|The Christian Solution||C   S  |
|Home Page   About TCS   Contact Us  |
February 15, 2009
Shocked by the Bible:
Follow the Ten Commandments and Burn in Hell
Source: Michael Chapman Remnant columnist comments by Robert Sungenis
An Exclusive Interview with Bishop Richard Williamson
Source: Robert Sungenis, Ph.D. (See "Jewish Issues" section)
Letter to Cardinal Levada Re: Page 131 of U.S. Catechism
Asserting Mosaic Covenant is Still Valid for the Jews
The Ten Commandments
Christians who like to refer to themselves Judeo-Christians, have for years been fighting a mighty battle to preserve the Ten Commandments placed behind the Judge in his courtroom, in front of State legislative buildings, and other such places.
Ironically, they are being fought by the atheists whom the Jewish media-Scribes support.
The Ten Commandments, handed down from God to Moses, are what both Jews and Christians have both agreed upon that would be the knot which ties us all together.
The problem is that nowhere in the Ten Commandments is there contained the one vital ingredient needed for Christian salvation.
"Whoever hates me also hates my father" -- John 15:23
The Jews answered, "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God" -- John 19:7
The laws of the Ten Commandments do not recognize that salvation comes through the Lord.
Christians would need an 11th Commandment added to the Mosaic Law that would say something to the effect of:
Would the Jews of the Judeo-Christian group allow a "Jesus Denial" Commandment added to the Ten Commandments?
No! no way! Get real!
The Ten Commandments do not recognize Jesus Christ as the Redeemer.
For these reasons, the Ten Commandments can no longer be followed by Christians.
And if the Ten Commandments can no longer be followed by Christians, then what part of the Old Testament can Christians follow?
Is the Law then Abolished?
Something to think about is Matthew 5:17.
We will show other examples where authorities have shown that Jesus has broken the Old Covenant with the Jews to have it replaced by the New Covenant for all. The confusion is how valid anything is we read from the Old Testament.
Obviously, the Ten Commandments will not save a "born again" evangelical. But am I "least in the kingdom of heaven" for telling him that?
Faith or Good Works?
Protestants love to argue with Catholics about trivial matters of faith more than they like to argue with Jews about vast canyons of differences in faith from their own.
I don't understand it. Well.. yes I do. The media-Scribes love to pit us against each other, so we don't pick on their serious crimes against all Christians.
One of the trivial differences between Catholics and Protestants, that we should both agree upon, is the disagreement on whether faith alone without works is all one needs for salvation.
My problem is that Jesus only gave us two commandments. One for faith and one for good works.
This is the greatest and the first commandment.
The second is like it:
Hopefully, all Christians can agree then that one needs faith toward God and good works toward men for his salvation. Yes, as a Catholic, I can say one has to be "born again". I read that in the Bible and I get it. But, God does not expect a Christian to get a seal of approval from God and then do un-Christian things from then on thinking he is already saved, as many seem to feel.
What I feel most Protestants are afraid of is that the Catholic Church believes that it is the only one who defines what "faith" and "good works" are.
Yes, they should feel that way because the Catholic Church also teaches that the Pope (from Peter) and the Bishops (from the Disciples) has divine authority given to them by Jesus:
-- Jesus talking to Peter
"Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." -- Mathew 18:18
-- Jesus talking to all the disciples
Is "bound in Heaven" a reference to "faith"; whereas, "bound on Earth" is a reference to "good works"?
Whatever. The point is that we need to get past the Catholic vs Protestant debate. In the venacular, "Can't we just get along?" For we are being viciously pitted against each other by the Pharisees.
The authorities in the time of Jesus who defined what "good works" were was not Rome, the Pope or the Catholic Church. Those authorities were the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin of the Judaic faith.
And in their version of religious law "good works", they crucified Jesus.
Christian Justification is not based on the Old Testament Laws
Bishop Richard Williamson, the latest Christian to be vilified with the vile term "Holocaust Denier" shows the real reason why the Pharisees are after him.
Already we have alluded to the fact that the Ten Commandments cannot sustain a devout Christian. That was just the enticement -- now Bishop Williamson dives right in with the Truth.
The media-Scribes would like us to believe that it is Bishop Williamson who is in rebellion against Rome, but Bishop Williamson believes that it is Rome who is in rebellion against God.
The United States Catholic Catechism (USCC) introduced a new publication "without approval from Rome". . Bishop Williamson disagreed with a part of what they had published and wrote a letter explaining the problems with their publication.
Here is how he begins:
To Bishop Williamson, this only brings up heretical questions"
Bishop Williamson says that the epistle to the Galatians, tells us that those who depend on the law of Moses for a covenant of salvation have put themselves under a curse, for the law cannot justify anyone without the grace of Christ.
For if that first covenant had been faultless, no place would have been sought for a second one. But he finds fault with them and says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will conclude a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah." (NAB - Hebrews 8:7-8: )
Rather, their thoughts were rendered dull, for to this present day the same veil remains unlifted when they read the old covenant, because through Christ it is taken away. To this day, in fact, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their hearts, but whenever a person turns to the Lord the veil is removed. (NAB - 2Cor 3:14-16)
Once again I declare to every man who has himself circumcised that he is bound to observe the entire law. You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. (NAB Gal 5:3-4)
For Catholics, the Pope talks of the Old Covenant being replaced by the new:
-- Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, para. 29:
Bishop Williamson then tackles the confusion surrounding the topic.
