A premise is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion.In other words: a premise is an assumption that something is true... Aristotle held that any logical argument could be reduced to two premises and a conclusion...
For example:Socrates is mortal because all men are mortal.
It is evident that a tacitly understood claim is that Socrates is a man. The fully expressed reasoning is thus:Because all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, Socrates is mortal.-Wikipedia
For example: Socrates is mortal because all men are mortal.
It is tacitly said here that Socrates is a man. The reasoning is fully expressed thus:
Since all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, Socrates is mortal. In this example, "all men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man" are the premises, while "Socrates is mortal" is the conclusion.
The proof of a conclusion depends on the truth of the premise.
This is an example of a rational premise.Our reason tells us that all men are mortal and Socrates refers to a man.
It is tacitly said here that Socrates is a man. The reasoning is fully expressed thus:
Since all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, Socrates is mortal. In this example, "all men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man" are the premises, while "Socrates is mortal" is the conclusion.
The proof of a conclusion depends on the truth of the premise.
This is an example of a rational premise.Our reason tells us that all men are mortal and Socrates refers to a man.
An irrational premise is a statement which is not true and not real. For example:
Premise:
All men are cats.
Conclusion:
Socrates is a man. Socrates is a cat.
In this example, the premise is irrational and fantasy.
Conclusion:
Socrates is a man. Socrates is a cat.
In this example, the premise is irrational and fantasy.
Similarly, the deceased who are now in Heaven are not physically visible to us.We cannot see them on earth.This could be a rational premise.
An irrational premise is that those persons who are saved and are now happily living in Heaven are physically visible to us.We can seem them in the flesh on earth.
This is false. It is common knowledge that we cannot see the dead in Heaven.
A rational premise is that every one on earth needs the baptism of water for salvation.This is based on Catholic Faith.
An irrational premise is that every one on earth does not need the baptism of water for salvation, since there are known exceptions.There are non Catholics who have died with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance .They have died without the baptism of water it is inferred.It is then inferred that we know who they are this year and we can name them. So the conclusion is that every one does not need the baptism of water for salvation in 2014.
It is this irrational premise which Fr.Fidenzio Volpi the Apostolic Commissioner of the Franciscans of the Immaculate uses in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and other magisterial documetns.
If he would be asked why would the FFI have to accept this irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II he would say that this is a standard requirement set by the Congregation for Religious Life, Vatican. And why would this Congregation have to accept this irrational interpretation of the Council' One could be told that this is being asked of them by Pope Francis. And why would Pope Francis want Vatican Council II to be interpreted as a break with the past ? The answer would probably be it is because the Chief Rabbinate of Israel wants it as such.It is their policy for Catholics.They want to project Vatican Council II as break with the past.
The irony is: that the Franciscans of the Immaculate,most of them, are using the irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. So they cannot ask the Apostolic Commissioner to affirm Vatican Council II in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Franciscans of the Immaculate unfortunately also assume that the baptism of desire is explicit for us.It is objectively seen.So for them the baptism of desire contradicts the tradtional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney, Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7), Catechsim of the Catholic Church (846,845), Church Councils, popes and saints.
They need to ask the Apostolic Commissioner to affirm Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church without using the irrational premise in the interpretation.
They need to tell him that they affirm Vatican Council II, without the irrational premise, it is a Vatican Council II,in accord with the thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment