CathInfo.com

So, then from 60 they go on to 61:

I therefore reject false ecuмenism, which rests upon the idea that the Holy Ghost would not refuse to use separated communities as means of salvation, as though the Church of Christ were present and active in them, or as though these communities possessed in themselves a salvific value whose efficacy would derive from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church. If any man comes to the revealed truth or receives a grace of sanctification outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church, that truth and that grace belong by right to that same Church and unequivocally call to Catholic unity, and the Holy Ghost does not give these as means of salvation by using separated communities as such, of which souls can never be warned too much.

So, this is utter hogwash.  They just finished affirming that people can be saved in false religions.  How does what Vatican II teaches on the matter, then, not follow quite logically.  What, then, caused their salvation.

See, a Bible-beatin Prot get baptized, and the Prot Bible-beatin preacher elicits from him an act of contrition by preaching the word, and elicits an act of faith by teaching the Bible.  So, didn't this Baptism and preaching and the Bible / Gospel not somehow serve as a means of salvation?  Of course it did.  BoDers claim that people are saved by contrition and charity, and some Prot preacher could easily help inspired those by teaching about various parts of the Bible.

Vatican II's "Unitatis Redintegration", to which they refer here says that "[they] derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church".  In other words, the Sacred Scriptures, some true doctrine, such as about the Holy Trinity, and believe in Christ, the Incarnation, as well as the Sacrament of Baptism ... these are in fact those "elements" (as elsewhere they put it) that were committed to the Church, but which can then contribute to salvation outside the Church (if you believe that there is such a thing).

AND, you'll see that even SSPX hedge at the very end by using the expression "by using separated communities as such".  Uhm, well ... that's to strawman Vatican II and to reject something that Vatican II didn't actually teach.  What Vatican II actually taught was that it isn't the false religions AS SUCH that are used as instruments of salvation, but the false religions "in quantum" true, i.e. to the extent that they have some truth and grace (e.g. some valid Sacraments).

"If they are saved, it is in spite of their false religion." ?
...
Didn't Christ say "My Blood will be shed for you and for many..."  (The novus ordo changed this English translation in the Mass to "for all".)
Not for ALL because many will reject Him. Many will reject His graces and His Divine Life.

61. I therefore reject false ecuмenism, which rests upon the idea that the Holy Ghost would not refuse to use separated communities as means of salvation, as though the Church of Christ were present and active in them, or as though these communities possessed in themselves a salvific value whose efficacy would derive from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.

If any man comes to the revealed truth or receives a grace of sanctification outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church, that truth and that grace belong by right to that same Church and unequivocally call to Catholic unity, and the Holy Ghost does not give these as means of salvation by using separated communities as such, of which souls can never be warned too much.

Reworded, this says:

1.  The Holy Ghost would not refuse to use separated communities as means of salvation...the Church of Christ were (is not) present and active in them... these communities (do not) possess in themselves a salvific value whose efficacy would derive from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.

2.  If any man comes to the revealed truth or receives a grace of sanctification outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church, that truth and that grace belong by right to that same Church and unequivocally call to Catholic unity, and the Holy Ghost does not give these as means of salvation by using separated communities as such, of which souls can never be warned too much.

-----

Part 1 seems "ok" as a rebuttal against V2.  It could be much clearer, but whatever.

Part 2 is a mess.  The "grace of sanctification" only comes from the sacraments.  They should have referenced BAPTISM, if they are going to use this reference to BOD.  If there's no reference to baptism, then it's heresy.  They should've also used the word "grace of justification" as that's what Trent uses.  Justification and sanctification are 2 different things.