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.
Wow. That's a new approach.
You were arguing that Jesus acquiesced to the requests of Mary and Mary. That is not the point of the story of Lazarus. You have missed the point...again.
And thus you have given a shoddy understanding of the work Christ performed on Lazarus. No man can know the things of God, let alone live according to His perfect law, unless and until that man is born again by the Holy spirit. Like all humanists, the RCC under-estimates the effects of the fall.
* 2 Peter 2:19 - by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved. * Titus 3:3 - For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. * Galatians 4:8-9 - However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? * Romans 6:6,16,17,19,20 - our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin... Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey...? But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart... For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification. For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. * Romans 7:14 - For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. * Romans 6:20 - For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. * 2 Timothy 2:25-26 - if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will. * John 8:34 - "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin."
Look up “non sequitur.”
Yes, of course Mary gave birth to Jesus. My point was that we don’t go through Mary to Jesus to God — there is but ONE mediator between God and man: Christ Jesus alone. And He is not one to share credit with anyone — not even Mary — for what He has accomplished.
Absolutely spot on. It is finished and we have access through Him, alone.
Mary becomes a means to make mere mortals near god-like, thus diminishing the glory due the Triune God. We submit that this makes reverence for Mary idolotry.
No, I said that Jesus allowed for the people to act on their own in that story and in many others; I did not say anything about rewarding Martha and Mary, or Thomas, or the point of the story of Lazarus.
No you “explained” that you and the RCC believe a mish-mash promise that God gave men free will. If you think this is supported in Scripture, start again and show us what verse in, say, Romans 7 supports Paul saying, “I have free will”.
Concupiscence,-- inclination to sin,-- coexists in human soul with the free will, as sometimes the very verses you posted demonstrate. Check out, for example, references to becoming obedient, freedom in regard to righteousness, etc.
Christ is one mediator to the Father, correct. The saints are many mediators to Christ, as many episodes from the scriptures demonstrate. Need references, ask.
I myself, with the mind serve the law of God; but with the flesh, the law of sin. (Romans 7:25)
In the entire chapter St. Paul speaks of his will as a given reality; he comments on the weakness of his will, but never of its absence:
For to will, is present with me; but to accomplish that which is good, I find not. (Romans 7:18)
I believe I already pointed that out to you.
Please read the verse you quoted...
“For to will, is present with me; but to accomplish that which is good, I find not.” (Romans 7:18)
Your argument is that the proof of free will is that a man may choose any selection physically available, unaided and uninfluenced. Here Paul says that your claim is precisely the opposite of what he is experiencing. He sees what is good, but HE CANNOT ACCOMPLISH THE CHOICE. This is bondage to sin.
Are we defining English words the same?
Yes, but that is in reference to the purely carnal man, aside from the divine grace, as we see in v.25. The will is still present, but it is overpowered.
Finally, some progress. You acknowledge a will may be present, but “overpowered” and therefore not operative. Thus, you agree (even if you are limiting your answer to a “carnal man”) there are circumstances whereby a man does not have “free will”. Correct?
As chapter 7 explains, free will is always present, but without grace, indeed, man cannot make a choice for the good.
Thank you. Then “free will” is really “limited will”, since you limit it to when grace is given.
A present, but inoperative, “free will” is not a will at all, since its very function (to make choices) is not working.
In the very beginning we defined free will as something that operates under constraints and influences. However, it is working, as we see in the scripture and elsewhere men making choices for the good. They are not illusory choices because God would not judge us for something we did not choose.
No, sir, we did not. You said that while influences may be present, they did not affect the outcome of the selection process. That is the definition of “free”. We never contended that there was not an apparatus, a faculty, for selection. We contended that the equipment was not “free”.
You, OTOH, said that the will of man was completely free from influence or man would not be free. We argued, then that if we could demonstrate examples of a will being affected and influenced it, by definition, would not be “free” according to your own words. You came back and said, influenced wills are still free. This is nonsense. An influenced will is “limited” and therefore the antithesis of free.
That is why we want you to declare yourself, does a “free” will have its own capacity to choose irrespective of any possible influences, or is it a “limited” will subject to outside influences which can make it choose what it does not want to choose?
Sure they do. Remember the city intersection analogy I gave you? If one street is blocked by a wall, I cannot go there. That is a constraint. If another street is marked "No entry", then I will have a difficulty going there even though physically I can. I would prefer another route. That's an influence.
Beside, grace is available: man is not entirely carnal.
You, once again, muddied the water about the “free” portion of “free will”.
Example, the street sign marked “No entry” may be an issue to influence your thinking about what descision is wise or legal, but it absolutely would not be an issue to limit your “free will”, assuming that something like “free will” existed. Your “free will” could choose to enter the street and break the law, or not enter and obey the law, if your view of “free will” is correct.
The kind of influence Paul writes about is where he sees the street sign, does not want to enter it, but finds himself turning onto the street, breaking the law no matter what he wants or thinks. He cannot stop himself from doing that which he knows is wrong. This is the evidence of the loss of “freedom” of the will. We don’t argue there is no will, we just argue that it is not free.
You, OTOH, claim that a man is not limited by anything that would take away the man’s ability to make that choice exactly as he wanted. You, therefore, claim this proves man has “free will”. But, we point out, if something overpowers a man’s will such that he cannot choose what he actually sees is possible and desparately wants to do, this would by everyone’s definition in the world (perhaps except yours and the RCC) prove the will is not “free”.
“Sure it is transferable:”
There is nothing in scripture to suggest any power is transferable, sorry !
“the improper conduct at the Mass St. Paul condemns in 1 Cor. 11 did not negate the fact that it was a valid Mass, when Christ was truly present in the Eucharist (1 Cor. 11:26), yet it was evidently not celebrated by an apostle.”
No mention of any mass in those passages, It’s amazing what the RCC reads into simple verses. Ceremonies and rituals just pop out of nowhere. It’s evident from the text that the Lord’s supper mentioned in the text was some sort of a dinner, as it clearly states, “21- for as you eat , each of you goes ahead with out waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 - Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? or do you despise the Church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?” What this doesn’t say, is that they were passing out wafers and having some ceremony to sacrifice Jesus again.
This is a church gathering in the name of the Lord, to REMEMBER His sacrifice, not to eat like pigs and get drunk. Also, this gathering didn’t need an apostle present as “do this in remembrance of me” applies to all believers, who REMEMBER the sacrifice and thank the Lord for it.
“The two epistles to Timothy and one to Titus are instructions in how to consecrate clergy. Note that neither Timothy or Titus are themselves apostles.”
No, those are instructions for choosing elders, and leaders, who follow sound doctrine and lead Godly lives as examples to each congregation. No mention of any magic ceremony where anybody gets some elevated status, no mention of alter Christos. Just the Biblical model for each congregations leadership body.
“I have little interest in Protestant theological fantasies regarding “middlemen” or how proclaiming the gospel is “in effect” forgiving sins.”
If you think hearing the Gospel and accepting Christ and having your sins forgiven is a fantasy, then I know I made the right choice to leave the RCC.
” If you have further questions about the Catholic teaching or the meaning of the Holy Scripture, please ask them, and I am always happy to answer.”
I think I’ll stick with the Bible, thanks !
St. Paul is providing an example of weak will in Romans 7. But, he continues, that with divine grace he can "with the mind serve the law of God". His will, while weak, can become strong as Christ sanctifies him.
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.