We see this conditioning in the irrational reasoning of Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Archbishop Augistine Di Noia and Bishop Bernard Fellay :it was accepted by Lefebvre,Hildebrand,Davis and Mattei

Most people when they discuss theology or Catholic doctrine assume that hypothetical cases are explicit since this is the teaching of the contemporary magisterium. So they accept the Letter of the Holy Office as being magisterial and they also interpret Vatican Council II assuming hypothetical cases are objective in the present times. 

This was  how the Council Fathers reasoned and then the traditionalists Lefebvre, Hildebrand, Mattei and  Michael Davis used this reasoning.

So when most people discuss theology or Catholic doctrine their premise is that there are known cases of the baptism of desire and blood without the baptism of water.

They take this for granted since this is magisterial and the traditionalists,liberals and conservatives accept this.

Often when I speak to them it is hard for them to understand me. Since for me hypothetical cases are not explicit. So I can only accept the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and reject the Second Part.The second part would be irrational to accept.

I interpret Vatican Council II according to the first part of the Letter i.e traditional Feeneyism. It does not assume hypothetical cases were exceptions to the EENS. So when I look at Vatican Council II there are no hypothetical cases ( LG 8, LG 16, UR 3 etc) which are explicit for me.

When I read Vatican Council II it is different from the way others do it. In my mind I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), since I want to, and then I realize that there are no exceptions to EENS.

So when I talk about theology and Church doctrine it is difficult for Catholics to understand me. Since they have been conditioned to accept the irrational reasoning and they think that this was the reasoning in the Church for centuries. They even call this the Deposit of Faith.

So in our  conversation, in what I write, our premises and conclusions are different.When I come to a discussion with a traditionalist or a liberal Catholic, my premise and conclusion is different.It is based on common knowledge( we cannot see the dead who are now in Heaven) and common sense ( we cannot see invisible people).

Catholics, including those who have studied theology come to the discussion  always thinking that there are exceptions to the dogma EENS. They are saying, indirectly, that there are known cases of people in Heaven who are there without the baptism of water. Or, that they know of people on earth,who they are sure will go to Heaven without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.So they come to a discussion with an irrational premise and conclusion.

They have been conditioned to think like this by over some 70 plus years in the Catholic Church.

We see this conditioning in the irrational reasoning of Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Archbishop Augistine Di Noia and Bishop Bernard Fellay.1

-Lionel Andrades 

1

Muller, Di Noia and Fellay contradict the extra ordinary (ex cathedra) and ordinary magisterium

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/muller-di-noia-and-fellay-contradict.html

Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made an objective mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II 

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/muller-di-noia-and-fellay-made.html

Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made an objective error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and traditionalists are in a fix. They cannot correct me and neither do they want to say that they were wrong all these years and have been interpreting Vatican Council II with an irrational reasoning http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/muller-di-noia-and-fellay-made_36.html