Are you sure you've not mis-assessed the position of those you mention in your OP?  The claim that ABL and the CMRI are each committed to Vatican II soteriology is one that crops up again and again, but I've never seen sufficient evidence that this is the case for either.

Surely you have seen the quotes by Fellay and Lefebvre that hindus can be saved, they spin it by saying there are saved not in their religion but by the Catholic Church

.
I have, yes, and I have maintained that there is no "spin" in reading it that way.  There's no meaning in a vacuum, so if we want to understand something we can't read it in a vacuum.  If you think what Lefebvre said is irredeemable, quote the passage and make the argument.

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff

Yes, that's the quote, but what's the argument?  
.
Try reading the whole thing, or at least try reading the surrounding material.  It is obvious that he is speaking of membership in voto, which is described in Pope Pius XII's Mystici Corporis Christi (§103).  He is not speaking of someone who is outside the Church, but someone who is in the Church, but who does not share the bond of membership.  This distinction between "in" and "membership" is an important one that is discussed by Fenton at great length, acknowledged in Mystici Corporis Christi and its ghost-writer the great Dutch ecclesiologist Sebastiaan Tromp, and even contained-- if with different terminology-- in Bellarmine's great counter-reformation works on the Church Militant.  
.
In other words, there's nothing uniquely Vatican II-ish about any of this.  
.
One might argue (though you'd actually have to argue it, mind you) that the example Fellay gave was a poor one, and one to which the principles do not apply.  But the principles themselves are solid and unassailable.

.
Well what exactly do you mean "have the faith"?  That's ambiguous.

With regard to being in the Church prior to baptism, you cited Trent's anathema against baptism as a metaphor.  Do you think that anathema bears on Trent's own description of a non-baptized person receiving all of the theological virtues and being justified before every being baptized (Denz. 798 )?

 The metaphor anathema is irrelevant here, that's against the reformers who thought baptism doesn't do anything, that it is merely a symbolic stand-in for professing the faith rather than an actual sacrament which washes away sins and joins a man to the Church as a member.

I didn't leave anything out, Forlorn.  Would've been pretty silly for me to point you to the passage if there was something I was trying to conceal in it, wouldn't it?

You're getting way ahead here.  This is turning into a baptism of desire debate.  Your initial problem was in what you perceived as a shared soteriology between traditionalist organizations (which, may I point out, have in this thread only been represented by two figures: Lefebrve and Fellay) and Vatican II.  I already gave you an argument that reconciles the quotes you gave with preconciliar theologians.  And they weren't the likes of de Lubac or Rahner, but of committed and renowned traditionalists, including a pope.  The point here-- just to be clear-- is simply that what you are complaining about has a very plausible explanation in the corpus of pre-conciliar theology.  Whether or not that is the right explanation we can debate.  Then we get into the issue of baptism of desire more broadly.  But I think before we do that it's only just to clarify where we stand on your initial point of inquiry.