14,LG 16 etc are exceptions to EENS and so they rejected Vatican Council II.This was their irrational reasoning.

They never could affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) since they postulated hypothetical cases as not being hypothetical.May be they are not aware of this inference.

LG 16 etc were not hypothetical for them.They were objective.They became exceptions to EENS.So Vatican Council II was rejected as a rupture with Tradition.

When there are literally no cases of BOD, BOB and I.I how can there be a theology of outside the Church there is salvation with reference to Vatican Council II ? The fault lies with the St.Benedict Center. Even the founders of their communty did not see this error or did not express it in public.

Their interpretation of Vatican Council II is made with the false premise ( invisible cases of BOD are visible) and inference ( visible cases of BOD are examples of salvation outside the Church) and non traditional conclusion( so Vatican Council II has to be rejected it being a rupture with EENS).

-Lionel Andrades