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.
"I send you like my father sent me"; "whose sins you forgive I will forgive in heaven", "who hears you hears me" are all transfer of power, very clearly stated.
No mention of any mass in those passages [...] This is a church gathering in the name of the Lord, to REMEMBER His sacrifice
What you call it is not important; the fact that the sacrifice of Christ is shown (1 Cor. 11:26) and the body of Christ is truly present (v 29) at the gathering, -- that is important. However, no apoastle presided over that gathering. It was, therefore, meraly a priest, contrary to your claim.
those are instructions for choosing elders, and leaders
The Greek words are "episcopos" (bishop) and "presbyteros" (priest), but again, however you want to call those people, these in Titus and Timothy are instructions on how to perpetuate the Church beyond the natural life of the Apostles, refuting your another claim.
I’ll stick with the Bible
But you don't know the Bible. You spent your time on this thread telling me how the plain language of the Bible does not mean what it says. You are not sticking with the Bible, you are running away from it.
It is little wonder that Christians don’t recognize the theological underpinnings of the RCC as legitimate. You manufacture answers without any consideration for truth.
Paul states in no uncertain terms that his will is in bondage to sin. That means, the choosing mechanism that you claimed was free to select any moral choice it wanted, was in Paul’s case, not free to choose goodness. He admitted it, but you will not. That makes you wrong...there is no “free will”.
You need to read the chapter to the end, as I many times suggested you do, and better yet, read the entire epistle, to understand that the bondage to sin is lifted by grace.
Further, a will that is in bondage is not the same as absence of will.
I have read the entire epistle dozens of times. Paul’s message is patently clear. Even in your continual doublespeak you tacitly admit that wills are not free.
If you want us to understand that “...the bondage to sin is lifted by grace.” you must be acknowledging that a person can, even in your paradigm, be in bondage of the will at some time or other. You have, thereby, acknowledged a will may be “not free”. We have never argued there is no will; we claimed that wills are not free.
And we further claimed that if you would read the entire Scriptures, it supports that wills are really at all times managed by the God Who fully knows all events/choices/actions past, present, and future. This is the only view consistent with the Bible’s claim of God’s foreknowledge, His foreordination and His predestination.
These basic doctrines of Scripture are denied by the RCC and replaced with their strange doctrines of men. But, what the RCC teaches is not the Gospel of the Bible; rather it is a fraud.
The simple and natural truth set before mankind is, can you accept these characteristics of God or will you continue in your heardhearted rebellion against His domination of your life, His mastery of your fate? Yes, accepting this can be difficult for a human, actually impossible unless God grants you understanding. But, the RCC has long rejected most basic biblical doctrine replacing it with their traditions and false philosophy of men.
But of course. For that, we have the segments of Romans 7 that you focus on. The leap you are making, -- and that leap is unbiblical -- that the free will is unfree at all times, when even the narrow context of Romans 7 denies that. Then you wave your hands in the air about "RCC".
Do you have a camera mounted around here? How did you know I was waving my hands in the air? And that was just for a minute anyway.
But, there is no leap at all. First, I did not acknowledge that Romans 7 said that the will was in bondage just some of the time. My point was that you were, at minimum, acknowledging the will is at some times not free, a fact that formerly you were denying. You were formerly claiming man had been given free will. If some times it is not free, I was noting that this is an admission such a claim is wrong.
The original argument, however, was that foreknowledge was the proof that your will was in bondage to a fixed outcome at all times. Foreknowledge is not a “leap”, but a standing, obvious claim of the Scriptures at every turn of the page, unless one is committed first to the RCC viewpoint and second to the Scriptures, themselves. This is when the arm waving began. I will be happy to furnish ten passages where this is clearly and unequivocally stated. But, I find you more committed to Catholicism that the Bible.
Foreknowledge is God’s fixed and absolute information about what you will choose morally tomorrow. You don’t know what this is; He does. That makes it fixed irrespective of what you may believe about your feelings or thoughts of “freedom”. The fact remains, it is a fixed outcome event. Just as Peter’s denial is proof of the fixity of tomorrow’s events, foreknowledge exists in God’s mind about every event, every action, every thought. If you can find biblical statements denying this, I am interested.
I never denied foreknowledge and I never denied bondage to sin as a temporal condition lifted by grace. I explained how foreknowledge does not contradict free will, how free will does not contradict the Scripture, and where it is shown to exist in scripture. All that was done about 50 posts ago.
No, you did not explain anything. You made some non-sequitor claims, which when rebutted you simply responded with more non-sequitor claims.
Perhaps, this is where I should back out of the conversation with this small caution: The arguments you presented are not reasonable, nor are they biblical. You may believe they are air-tight, well-thought out positions, but if you examine the words you use, they hold almost no definitive meaning. Such plastic theology is unreliable and I hope that God grants you an opportunity to turn from it to the positions supported by the Bible.
