Posted on 06/17/2009 9:48:34 AM PDT by NYer
.- He grew up an evangelical Protestant in Oregon, suspicious of Marian theology. Now he’s a Catholic priest and a physicist. Dominican Father Raphael Mary Salzillo was ordained last month in San Francisco and will take up an assignment at the University of Washington Newman Center and Blessed Sacrament Parish in Seattle.
Born Wesley Salzillo in 1976, he grew up in Florence, a small coastal town. The family converted to Catholicism in the early 1990s.
"My family raised me with a strong Christian faith and a very clear sense that Christ should be the most important thing in my life," Father Raphael Mary recalls, explaining that his faith after conversion remained "generic."
"I was not fully open to the truth that the Catholic faith has to offer," he says.
But when he was 16, a spiritual experience at Mass gave him the strong feeling he was being called to priesthood or religious life. He was not open to it at the time, so tried to convince himself it was just his imagination.
A top graduate from Siuslaw High, he went on to Caltech, earning a bachelor’s degree in applied physics. He attended graduate school and there he felt his vocation being clarified. At the same time, this scientist wrestled with turning over his will so completely.
"I wanted to choose my own religion rather than accepting the Catholic one as a coherent whole," he says, aware that many people today pick and choose within a body of faith. "In a way, choice had become a God for me, as it has to so many in our society."
Through study of church history and theology and deepening prayer life, he discerned that his own intellect and judgment alone could not fulfill his deepest yearnings. He decided to trust Jesus and the Church fully.
"It was through submission of my power of choice in matters of faith, that I came to know Jesus Christ in a much deeper way," he says.
The last part of his faith to fall into place was an acceptance of Mary. That spiritual movement allowed him to love Jesus more, he explains.
"It was Mary who brought me to finally accept my vocation, and it has been her who has sustained me in this life," he says.
He chose the Dominicans for their emphasis on doctrinal preaching and study, as well as their strong community life with "a streak of monasticism."
He studied philosophy and theology in Berkeley, Calif. and also served at the University of Arizona Newman Center.
Hey, A.A. I went lookin’ for you and here you are : )
I thought of you when I saw this. You might be interested in posting this as a thread?
http://www.kansas.com/196/story/861812.html
Is it a miracle that Colwich man survived?
Colwich athlete’s story catches eye of Vatican investigator
Father Emil Kapaun
http://www.kansas.com/921/gallery/861375.html
this still does not explain how the RC’s teach that their priests get to be Alter Christos.
Sure it does. I don't know how the power of priests can be more clearly explained than by the verses I showed you.
Then why is it called the “sacrifice of the mass” ?
Because Christ offered the sacrifice at the hill of Golgotha.
Your church has taken “do this in memory of me” and created an entire unbiblical sacrificial ceremony
My Church does what Christ told her to do, according to the scriptures cited.
But your church has included in that it’s church tradition that is by definition, not found in the gospel .
Sorry, I can't parse that. What is not found in the Gospel?
The Bible does warn us about those who claim to be another Christ !
Indeed, and so for example, when a semblance of the Mass is celebrated illegally, that is a great offence against God.
Why? God knows my choices that I freely made. There is nothing illogical here.
Welcome back. Okay, let me see if I can ask a few questions to see if we are on the same page.
How are you defining “free”?
What do you mean when you use the term “foreknowledge of God”?
How much impact upon these concepts does Scripture have?
“Free” is free from coercion. Man is not impeded to exercise his will for the choices available to him. An example I give is a man capable of an act of charity or an act of selfishness and chooseing either one and not the other. Another example I give is a chess player capable to make one move or another and make one and not the other.
“Foreknowledge of God” is the divine knowledge of acts (or generally any events) that the human actor has not committed yet; that is, God knows the choices ultimately taken by man before the man even considered them. It is important to understand that God exists outside of time and therefore terms like “fore” (meaning “prior”), or “after” do not apply to God’s knowledge, but rather to our knowledge. It can be likened to an exceptionally good chess player knowing the game and his partner so well that he always knows what moves his partner will choose to make. It also can be likened to an observer standing on top of the mountain who can see the road ahead of the traveler, and the strength of the traveler, and is therefore capable of knowing whether the traveler can reach the destination before the traveler even begins his journey.
The scripture gives numerous examples of people exercising their free will and of God foreknowing what they will do. First, the Gospel and the epistles contain multiple exhortations to virtue — every epistle of St.Paul, for example, devotes the concluding chapters to such inspiratonal advice. It would make no sense to ask people to act in a moral way if they had no way of choosing their acts. The one prayer Christ expressly asked us to pray contains the plea that God’s will be done on earth, as well as expresses the fear of temptation, both indicating that asides of the will of God there exists a free will of man. Jesus foreknows the betrayal of Judas, and His passion, the cowardice of St. Peter, and the martyrdom of saints.
