'But how can you tell with moral certainity that any man is in Hell ?'

Lionel: Please read Dominus Iesus 20.It says salvation is universal, open to all BUT to receive this salvation one needs to enter the Church.

Jim:  But Magisterial documents make clear that those who BY GRACE CAN BECOME RELATED AND JOINED to the Church by both invisible or visible bonds (Jews, pagans, Muslims, BAPTIZED NON-CATHOLICS IN GOOD FAITH)---- are “within the Church”.

 

Lionel: We do not know who is joined to the Church in partial communion or invinsible bonds. We do not know any specific case, as I have mentioned before.

Do you know of any specific case?

 

Lionel: We know for sure that some sins lead to Hell. Some sins orient a person to Hell.

The Bible tells us that some sins will prevent people from seeing the Kingdom of God. So we know Mohammad and other Muslims are oriented to Hell.

 

Jim says:

 

BUT HOW CAN YOU KNOW WITH MORAL CERTAINTY THAT ANY MAN (Even Mohammed) HAS DIED IN MORTAL SIN? Again, you claim to know more than the Church itself does! Being “oriented to Hell” does not mean “condemned to Hell”.You ignore that every man and woman entering this vale of tears is also “oriented to his supernatural destiny of the Beatific Vision in Heaven”!

Lionel: The Church tells us that there are some sins which are mortal sins and that a person who is in this condition in public is not to receive the Eucharist(Canon 915). So we know there are some grave sins and the Church repeats this teaching of the Bible.

'Being oriented to Hell' does not mean 'condemned to Hell'. Correct. Neither does it mean not being condemned.

If you think someone is an exception to the rule then again I would ask you how would you know? How would you know specific cases?

If you believe the exception makes the rule (as says Fr.Charles Curran etc) then this is not the teaching of the Church.

 

We also have the teaching of the Church's Magisterium indicating the same. (Cantate Domino, Ad Gentes 7 etc)

 

Jim says:

 

NO, NOT SO! WHAT IS CLEAR IS THAT YOU TOTALLY REJECT VATICAN II’S “LUMEN GENTIUM, #16, ON THE SALVATION OF NON-CATHOLICS, and consider its teaching as contradicting past Magisterial teaching. You are in support of a “hermeneutic of rupture” in the doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church, a position that is not acceptable and which Pope Benedict XVI has specifically rejected.

 

Lionel: We accept the possibility of non Catholics in invincible ignorance etc, being saved (Lumen Gentium 16) and they are known to God only. However the Lumen Gentium 16 text does not say that we know of specific cases in the present times and so this contradicts the dogma.

So you have no text from Vatican Council II for supporting a heresy. It is heresy to reject orchange  an ex cathedra  dogma even after being informed.

The hermeneutic of continuity, is that for centuries popes, Councils and saints taught that everyone with no exception needs to enter the Church formally to avoid Hell.

The hermeneutic of rupture was when the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing, said that there could be people in invincible ignorance etc who are known to us in the present times and so this contradicted the dogma and Fr.Leonard  Feeney.

The hermeneutic of rupture was when Fr. Hans Kung said that Lumen Gentium 16 indicates that people in invincible ignorance etc can be specifically known to us in the present times and so this contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus (and Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council 2).

You are saying the same.