-- Bishop Williamson
Below, we can see why the Pharisees are also targeting Pope Benedict as a Neo-Nazi.
The New Covenant is universal and is addressed to all peoples....
The Old Covenant is conditional: since it depends on the keeping of the Law....
By contrast, the covenant sealed in the Last Supper...is not a contract with conditions but the gift of friendship, irrevocably bestowed.
-- Pope Benedict's book, Many Religions -- One Covenant
Conclusion of Bishop Williamson
Although we can all agree that the Sinai covenant has its fulfillment in the New Covenant and thus its principles of good conduct and holy living are carried on in the New Covenant, this has nothing to do with the fact that, as a legal entity, the Old Covenant was abrogated and replaced by the New Covenant.
Conclusion of The Christian Solution
Bishop Williamson gets in trouble with his Catholic superiors because he is questioning reforms under Vatican II. He feels that Vatican II has placed man as the central tenet of Christianity and not God. He feels that Vatican II changed the laws of a never-changing New Covenant, given to us by a never-changing God.
And I may be in error here by reading between the lines, but I think he believes that not only Satan but also the Jewish Pharisees are behind the problems in the Catholic Church.
For instance, instead of saying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God from eternity who took a human nature, it [the New Religion] says that Jesus Christ is the man who was such a perfect man that he could be called the Son of God....
And that new content is coherently a system that starts with man, centers on man, and finishes with man.
Hence, the New Mass is said in the language of man and no longer in Latin. And it's said with the priest turned towards man, and no longer towards God. Those are two concrete examples of the "turn towards man."
So, for instance, John Paul II would oppose abortion in the name of human dignity, the dignity of the human person. He would not oppose it on the law of God. (God said, "Thou shalt not kill.") Pope John Paul would base it on the dignity of the human person, and that's a very dangerous foundation because the mother then turns around and says, "my human dignity requires that I get rid of this little extra piece of my own body." So, the basis of human dignity is an ambiguous foundation. It can be turned for and against a number of those decent causes for which John Paul II is respected.
The vile media do not like Pope Benedict because he's a "conservative liberal," not a "liberal liberal." And that's to his credit. He's a decent man. The media have no idea what a real Catholic is. If they did, they would scream for his martyrdom, they would scream for his skin. They're yelling at Ratzinger because he's a "conservative liberal." If he were a real conservative, the media would be screaming even more.
The modern mind does not believe in a fixed, unchanging truth, basically because the modern mind does not believe in God. And when one comes to believe in an unchanging God—that the whole universe is framed, upheld, and maintained by a completely unchanging absolute and total Truth—then all changes become very small beer, so to speak. But when you think that there is no truth, that nothing is fixed, then you can have no idea or understanding of the true religion, the Catholic religion.
The truth is unchanging. And the complete and total truth is "findable." Hence, it's absurd to think that God would reveal Himself to us if he did not make it possible for us to find Him. But without the idea that one can find God, then the alternative is to say that, well, we can talk about it, we can dialogue, we can keep an open mind, and take no decision as absolutely true or not. Yet there are certain absolute truths and they have been found, and that is where our mind closes, on those truths. With the open mind as your guide, however, all ideas, true and false, drift in and out of the mind, and nothing is ever closed. Nothing is ever absolute, total. Truth is forever in the discovery, but it is never found.
Is searching better than finding? That is the modern mentality. The modern theologians have no grasp of an unchanging God. The Modernists believe in an open mind because they don't believe in a closed truth. They believe that whatever of religion comes to us from God must be no ready-made and finalized product or content such as Catholicism was always supposed to be, but it must incorporate the input of us modern men. In brief, in the old days, God told men what was in the Catholic religion, but that religion fell dead. Now man tells God what is in the Catholic religion, and religion is again living.
And the truth of the matter is that a lot of Catholics enjoy the "New Religion" because it is a lot easier than the tough "Old Religion."
That idea of exaggerated obedience is way off the mark, but it is very common. You have to stick to your Faith and obey God. If you're obeying a leader who has abandoned Christ, consciously or unconsciously, you're going to be led away from God. Let's suppose that Pope John Paul II meant well, that he was sincere, but if he's mistaken, he's going to lead you away from God and not towards God. I can't obey someone who's going to lead me away from God. My reason for obeying him is that he's going to lead me to God. But as soon as he leads me away from God, I've got to obey God and not the man. It's common sense.
Prior to Vatican II, Pope John Paul I thought that religious liberty, in the modern sense, was wrong — the idea that you are free to choose whatever religion you like. That's the modern doctrine: Because we have the faculty of freedom, we have the right to choose whatever religion. But that's wrong. We have the ability to choose what is right or wrong, but we only have the moral right to choose what's right. We have no right to choose what's wrong. That's common sense. And then religious liberty comes along and says we have a right to choose what's wrong. At Vatican II, the future Pope John Paul I changed his mind on religious liberty and he accepted Vatican II doctrine. Then he became Pope and he realized he was surrounded by villains, and he was going to get rid of them. And the indications are that he was assassinated because he was going to start moving things around in the right direction.
-- Bishop Richard Williamson
Some ideas to contemplate, indeed!
Article located at:
Last Hope for America
Christian Libertarian: Harmonious Union
Church and State
The Christian Solution ©             First Release: March 15, 2008