One strong prooftext for predestination of the reprobates (which theory the Church does not endorse) is the passage in Romans where man is likened to clay that God shapes like a potter. However, that merely shows that sovereign God makes both a virtuous man and a sinner; it certainly does not say that God intends to specifically make sinners any more than a potter would intentionally make broken pots. So that is prooftext for sovereignty of God but not for absence of free will.
“Sure it does. I don’t know how the power of priests can be more clearly explained than by the verses I showed you.”
Those verses show Jesus sending out 72 as missionaries to spread the gospel, not granting them any specific power. Heal the sick in verse 9 means, spread the word to non believers, because Jesus says “heal the sick ( unbelievers) who are there, and tell them, the Kingdom of God is near”
Jesus DID not say I am giving you some elevated status over other people. It was missionary work, as we all are required to do.
“Because Christ offered the sacrifice at the hill of Golgotha.”
Yes, that was in the past, one sacrifice, one time, once for all. Not every Sunday.
The scriptures you cited do not create a priesthood, nor do they establish a church. The one true church is the body of believers, not an organization.
We are all priests Revelation 1:6
“But your church has included in that it’s church tradition that is by definition, not found in the gospel .”
“Sorry, I can’t parse that. What is not found in the Gospel?”
Your church has made it’s church tradition not found in the gospel ( ex. a sinless Mary, purgatory, etc, etc ) equal in authority to scripture, and then condemns people for not believing it, as in Gal. 1
The sending the Church forth is not limited to the sending of the Seventy Two, and the verses from John I gave you in #207 are not from that episode. The principle that when one sees and hears a priest he sees and hears Christ is not restricted to the Seventy Two, nor is it restricted to the proclamation of the Gospel: the power is also given to forgive sins (John 20:23), and as you yourself mention, to heal the sick. But most importantly it is the power to consecrate and offer the sacrifice of the Mass, as is clear from te command “do this” in Luke 22:19.
Regarding whether or not the sacrifice of the Mass occurred once at the Last Supper, — as you seem to think, — every Sunday or, properly, every time a valid Mass is said, is answered in 1 Cor. 11:26, the verse I also gave you in #207.
You should read the scripture every know and then, and not just listen to Protestant spin about it.
In order to adequately address the many concepts you have presented here, allow me to take just one at a time and probe a little further. I will eventually get to all of the matters.
First, “Free” you tell us, means “free from coercion”. I gather from your context, and the ordinary understanding of the word, coercion is “forced compliance.” Compulsion, oppression, bullying. In other words, I would be coerced into choosing green sox if I really wanted to choose blue sox, but noticed my hand being forced over to the other side of the drawer toward the green sox. Try as I might to make the other selection, somehow, perhaps mystically, my hand is pushed by an unseen force over and then, as if by magic, my fingers are pried open and my hand pressed down. Acting just like the arcade game where the crane claw closes upon the teddy bear I don’t want, my hand closes upon the green sox and I pull them from the drawer. All the time, my brain is screaming, “Don’t take them; drop them and pick up the blue pair.” But, without sufficient power to overturn the choice, I take them and put them on.
If I get the picture right, this to you would be coercion and you would not consider it “free” choice of sox. These are not trick quesitons or remarks. I really don’t want to put words in your mouth, so I am attempting to get your concepts clearly understood. Do I have this concept of “free” correct?
This nightmare scenario of being drawn to the socks I don’t want to wear is a case of unfreedom, to be sure, but it is too narrow. “Free” means presence of several achievable choices. “Unfree” or “coerced” is then either physical coercion, supernatural coercion like what you describe, or siimply absence of an achievable choice.
I’m sorry...I don’t understand your answer. Are you saying that I correctly described not being “free” to choose? Or are you saying that my description is something beyond not being “free”?
You described one case of unfreedom, but it is not the only kind. Freedom is ability to make one choice among several; whenever this ability is impeded you have unfreedom.
So, “free” is the “unimpeded” ability to choose one among several selections. Correct?
Okay. Has Satan ever “impeded” anyone? Does God ever “impede” anyone?
Does God know every decision you will make?
In our interactions with Satan and with God we are left with moral choices that are truly ours. Satan does not have the power to impede our free wil, and God does not have the desire to do so, since the free will is a gift He Himself gave us.
