"At least one misconception which crept into the works of some theologians after the time of St. Robert and his fellows came from an unregulated application of the Body-analogy rather than from any failure to consider it. A good number of subsequent theologians, impressed by St. Robert's use of the terms body and soul of the Church, hastened to include them in their own writings. Unfortunately however they neglected the purpose for which St. Robert had employed these terms. Thus the body and the soul of the Church came ultimately to be considered as societies in some way distinct from one another instead of what they had been in the De Ecclesia Militante, factors by which men were joined together in the unity of the Catholic Church. Fenton
These quotes from Fenton on the Church's understanding of her role in salvation show that the Church has inner and outer bonds of unity and that a non-member can partake of the inner bonds of unity, i.e. the Theological Virtues and Gifts of the Holy Ghost and be saved within that Church. But he also clarifies that that there is only one Church in which one can be saved within. There is not a "soul" of the Church which is distinct or more broad than the Catholic Church which is the Mystical Body of Christ. Non-members who partake of the inner bonds of unity within the Church can be saved within that Church whereas members of the Catholic Church who lack the inner bond of unity of sanctifying grace can be damned.
The teaching itself is rather simple and easy to understand but some distinctions within the teaching have been misunderstood in recent decades.
Again it is not a member/non-member distinction but a within/outside of distinction that needs to be made when considering the EEENS Dogma.
Likewise it is not a member/non-member distinction that needs to be made when considering whether one can be saved but a dying in a state of sanctifying grace or not which settles the issue.
This is what happens when people focus on one thing to the exclusion of something even more important.
Yes member/non-member is a very important distinction to make but whether one dies within/or outside the Church in a state of sanctifying grace is the over-riding distinction that needs to be made.
Same with other issues like SV. Yes formal and material heresy is an important distinction to make, especially in so far as how a person will be Judged by God, but when it comes to legitimately holding ecclesiastical office and the visible unity of the Church the over-riding distinction that needs to be made is whether one is an occult or public heretic.
I would not be surprised if such distinctions can be made on other issues as well such as jurisdiction. Yes the mandate is necessary but how is it applied in varying circuмstances.
It is very important to be able to think critically and logically and to take time to read and study docuмents. By study I mean going back over what you have read a few times if it seems confusing at first. Applying what it teaches to our current circuмstances and seeing if those circuмstances are addressed or not. Is there room for legitimate debate on its application?
But jurisdiction is another thread the point I'm making here is on salvation within the Church and how we should not focus on membership/non-membership to the exclusion of within/outside of the Church and sanctifying grace/no sanctifying grace when it comes to salvation within the Church.