Ok.

He taught it in his Allocution to Italian Mid Wives, which was later published in the Acta.

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/allocution-to-midwives-8965

(I'm not R&R, ewtn is simply the first site with that docuмent to pop up on google)

I stand corrected in that Pius 12th taught BoD. Though I will point out this docuмent is not infallible. So while he erroneously taught BoD it is not the authoritative teaching of the Church.


Pius 12th also teaches in
MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jєωs or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

I would advise reading the whole series of articles in relation to the Dimonds and BoD. Reading only one or 2 chunks isn't gonna mean much.

And yes the modern kind of BoD we see more commonly today *can* be heretical. But as you say they don't all, and it's a matter of nuance as you say. Liberals abuse the concept of invincible ignorance and combine it with BoD for universal, automatic salvation. Then you have the position as held by like the SSPX or Bishop Sanborn.  *if* a practitioner of another religion is saved, it's because of his genuine invincible ignorance and true good will and perfect contrition. Of course, a pope already taught that nobody could really know where invincible ignorance lies and that it's ultimately unlawful to even bother speculating in too much specificity. So while technically that is true, to bring it up is irrelevant as only God would know something like that. Invincible ignorance doesn't save, but it prevents someone like say Cornelius the Centurion, who is genuinely good willed and genuinely desires God from being damned *soley* on account of not being able to believe things he could not know due to circuмstances beyond his control. But again these are speculations that lie well behind human capacity. This is why it was declared unlawful to speculated about. These kinds of speculations do not make one a heretic, because technically speaking it is true even if it only ever happened one time in all of history, but they are unprofitable to speak about because it lies well beyond what has been revealed to us.

That speculation is different from the true BoD actually taught by the Church, which is BoD for catechumens that did not neglect or willfully delay baptism. Adding invincible ignorance simply complicates things and renders the discussion unprofitable.

It 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”, 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.

While I agree that the Dimonds removed some clarifying information within the eclipses, in the first example he gives, that was only a single example. 

What's crazy, you are going from one false prophet (Dimonds), to another (Ruby).

It looks like TKGS provides an example above.  However, I am of the thinking that they should be given an opportunity to explain why they wrote what they wrote (as with any of us). They are still alive, so they could.  Now, if they choose not to explain it or ignore it, then I think it would be fair to make the conclusion that the "mistake" was deliberate. 

Having said that, I am grateful to the DB's for being the first ones to open our eyes.  But, just as with any other internet personality (especially those that are not true Catholic clergy with formal Catholic training), we must be cautious.