I’m just saying Judas is the only PARTICULAR individual of who’s damnation we can be certain

We are on two opposite poles you and I. You believe for certain on only one person, Judas, being damned, while I believe with certainty that only 3 of 100 of my dead family are saved (and maybe another 10 made it to Purgatory, maybe not).

They even go so far as to say that Judas may not be in Hell, like JPII did. Meanwhile, of all of my family members and close family that have died since I was a child, maybe near to 100 people, I am certain of only 3 that were saved and of the others maybe another 10 may have made it to Purgatory, maybe not. AND all were baptized Catholics who died from 1970 till present.

As far as the various baptized Christians who are not visibly Catholic goes, I think some of them have mitigating enough factors that they aren’t mortally culpable for this, I agree with the Baltimore catechism and the accompanying explanations of it on this, but that doesn’t mean I think such people are LIKELY to be saved.

 Church dogma says that baptized non-catholics cannot gain heaven.

I think those who are visibly Protestant are less likely to be saved cause they’d have to have perfect contrition, which is hard to do.

Church dogma says that unbaptized protestants cannot gain heaven.
.
Where the devil tries to get us confused is by 1) attempting to understand God's workings in other souls, 2) attempting to understand other's spiritual life, based on our superficial knowledge of them, 3) attempting to understand how grace and good will work together.
.
It's an exercise that will leave us frustrated because it's just unknowable.  And the devil will tempt us to either 1) overestimate God's mercy at the expense of His justice...which leads to lukewarmness, or 2) overestimate God's justice over His mercy...which leads to cold rigidity.
.
If you just accept Church doctrine as it is, then life will be easier.  You can never explain salvation - it's a spiritual mystery.

Right, of course God can convert anyone in his dying moments, but the Holy Office considered it problematic to add even the qualifier:  Confucius was MOST LIKELY damned.  Once you start talking like that, the floodgates open up against EENS.  Now the Church has always operated on the external forum.  So if someone dies to all appearances outside the Church, the position is:  "they're lost".  Period.  No qualifiers.  No hemming and hawing.  Could we in the next life find that someone presumed damned was saved by some extraordinary case?  Sure.  But there's a great danger in starting to think that way.  On earth, the Church is a visible society whose membership is clearly known and determined.  According to the Church Militant, then, they are categorically lost.  According to the Church Triumphant, however, they may have different information.

So, for instance, based on the Holy Office statement, you would say that there are many in hell, those who died outside the Church.  Bill was Eastern Orthodox and he died last week without showing any sign of conversion.  Bill lost his soul.  STOP.  End of Thought.

If someone asked me, "was Bill lost?"  I would say, yes, Bill was lost, not saved.  Otherwise, if I said, "Bill was most likely lost." then I open a crack of doubt in the interlocutor's mind that EENS may not in fact be true but has "exceptions".  In fact, most people today would start immediately prevaricating:  "Well, it's POSSIBLE that Bill could have been saved." or even "It's likely that Bill was saved, because he was a sincere faithful EO ... and he was a nice guy."

Last Tradician is much more confident of the damnation of particular individuals than I am

Well, he's merely following the directives of the Holy Office.  Are you not confident that Confucius is lost?

Well, he's merely following the directives of the Holy Office.  Are you not confident that Confucius is lost?

Absolutely confident?  No.  I can appreciate why St Pius X wanted absolutely no qualifiers, because it’s easy for people to get confused, but in and of itself this wouldn’t be a de fide pronouncement, at most it was a binding command on all Catholics living during St Pius Xs pontificate.
I have substantive doubt that all the Church Fathers would have absolute confidence here either.  I don’t even think you do, based on the qualifiers made earlier 

Byzcat, you’re confusing church doctrine with salvific reality.  Church doctrine says Confucius is lost.  No one knows where Confucius is, really.  Church doctrine is teaching BASED ON APPEARANCES.  That’s all we have to go on.  That’s how Christ told us to judge “He who believes and is baptized is saved; he who doth not believe is condemned.”  If you keep thinking of salvation in terms of “possibilities” then you’re in for a world of confusion.  This is not how a catholic should look at things.

Then why isn’t “he appears lost but we don’t know” sufficient?  Why do we have to say he was damned? 

Because the moment you begin attempting to articulate this, EENS is undermined.  We stick with Church teaching.  Confucius is lost.

If someone asks, "Do you think Confucius may have been saved?"  Answer is an unequivocal, "No" as in "No I don't."  As soon as you start into the usual, "Well, maybe." then the interlocutor walks away in his mind with, "So is the Church even serious about" EENS?  You can come up with 10 pages of distinctions and explanations for why it doesn't violate EENS, but the only take-away is the impression that salvation is possible outside the Church.

Let's say I go buy a lottery ticket, and the odds are one in ten million that I might win.  If someone asks me, "So, do you think you might win?"  Of course I'd answer "No.".  I buy the ticket HOPING I might win, but I really don't think I'm going to.  Is there a one-in-ten-million chance I might win?  Yes.  But that isn't enough to justify a "Yes" answer to "Do you think you might win?"

I would consider EENS to be less what’s threatened here, and more the ecclesiology that says that ONLY visible members are inside the Church.  And I don’t think this has been adequately proven, and I’ve raised objections to it previously, that I don’t think have been adequately refuted.  Certainly some have agreed with you throughout church history but I’m not yet convinced that all did even prior to 1600 (Justin martyr for instance).
I affirm EENS.  If you could accuse me of anything, it’s not really denying EENS, but rather perhaps accepting a mild form of V2 ecclesiology.  Which I’ll grant is possible but then if I do than so did lefebvre and so did most trad priests.  My big objection to V2 here is turning hope into near certainty, or an excuse to be ecuмenical rather than try to make converts, because certainly the only way to MAKE SURE you’re inside the Church is to actually join 

Inside the Church = baptized, active member who believes all the Church teaches.
.
Anything else is just a theory and probably heretical.  

According to what though?  That’s the unproven premise here