In another place the soul describes the entry into Heaven of a woman who was not Catholic but who died making an act of perfect contrition, which was accepted by God.

In light of the dogma, which binds us to believing under pain of mortal sin that there is no salvation outside the Church, how is it that you are able to believe that a woman who was not Catholic, was able to even make an act of perfect contrition at all? -  and on that account, made it to heaven. To believe that both the story and the dogma are true, is ipso facto to deny that one of them, the dogma, is true. Which is to say that if the non-Catholic was saved, then the dogma is a lie.

The only way anyone can believe the story, is to disbelieve the dogma, which is a sin. It is impossible to believe that both the dogma and the story are both true. That is, it is impossible to believe the dogma that non-Catholics cannot be saved, while at the same time believe that a non-Catholic was saved without denying the dogma.

OK, we've got two of you on record.  Where's NO?  Laddy says that ABL was in "grave error."  And struth believes in dogma, not fallible men like ABL.  What a champion of the faith he is!
How about you, Matthew?  Do you take a similar position?  Are you in the camp of these two theological CI giants? Do you reject "fallible men" like the Archbishop, while declaring unyielding, unwavering allegiance to true "dogma?"  This is your blog.  You reprint everything that +Williamson writes, who, along with the other bishops I am certain, holds the erroneous views of ABL.  Where do you stand, sir? After all, you say this is a Resistance site, and +W is the putative leader of that Resistance.  How about it?

Yeah, we knew you were asking the question because you're trolling to get us banned ... to confirm you in your erroneous/heretical views.

So, what, then, nothingsworth, you DO consider Archbishop Lefebvre to have been infallible?

You R&R guys accuse the man whom you assert to be the Vicar of Christ to be guilty of grave error and even heresy, and that's OK?  But +Lefebvre is above the Magisterium somehow?

Cardinal Billot explains that some Protestants can be material heretics. "Heretics are divided into formal and material. Formal heretics are those to whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently known; while material heretics are those who, being in invincible ignorance of the Church herself, in good faith choose some other guiding rule. So the heresy of material heretics is not imputable as sin and indeed it is not necessarily incompatible with that supernatural faith which is the beginning and root of all justification. For they may explicitly believe the principal articles, and believe the others, though not explicitly, yet implicitly, through their disposition of mind and good will to adhere to whatever is sufficiently proposed to them as having been revealed by God. In fact they can still belong to the body of the Church by desire and fulfil the other conditions necessary for salvation. Nonetheless, as to their actual incorporation in the visible Church of Christ, which is our present subject, our thesis makes no distinction between formal and material heretics, understanding everything in accordance with the notion of material heresy just given, which indeed is the only true and genuine one. For, if you understand by the expression material heretic one who, while professing subjection to the Church's Magisterium in matters of faith, nevertheless still denies something defined by the Church because he did not know it was defined, or, by the same token, holds an opinion opposed to Catholic doctrine because he falsely thinks that the Church teaches it, it would be quite absurd to place material heretics outside the body of the true Church; but on this understanding the legitimate use of the expression would be entirely perverted. For a material sin is said to exist only when what belongs to the nature of the sin takes place materially, but without advertence or deliberate will. But the nature of heresy consists in withdrawal from the rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium and this does not take place in the case mentioned [of someone who is resolved to believe all that the Church teaches but makes a mistake as to what her teaching consists in], since this is a simple error of fact concerning what the rule dictates. And therefore there is no scope for heresy, even materially."

Cardinal Billot says a Catholic who makes a mistake of fact is not in fact any kind of heretic - not even material, and this is important because canon law of old had some censures for those who are even material heretics. So, material heretics are non-Catholics. 

The question is, can someone who is a material heretic obtain the grace of final perseverance? The answer Fr. Mueller and other theologians give is, if he co-operates with the graces God gives him, God in His mercy will give him that grace, by enabling him to repent of his Protestant heresies before death. But He won't give final perseverance to someone who has not become a Catholic. 

Material heretics, per the explanation of Cardinal Billot, can be in the state of grace. But they will either be lost for other mortal sins and thus perish in them as Protestants, or if they co-operate with God Who wants them to be converted and saved, they will be converted.

Thus the statement of Pope Gregory XVI that "men are saved only in the Catholic religion" and that heretics do not attain eternal life.

In light of the dogma, which binds us to believing under pain of mortal sin that there is no salvation outside the Church, how is it that you are able to believe that a woman who was not Catholic, was able to even make an act of perfect contrition at all? -  and on that account, made it to heaven. To believe that both the story and the dogma are true, is ipso facto to deny that one of them, the dogma, is true. Which is to say that if the non-Catholic was saved, then the dogma is a lie.

The only way anyone can believe the story, is to disbelieve the dogma, which is a sin. It is impossible to believe that both the dogma and the story are both true. That is, it is impossible to believe the dogma that non-Catholics cannot be saved, while at the same time believe that a non-Catholic was saved without denying the dogma.

I heard asimilar story about Edwin Edwards. He was αssαssιnαtҽd. When he was shot he was brought to a Catholic hospital. The nun asked him if he wanted to see a priest. He said, "No sister, I am not a Catholic." The sister held his hand and led him in making an act of perfect contrition. I believe this sister helped him to make his peace with God and that he could well be in Purgatory if not in Heaven by now. If the religious sister more than 80 years ago who probably never heard the word VaticanII  during her lifetime thought that because he wasn't a Catholic he would go straight to Hell tehn why would she waste her time leading him in making an act of perfect contrition?