I’ll let the reader of this thread to see who is arguing from scripture and logic and who is advancing an extrascriptural speculation based on a few verses taken out of context.
Fair enough. But, I think you mean you’ll “leave it to the readers of this thread...”
Yeah, scratch “to”.
Please, ponder from time to time: why is the Bible, and especially the New Testament, so concerned with how people act if they are not free?
That is a very good question. But, beware...you are venturing out to “extrascriptural” remarks. Something you accused me of doing (although I deny that accusation).
If you are asking, “What does the Bible say the point is of all of the requirements to act holy and righteous, if men are not free?” then you are really asking, “What is the Gospel getting at?” And, again, I say, “Very good question.”
Here is where the cavernous differences between the folks who disagree with the RCC and the RCC itself will become so very evident. If I am not mistaken (and I don’t think I am), the RCC claims that the point of all of these requirements is to encourage us to live good lives, as good as possible. Do kindness, love justice and walk humbly with God. When we fail, there are some things God put in place to grant forgiveness to us. The sacrifice of Jesus is the ultimate measure given to allow us to be forgiven. But, it takes true repentence and good works of faith to demonstrate we are sincere in our belief and intentions. The seven sacraments are part of those rules to be sincerely followed and if we do...we will be rewarded by eternal life and fellowship with God. How am I doing?
If I am getting close to this part, I will provide the alternate answer. But, first correct me to your position on this answer.
Why we are still discussing scripture; one can do so without quoting specific verses. Yes, you gave a reasonable answer and one a Catholic would give. A few minor corrections:
- If we are truly repentant then it is not in order to demonstrate anything to anyone. It is an entirely internal condition.
- The Sacraments are not “rules”, they are means of receiving grace. We partake of them because we need them. The Church does have rules, including rules about sacraments, which purpose is our santification, but rules are rules and sacraments are sacraments.
However, these remarks are probably unimportant to what you have to say to the contrary. Go ahead.
No, it is very important to me to accurately represent what it is that you are getting at. It is of no value to set up a straw man. I will modify my statement to say, the sacraments are viewed by Catholics as a means of receiving grace from God. And, our repentence (in keeping with your prior statements) is entirely up to us. God has given us sufficient grace to act and join in this life of His, but He leaves the final decision up to each individual. That way, we are entirely free and if we reject Him, it will be because of our stubborn hearts. If, or when, we respond to Him and begin to live this life of obedience, He is there to meet us and give us more grace by His Spirit and the sacraments. Nevertheless, a condition of our inclusion is our responsiveness to God. Closer?
One more detail: God give grace abundantly to all, so you cannot say that he is to “give us more grace” while previously He gave us “sufficient grace”. Where sin abounds, grace abounds more.
The difference in degrees of sanctification between people is not that God gave some more grace than others, but that they responded differently to the grace freely available to them.
Also, — I don’t know if that is a modification or just clarification of repentance being “entirely up to us”, — the Church does call for repentance, just as St. John the Baptist did and St. Peter did at the Solomon Portico. The Church may even impose a canonical penalty in order to encourage repentance. Further, if the offence was matter of public scandal, then the penance should be public. However, the repentance is effective if it is internally true, regardless of external gestures.
Can you clarify your statement, God give (sic) grace abundantly...?
Is this “gave” or is it “gives”?
Gives.
Okay, so your statement includes, “God gives grace abundantly to all, so there is really no additional grace needed to come to Him and begin to live the life we are required to live. He has set the requirements of the “ten commandments” in place to show us what holy living and righteousness should look like and while no one is saved by the Law, we know we should do our best to live up to them.” Close?
Additionally, I cannot catch what the point was of the Church ordered penance. Why is that a clarification to, “entirely up to us.”?
Regarding grace, yup, so long as we understand that the grace that is abundantly given may not be abundantly received. In other words, we do not subscribe to the doctrine of irresistible grace. We in fact think that the only way to hell is effectively resisting grace.
The rules of the Old Testament, including the Ten Commandments, were given the Jews prior to the dispensation of grace that we received in Christ. They are like rules we set for children before they can think for themselves like adults. While they are good rules we are not judged by obedience to them but by how closely we imitate Christ in our lives out of love for Him. The Ten Commandments should be taken in the same spirit in which Christ critically discusses them in the Sermon on the Mount. It is the disposition of the heart, and works thus inspired that matter, not works of the law.
In fact, the same can be said about obedience to the disciplines of the Church in operation today: just as a wife obeys the husband because she loves him, so we obey the disciplines because we love Christ. Obedience without love is better than disobedience, but it is not getting us all that far toward the sanctification to which we are all called.
I am not trying to be difficult, but you asked for precision and now you introduced this Ten Commandments business....
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.