Mr. Andrades: You have asked me to comment on the link. The link was not properly supplied, but I found the posting on your blog.
While we take exception to some of the contents of Redemptoris Missio,Dominus Iesus, and, especially, the Marchetti-Selvaggiani Letter based on the perennial magisterium of the Church, I do not accept your line of argumentation, which accuses the authors of those documents of "assuming the dead now in Heaven are physically visible to us." This is facile reasoning. It would also set up a straw man for our opponents to knock down quite easily.
The St.Benedict Center also takes exceptions to some parts of Vatican Council II but in general accepts the Council and also the 'rigorist interpretation' of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This is because they assume that there are explicit cases mentioned in the Council (LG 16 etc) which contradict the dogma.
The Council is really in harmony with the rigoroust interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the St.Benedict Centers in the diocese of Manchester and Worcester,USA.
Since LG 16, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to invisible cases they can be accepted as possibilities, followed by the baptism of water. This is the theological approach of Brother Andre Marie MICM with respect to the baptism of desire.
So the Council is really not ambiguous but traditional It is in harmony with the Syllabus of Errors and extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
But the St.Benedict Centers do not know this.
However if they said that Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus they would be at odds with the bishops of Manchester and Worcester. Even the priests who offer the Traditional Latin Mass at their chapels assume there are explicit exceptions to the dogma mentioned in Vatican Council II.
So this is the conflict in which they will enter. They would also be at odds with the ecclesiastics at Ecclesia Dei,Vatican who interpret Vatican Council Ii with an irrationality and then base their theology upon this irrationality.