Agree with you 1000%, Forlorn.  Those that would argue that one can be in the church without baptism/membership are heretics.  They are falsely expanding God’s mercy at the expense of His Justice.  EENS dogmas and Trent say what they say.  Those who try to “further explain” the plain English used, are wrong.  

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.

It's quite straightforward, and does not even require advanced training in Logic.

Major:  Church dogma.  There's no salvation except for those within the Church.
Minor:  SSPX (+Fellay et al.) -- Hindu in Tibet can be saved.
Conclusion:  Such hypothetical Hindus (and Muslims and Jews) are within the Church.

So there you have Vatican II ecclesiology in a nutshell, a Church that subsists in the Catholic Church but actually also contains Protestants, Orthodox, infidels like Hindus, Muslims, and Jews.  What a wonderful brave new Church ... that most Trads ironically cling to despite pretending to condemn the Vatican II ecclesiology.

This is why I think Vatican ii is moreso weaponized ambiguity rather than straight heresy.

I’ll explain more when I have time 

Here is a great article on this very subject.  One of many great points in the article is this:

In his encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pius XII wrote, “Only those are to be considered members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith.”
—-

JUST BECAUSE IT SOUNDS RIGHT DOESNT MEAN IT IS

A Catholic teaching sister once took a young boy to task who, when asked why a certain verb form should be used instead of another, responded, “Because the other word doesn’t sound right.” “No, no, no!” said Sr. Ruth, “you cannot go by what sounds right because you might be used to hearing the wrong thing. You must go by the rule!” [1]. Sister’s point is a good one to make in all times and is especially pertinent in the age we are living in, dominated by Masonic falsehoods. It behooves us to acknowledge that we have likely heard many things that are incorrect, including things concerning our holy religion. We must strive to learn rules and not be content merely to adhere to whatever initially sounds right.
When it comes to religion, what exactly is the Catholic’s rule of faith? This is easy to answer if we look at how the Church defines heresy. Contrary to the impression some Catholics give today, a heretic is notdefined as a baptized person who refuses to believe a teaching of the pope, a teaching of a pastoral council, or even a teaching of a catechism. A heretic is defined as a baptized person who refuses to believe one or more dogmas of the Faith. The definition of a heretic makes it evident that dogma is the Catholic’s rule.

Dogmas are truths revealed by God, who can never deceive or be deceived. Vatican I is referring to dogmas when it teaches, “By divine and catholic faith, all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.” The ex cathedradefinitions of popes, the canons of ecuмenical councils, and the articles of Creeds are all “solemn judgments” proposed by the Church as being divinely revealed dogmas. Teachings that have never been defined by a solemn judgment but that have been held by Catholics always and everywhere as being divinely revealed are also dogmas, knowable as such because they have been taught by the Church’s “ordinary and universal magisterium.”
When it comes to the necessity of being a member of the Church for salvation, at least three solemn judgments have been proposed as divinely revealed on the matter. The first of these is the following dogmatic definition made at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215: “There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved.” Catholic dogmas are catholic not only in the sense that they are proposed by the Catholic Church, but also in the sense that they are universally true and admit no exceptions. The dogmatic definition made at Lateran IV contains language that clearly expresses the catholicity or universality of this particular revealed truth, that “no one at all” is saved outside the Church.
It is important also to note that Lateran IV’s infallible and irreformable definition refers to the Church as being composed “of the faithful.” It really shouldn’t need to be said, but those who do not possess the Catholic faith cannot be members of the Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved. In his encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pius XII wrote, “Only those are to be considered members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith.”
While it is true to say a person in invincible ignorance of the true Faith would not be held guilty for the particular sin of not joining the Church, it does not follow that such a person could somehow be a member of the Church without converting to it, or, for that matter, even be in the state of grace. In fact, the Council of Trent teaches that the Catholic faith is “the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons.” Those who do not possess the true faith can be neither in the state of grace nor members of the Church.
Hearing that all those who die as non-Catholics will be eternally lost might not sound right to many in this age of religious indifferentism, but it is a truth revealed by God nonetheless. All of the apostles believed in and taught this dogma, as did all of the orthodox Church fathers, all of the North American martyrs, etc.
Charity is the greatest of the three theological virtues, but Faith is always listed before it, and St. Augustine says this is because there is a necessary order of dependence in the theological virtues. This dependence is especially apparent when considering how a person’s lack of faith in the dogma of exclusive salvation affects his charity, or lack thereof, toward those outside the Church. For if a person does not possess divine faith in this dogma, but instead believes that those who die as non-Catholics can be saved, then there will necessarily be something lacking in the prayers and sacrifices he offers for conversion, if he offers any prayers and sacrifices at all.
It is incredibly important for our own salvation and for the salvation of our neighbors that we don’t soften the dogma’s meaning merely because it doesn’t sound right to us. Only God knows to what extent the undermining of this one dogma has led to countless Catholics developing an inordinate preoccupation with solving “social justice” issues. For if religious conversion is not absolutely required after all, why not spend lots of time fighting income inequality; intolerance; global warming; and other evils, real or imagined?

