Logically, if the modernists used the term "salvific element" but then say, as you do, that it doesn't mean these "elements" can save, then the use of the term "salvific" is contradictory, confusing and heretical. The reason why they used the term is PRECISELY to IMPLY that such elements CAN save. The liberals use this phrase to teach 'universal salvation' to their 'protestant brethren' and to further the heretical, one-world, new age ecuмenism.
. Nowhere in V2 is this made clear. So, if one reads V2 by itself, one can easily be led to believe that one can be saved outside the Faith.
.Le'ts say that Catholic Doctrine = A. Heresy does not have to say "not A" or "I completely reject A" or "A is wrong". Heresy can simply be "A + part B". Or "A + Z" or "A minus C". You are defining heresy in too strict of terms. Heresy is any addition, deletion, edit, implication, or alteration of Dogma (however small).
.
To say that the Christ's Church "subsists in" the Catholic Church is heresy. Pure and simple. The Catholic dogma = Christ's Church IS the Catholic Church.
.
To imply, as V2 did, that Christ's Church ALSO exists partly in other religions is heresy. You can say that certain truths exist in other religions, but these truths are not equal to Christ's Church, which by definition, is ALL Truth and the FULLNESS of truth.
.
As an example, if you mix together Kool-Aid with water, you get a new drink. You can say that a Kool-Aid mix "subsists in" the water, but you cannot say that water "subsists in" the Kool-Aid. This is backwards. There is no Kool-Aid without water but there can be water without Kool-Aid.
.
In the same way, Christ's Church is made up of ALL the Divine Truths of the Faith. You can say that the Divine Truths "subsist in" Christ's Church, but you cannot say that Christ's Church "subsist in" the Divine Truths. This is backwards. The Divine Truths may be partly believed outside of Christ's Church, but you cannot have Christ's Church without the FULLNESS of Truth.
I am describing a possible theory, not necessarily my actual thoughts.
When I hear the phrase salvific element, I don't get the impression that it alone can save. I get the impression that it is merely an element of salvation that can lead us to the fullness of the necessity of means, in other words, the Catholic Church. If you can find me a dogmatic quotation verifying that the salvific elements alone can save, then please do. I don't see any implication of that in Vatican 2.
I agree that Vatican 2 can be taken in a lot of different directions, but I'm not sure if it can be
definitively ruled out as you have. The liberals take it in a modernistic direction, however. They are heretical and wrong. Yet, I'm not saying that heresy "not A" must COMPLETELY REJECT dogma "A." However, "not A" *is* A + B, A + Z, or A - C. All of those are not A, and all of them would be heresy. However, I'm wondering whether EENS can be dogma A, and that the Church of Christ also subsists in the Catholic Church can be dogma B. There is no
necessary incompatibility here. You can say that there are salvific elements that don't save on their own outside of the visible hierarchy of the Catholic Church, such as valid Protestant baptisms, while also saying that you need to be in the Catholic Church, in which all of those salvific elements are present, to be saved. (Because you can't be PARTIALLY saved, of course.)
You said that "Christ's Church is made up of ALL the Divine Truths of the Faith. You can say that the Divine Truths "subsist in" Christ's Church, but you cannot say that Christ's Church "subsist in" the Divine Truths. This is backwards. The Divine Truths may be partly believed outside of Christ's Church, but you cannot have Christ's Church without the FULLNESS of Truth."
This is precisely what Vatican 2 seems to imply. That's why they're salvific
elements and not the necessary means to salvation. They don't save on their own. In my opinion, this theory needs to be looked at thoroughly before we reject what the vast majority of people think is the legitimate hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Because, otherwise, we lose visible unity of government and visible unity of communion, which as Satis Cognitum says, are essential to the constitution of the Church. This is very important.