The question is, can someone who is a material heretic obtain the grace of final perseverance? The answer Fr. Mueller and other theologians give is, if he co-operates with the graces God gives him, God in His mercy will give him that grace, by enabling him to repent of his Protestant heresies before death. But He won't give final perseverance to someone who has not become a Catholic.

Material heretics, per the explanation of Cardinal Billot, can be in the state of grace. But they will either be lost for other mortal sins and thus perish in them as Protestants, or if they co-operate with God Who wants them to be converted and saved, they will be converted.

Thus the statement of Pope Gregory XVI that "men are saved only in the Catholic religion" and that heretics do not attain eternal life.

So your position is analogous with that of Father Feeney, claiming that sincere Protestants can be in a state of justification but do not attain salvation without first converting.

So poche does theology based upon the sentiments of a nun.

This error long predates Vatican II, and it was in fact the cause of Vatican II.

So, poche, how do you explain this particular story in light of the dogma that there's no salvation outside the Catholic Church?

It is not for me to judge. I leave everything to the mercy of God and I ask Him for a merciful judgement.

So it's not for you to affirm Catholic dogma.  Duly noted.

It is not that I refuse to affirm Catholic dogma. It is that I do not sit in the place of God.

Yes, St. Augustine speaks a great deal about final perseverance, and St. Benedict's Centre says they believe as he did: "Saint Augustine taught, as is clear from this article’s epigram, that the providence of God would see to it that a justified catechumen would be baptized before death. God alone, in any event, knows which of those, with a votum for baptism and perfect contrition, He has justified. The Church can only assume, as the arm of Christ, the Principal Agent in baptism, that all are in need of receiving the sacramentin order to not only have all sin forgiven and abolished, but to be a member of the Church, the Body of Christ. Anticipating the rejoinder that no one is lost who dies in the state of grace, let me just affirm that I agree. Not only that I agree, but that I submit to this truth as I would a dogma of Faith. The Church, however, allows the faithful the freedom to believe that the providence of God will see to it that every person dying in the state of grace will also be baptized. This preserves the literal sense of Christ’s teaching in John 3:5: “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” and His apostolic mandate to preach and baptize all nations in Mark 16: 15-16." A way to formulate this would be, someone who believes in Christ and makes an act of love of God, united with the desire of the Sacraments, can obtain or return to justification and the state of sanctifying grace; and if he perseveres in striving to love God and keep His commandments, above all in prayer, he will be given final perseverance by God after he has become Catholic.

And for those who opposed what I said earlier that the Eucharist is the great pledge of obtaining final perseverance, listen to St. Augustine's exegesis of the Lord's prayer, "The fourth petition is, Give us this day our daily bread, Matthew 6:11 where the blessed Cyprian shows how here also perseverance is understood to be asked for. Because he says, among other things, And we ask that this bread should be given to us daily, that we who are in Christ, and daily receive the Eucharist for the food of salvation, may not by the interposition of some heinous sin be separated from Christ's body by being withheld from communicating and prevented from partaking of the heavenly bread. These words of the holy man of God indicate that the saints ask for perseverance directly from God, when with this intention they say, Give us this day our daily bread, that they may not be separated from Christ's body, but may continue in that holiness in which they allow no crime by which they may deserve to be separated from it ...If, therefore, it be granted to him according to his prayer that he may not be led, certainly by the gift of God he persists in that sanctification which by the gift of God he has received." http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15122.htm

Since final perseverance is a separate grace, to be obtained above all by the Sacraments and by prayer, receiving justification is not a guarantee that anyone will persevere. It is the gift of grace to anyone that he or she does persevere in faith and love until the end.

Ladislaus, I think SBC doesn't worry very much about whether or not a Protestant is in material heresy, and admits he may be one for a while. I read their website a while ago, that's if I remember correctly. I have no issue with that. But I think Cardinal Billot is right here (and also to clear up a possible misunderstanding - Cardinal Billot is talking about Catholics in the section you quoted, he is saying Catholics mistaken about a matter of fact are not material heretics; the term material heretics, according to +Billot, is reserved for Protestants in material heresy; Canon Law also speaks of "heretics who err in good faith" who are to be denied the Sacraments) and you will find similar sentiments in Cardinal Franzelin, Cardinal Lugo etc. This is Cardinal Lugo in De Virtute Fidei divinae, "Others acknowledge the Triune God and Christ, as most heretics do… Now if these people are excused from the sin of infidelity by reason of invincible ignorance, they can be saved. For those who are in invincible ignorance about some articles of faith but believe others, are not formally heretics, but they have supernatural faith, by which they believe true articles, and on this basis there can follow acts of perfect contrition, by which they can be justified and saved ...  One who is baptized as an infant by heretics, and is brought up by them in false doctrine, when he reaches adulthood, could for some time not be guilty of sin against the Catholic faith, as long as this had not been proposed to him in a way sufficient to oblige him to embrace it. However, if the Catholic faith were subsequently proposed to him in a way sufficient to oblige him to embrace it and to abandon errors contrary to it, and he still persisted in his errors, then he would be a heretic.” When Cardinal Billot says "there is no scope for heresy, even materially", he's saying erring Catholics are not material heretics.

Anyway, I'm not much interested in getting into a debate on that. What is necessary imho is (1) to believe Protestants, and others, should become Catholic to be saved and (2) to pray, work and sacrifice for their conversion and salvation. Some do not believe 1 very strongly, but still do 2. Some believe 1, but neglect 2. Let us do both, omitting nothing, and then we will be perfect disciples of Christ.