---

[1] Fr. James Wathen recorded this story in his book Who Shall Ascend. The author of this article thinks Fr. Wathen’s work is one of the best books to have been written dealing with the post-conciliar crisis in the Church and how a Catholic ought to respond to it.
https://onepeterfive.com/sounds-right/

Rationally, I cannot see a foot to stand on with this position. Any way of saying someone who's not a baptised Christian and doesn't even desire baptism could be saved seems like a direct contradiction of EENS. And yet even the largest Trad groups all teach the same. Even +Lefebvre taught that people in false religions can be saved. How is it that even those who claim to be rejecting V2 are still supporting this denial of EENS? Even groups that don't even claim communion with Rome at all, like the CMRI, still teach this. Only various independent individuals like the Dimonds seem to teach otherwise. Despite how obvious it is that EENS = EENS, it still seems like the overwhelming majority of clergymen, even those who claim to reject modernism and its associated heresies, still teach that those in false religions can be saved. "Implicit baptism of desire" or what have you. Why do they teach this?

At least some resistance priests, including Dom Tomás de Aquino Ferreira da Costa and also bishop Williamson, teach it, too. Dom Antônio de Castro Mayer from Campos dos Goytacazes taught it too. A series of lectures of Williamson held in Bristol U.K. in ten or so videos could be found on youtube shortly after the Resistance started. He read from a book condemned propositions of a manipulated version of the Syllabus:

16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.

16. Man may, by the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.

I wrote to the priests and to Williamson. One very short, one not so short debate resulted with no points of view changed.

St Thomas Aquinas speaks about how to interpretate baptism of desire in Summa Theologicae, T III, q. 68

You can't use theological speculation against the teaching of the magisterium of the Church. The magisterium is authorized by our Lord to teach the faith. Opinions of theologians are irrelevant where the magisterium has proposed what to believe. Opinions of theologians may become relevant only where the magisterium chooses to adopt them.

Ambiguity such as - no one can be sure what the Church actually is if you don't even have to be Catholic, or even Christian in the broadest sense, to be in it. If neither baptism nor faith constitute membership requirements of the Body of Christ, what does? It opens the door wide open to universalism, and honestly is it even possible to condemn universalists while you preach that some people in other religions can be saved?

I don't see why its necessary to know with *absolute* certainty what individuals are included in the Church.  I think its fair to say that the only way to make sure you're inside the Catholic Church is to become a visible member of the Catholic Church.  I don't see how saying those things are normative requirements, while acknowledging that God isn't bound to his sacraments and can work outside them in extraordinary cases, is equivalent to saying they aren't membership requirements (This seems like overly dichotomistic thinking, like Protestants use in other places.)

I'm not opposed, at least in theory, to salvation outside of visible membership in the Church, under the narrow conditions that seem to have been proposed both by Pope Pius IX and by Archbishop Lefebvre.  While certainly not dogmatic, and a lot earlier, I think we see positions in Augustine's Letter 43, and Justin Martyr's first apology, that would also fall somewhat more optimistic than the "Feeneyite" (used as a description, not as a slur) label.  Admittedly, the Augustine citation is dealing with the children of *Donatists* so while I think that would at least be comparable to say the Eastern Orthodox, you could argue its not comparable to Islam or Buddhism (and I'd agree with you.)

I'll note that even Lumen Gentium, from what I recall, only says that IF a pagan who through no fault of his own doesn't know the gospel or the Church IF he follows natural law and cooperates wiith the grace he's given, etc. he can be saved.  But I don't believe that it rules out some kind of angelic appearance or something like that.  

As far as universalists go, I think there's a certain line between postulating extraordinary EXCEPTIONS to general rules, and saying the rules don't exist.  I think anything close to universalism, by any reasonable definition, wouldn't just deny the "absolute" necessity of baptism, rather it would deny that baptism is even necessary at all.  Saying a handful of individuals here and there *might* be saved by implicit baptism of desire is a very different proposition of applying that to everyone or nearly everyone.  If you have so many exceptions to the rule that the rule practically for all intents and purposes doesn't even exist, I don't think that's logical.

I think the problem with Vatican II on points like this is that there aren't really careful distinctions, like those made by Pius IX or Archbishop Lefebvre.  I do think Vatican II technically allows those distinctions, and could technically be acceptable.  But I also think they did this on purpose.  They gave us a vague docuмent that *can* easily be interpreted as crypto-universalism.

Admittedly i think I agree with Ladislaus on this point.  If Vatican II ecclesiology is "heretical" per se, like no matter how you interpret it, even the strictest, most conservative, most charitable interpretation is heretical, than yeah, I think something like "feeneyism" is the logical conclusion of that belief.  By contrast, if you believe, like I do, that Vatican II *can* be read orthodox, but its basically weaponized ambiguity that's written in such a manner that modernists can take a mile when only an inch is being given, I think that can reasonably lead to a conclusion similar to that of Lefebvre.

For what its worth, to be clear, I grant the possibility that no actual non-Catholics (as to visible membership) will be saved.