CathInfo.com

Right ... BoD cannot stand up to the definition of Florence regarding how the Sacraments cannot benefit them to salvation, which is precisely the only non-openly-heretical version of BoD you can hold, namely, that the Sacrament of Baptism somehow effects salvation by operating through the desire for it.  If you denied that it did, then you are a heretic for denying the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.  But, the problem is that the prospective beneficiary of BoD is not in the unity of the ecclesiastical body, since all theologians admit that one does not join the body until the actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism, i.e. that those receiving BoD are not in the Body of the Church, but somehow just attached to the soul, etc.  But if that's the case -- and it is -- then Florence dogmatically teaches that the Sacrament cannot in fact benefit them unto salvation.  Trent also teaches the same about the Sacrament of Confession, where perfect contrition on its own cannot restore a fallen soul to a state of justification, not without the intention to receive the Sacrament, since there can be no forgiveness of sin after a post-Baptismal fall without the Sacrament.  So, then, perfect contrition on its own can't restore non-Catholics to any kind of state of justification, since they cannot receive the Sacrament of Confession, nor are the unbaptized even subjec to the power of the keys, which is necessary for absolution from sin.

Now, Msgr. Fenton at least recognized this problem, and he correctly rejected the idea that people can be saved simply be belonging to the "soul" of the Church, rejecting the notion that there can be a soul of the Church that's not co-extensive with the body, as if the animal soul of a human body can extend beyond the actual physical body itself.

So what he does is claim that one can be IN the Body of the Church without being a PART OF the Body of the Church (i.e. a member of the Church) ... something which I've described as "Undigested Hamburger Ecclesiology".  So, what is in the body but not part of it.  Well, something like food that is IN the stomach but has not been digested and somehow converted into human tissue and made one with the body.

But Florence destroys that as well, since it explicilty teaches that they must be in the UNITY of the Body.  Food that you put in your mouth is not PART OF your body, one with your body ... but is merely per accidens in your body.  Unity with the Body requires a substantial conformity with it, i.e. where you would have to share the body's DNA and be part of the organism, not just accidentally inside and/or somehow attached to your body.  I could also conduct some bizarre experiment where I would take the body part of an animal and sew it onto a human being (some sicko scientists have in fact done stuff like that), but that doesn't mean that it's essentially part of my body, just accidentally fused onto it.

SVs have attacked SSPX and other R&R for their "Frankenchurch" theology, but this take "Frankenchurch" to the next level, where it's possible like Victor Frankenstein, to stitch together various disparate body parts into some monstrosity.  Is that the Body of the Church?  Ridiculous.

This is the first time I have seen this narrow definition of salvation...salvation is entering the Kingdom of Heaven, plain and simple. All Catholics who die in a state of grace will enter the state of salvation.

Uhhh, I really hope I am misinterpreting what you are saying here. If not, it is easily refuted by Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam:
As shown by Eugene IV's teaching, pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics are in no way united to the Church in any manner. Their sins cannot be remitted, ergo they cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Ever.

 Aquinas speaks of no place that those who die outside the Church are temporarily held...