|Recent Featured Videos and Articles||Eastern “Orthodoxy” Refuted||How To Avoid Sin||The Antichrist Identified!||What Fake Christians Get Wrong About Ephesians||Why So Many Can't Believe||“Magicians” Prove A Spiritual World Exists||Amazing Evidence For God||News Links|
|Vatican II “Catholic” Church Exposed||Steps To Convert||Outside The Church There Is No Salvation||E-Exchanges||The Holy Rosary||Padre Pio||Traditional Catholic Issues And Groups||Help Save Souls: Donate|
Some of our readers might recall that in 2001 John Paul II attended the Omayyad Mosque in Damascus, Syria. As part of this act of apostasy, John Paul II took off his shoes before entering the mosque. Well, the “Omayyad” caliphate (a line of Muslim rulers), after which that particular mosque he attended is named, was a line of Muslims rulers that was hugely involved in waging war on Catholic Spain in the 700-year war of Muslims vs. Christians in Spain.
“Abdurrahman the last survivor of the Omayyads had become the ruler of Muslim Spain about the time that Fruela became the ruler of Christian Spain; by 759 the two kings clashed in Galicia.” (Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 2, p. 298.)The fact that the mosque he attended was named after a group that is so representative of anti-Christianity just adds insult to his apostasy. The blood of all the faithful Catholics who died fighting the Omayyads for the very survival of Christian Spain cries out against him.
Apocalypse 17:6- "And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And I wondered when I had seen her…"You can see pictures of John Paul II in the Omayyad Mosque here:
Since we don’t have the complete sentence, we cannot say for sure, but it could be:
“In Portugal the dogma of Faith will always be preserved in a faithful remnant…”Or:
“In Portugal the dogma of Faith will always be preserved until the Great Apostasy…”
Thanks for the question. There is no obligation to make the Consecration to Mary before a priest or in a church, especially today. You should make it in your home.
Not very long after the birth of the false religion of Islam, the militant Muslims had overtaken Christian Armenia. In the 10th century the Byzantine Emperor Romanus Lecapenus took up the cause of the resisting Christian Armenians and gave them his best general, John Gourgen [a.k.a. Courcouas], to aid them. Courcouas was tremendously successful in retaking Armenia from the Muslims.
“In the spring of 943 Courcouas reached the walls of the still Christian, but long Muslim-ruled city of Edessa, where the Holy Shroud of Christ (then called the ‘Mandylion’)… was preserved in a sanctuary in the domed cathedral, famed throughout the East for its beauty… To the Muslim rulers of Edessa John Courcouas, the conqueror who was carrying all before him, stated his terms: They could keep the city, intact and undamaged – and he would pledge that the Byzantine empire would never attack Edessa again. He would release to them two hundred of their highest ranking captives in his hands. He would pay them 12,000 silver crowns. All this was his price – for the Shroud.” (Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 2, p. 414.)The Muslims finally agreed to give up the Shroud (now known as the Shroud of Turin).
Thanks for the question. Yes, we have an opinion about this verse. This was actually mentioned in our book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation (section 22). While we cannot say infallibly what this particular verse means since the Church has never issued any infallible declaration on this specific verse, here is what is said about it in the book. We think the correct conclusion is pretty obvious:
John 1:12-13-“But as many as received Him, to them He gave power to become the sons of God: to them that believe in His name: WHO ARE BORN, NOT OF BLOOD, NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD.”The context of the passage is dealing with “becoming the sons of God,” that which St. Paul called “adoption of sons” (Rom. 8:15). This is the theological and scriptural term for Justification, the state of sanctifying grace (Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4). The term signifies the transition from being a child of Adam (the state of original sin) to becoming an adopted son of God (the state of sanctifying grace). Pope St. Leo the Great, in fact, confirms that this passage of St. John’s Gospel is talking about becoming a son of God by the Sacrament of Baptism.
Pope St. Leo the Great, Sermon 63: On the Passion (+ c. 460 A.D.): “… from the birth of baptism an unending multitude are born to God, of whom it is said: Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (Jn. 1:15).” (The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 151.)So as God, through St. John, is describing man’s being “born again” to the state of grace in Baptism, He speaks of those who are born, “NOT OF BLOOD, NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD”! The “will of the flesh” is desire. The “will of man” is desire. “Blood” is blood. In my opinion, what God is saying here in this very verse is that in order to become a son of God – in order to be justified – it does not suffice to be born again of blood or desire (i.e., baptism of blood or desire). One must be born again of God. The only way to be born again of God is to be baptized with water in the name of God: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Mt. 28:19).