This is not to say that we never face impediments, such as economic or physiological limitations, natural obstacles etc. But in the sphere of moral choices we always have achievable choices for good or evil.
Yes, God knows all our decisions, past, present and future. Further — you didn’t ask, but I think it is appropriate to bring this in at this point,— God does lead His Elect but He does so without withdrawing the gift of free will. In fact, those trials that we undergo are the manifestations of His leadership. I mention that so that the reader does not begin to imagine a distant clockmaker God of the enlightenment Deist heresies.
You are muddying the water about “freedom” here. You have mixed some issues about capacity to perform with issues about free will to choose. You have made physical limitations equivalent to an impediment about what you might want to choose in a matter. And this leaves you arguing both sides of an issue: There are no impediments to “free will”, but there are impediments to “free will”.
But, you cannot have both sides if you wish to teach this idea to reasonable people. The “...economic or physiological limitations, natural obstacles etc.” cannot be actual impediments according to your first definition. You have categorically stated that you believe in “free will” as the quality of being utterly free (”without impediment”) to choose any of a group of selections.
“Free will” may have to take physical limitations into account as it considers the selections available, but its choosing among those selections must be utterly free from influence at all. Otherwise you are not as “free” as you might feel. Are you prepared to call that “limited will” when it involves a physical situation?
Thus, to say this “free will” is only operative in the area of morals will require you to understand what a moral choice is and what a physical choice is. Was it a “moral” issue for the disciples to follow Jesus when he stopped by their fishing operation and said, “Follow me.”? Were they “free” because it was moral, or “limited” because it included possible physical limitations?
Again, let’s settle this...according to your definition(s), impediments cannot exist to free will, otherwise you would not have “free will”. Correct?
You have in this post mixed the issues about physical capacity with issues about free will. According to your prior definitions, there are no impediments to free will, otherwise the will would not be free. Thus, physical limitations may be a consideration that limit the number of your selections, but they could not technically be considered influences to the decision among available selections. If they could, then you no longer have “free will.” This is by your definition.
For example, if you don’t own blue sox, then the blue sox/green sox choice would not be in the realm of free will. You could not choose blue, if you wanted to. But, that is not a limitation to “free will”. If it is, then you have a form of “limited will”. Are you prepared to acknowledge that?
Your definition must stick to, “Among available selections, there exists absolutely no influences (except your will) affecting your choice.” Correct?
impediments cannot exist to free will, otherwise you would not have “free will”. Correct?
“Among available selections, there exists absolutely no influences (except your will) affecting your choice.” Correct?
Impediments as well as influences usually exist. For example, the apostles had the economic impediment to follow Jesus: several, for example, abandoned their business. Likewise, in moral choices we all have cultural influences, such as the inculturation not to steal, or initiate violence. Nevertheless, with all these impediments and infuences combined, man still able to make choices: some chose to abandon their fishing and tax collection businesses; others chose to tend to their families first, even though they were drawn to Jesus. The inculturation still leaves us today with a variety of options, for example, in choosing the right balance between work, Christian devotions and family.
Free will operates both within constraints and under influences. Think of it as a system of roads: the need to stay on paved surface is a constraint, and various road signs are influences. Yet, the driver can freely choose to turn one way or another at intersections. There is no impediment for him to choose any among available roads.
Sorry for the dual answers. When I posted, it behaved as though I abandoned the post and disappeared off my screen.
I feel as though I am chasing you through a forest. You state, “Impediments as well as influences usually exist.”
“Free will operates both within constraints and under influences.”
Then you state,”There is no impediment for him to choose any among available roads.”
Is there or is there not impediments to free will?
I don’t know why this is confusing. Free will operates between choices that are available. A constraint is something that makes a choice unavailable. For example, cars cannot be driven through walls. An influence is what makes some choices harder to make than others, for example, to drive in violation of traffic rules is a relatively difficult choice, even though it is available.
Once these constraints are realized, and influences weighed in, the choice is unimpeded. For example, at an intersection in a city I may turn left, or turn right, or go straight despite a do-not-enter sign and risk being stopped by police. I cannot go in any other direction because my car cannot go through walls or fly. That choice, left, right or straight, is entirely mine to make; it is unimpeded.
You apparently did not read the quotes from your post if you wonder why your remarks are confusing.
But, given that you hold that there are no impediments to the choice of possible selections, no influences and no coercions, I ask you the following:
Does God, while I am typing this post, know what you will answer when you respond? Insofar as you yourself did not know this question was coming, did He “foreknow” your answer?
Yes, God knows all past (relative to us) and all future (relative to us) events, and that includes my future answers to the questions that have not been posed to me yet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.