正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

This is how Germany pressurizes the Vatican to change its ruling. Despite not receiving permission to do this, the church in Germany did it anyway. Rather than let a woman give the homily herself, it was a joint homily between her and a priest. Its the bridge to disobedience,...

16,736 次观看 • 1 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Not long ago, Turkey was running a neo-Ottoman project across the Arab world. The Muslim Brotherhood was the tool. Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, the Gulf media wars. Western analysts called it one of the defining threats to the regional order. They were right! That era is over! It did not end through Western pressure. It ended because Saudi Arabia spent a decade building the economic, religious and diplomatic weight that made accommodation with Riyadh worth more to Ankara than confrontation. Investment. Mediation. Religious authority. Doors quietly closed. Soft power in its least glamorous form, and its most effective. I think we should be grateful for that. We rarely are. Turkey is now moving toward the Arab world, not away from it. On 7 August, in Mecca, Erdoğan, Mohammed bin Salman and Shehbaz Sharif signed a joint defence agreement: an attack on one is an attack on all three. It did not come from nowhere. Ankara joined a Riyadh-led maritime coalition in late July, one of fourteen founding members. The 2023 drone contract was Turkey's largest defence export deal at the time. This is the Middle East Western analysts spent fifteen years asking for. Two days before the signing, Steven A. Cook published a column in Foreign Policy arguing that strategic blunders have plagued Saudi Arabia's approach to the region. The verdict arrived before the ink was dry. Read it closely and it collapses. Cook says Riyadh has no strategy. Then he lists it: protect the economic transformation, avoid a wider war, lower tensions with Iran, stop armed factions from imposing facts by force, tie normalisation with Israel to a Palestinian state. That is not the absence of a strategy. That is a hierarchy of priorities. His real objection is that it is not his strategy- one that would have Saudi Arabia tolerate the STC, hold the UAE partnership regardless of conflicting aims, welcome an Israeli foothold in Somaliland, and stand as the front line against Iran. He says the Sanaa runway strike was unnecessary. In the same breath he concedes Mahan Air is tied to the IRGC, and that the Houthi delegation may have carried more than pistachios and carpets. He accepts the violation, then faults the attempt to stop it. He also assigns the strike to Riyadh. Saudi Arabia never claimed it. Yemen's internationally recognised government announced it. Then the pattern. Restraint is weakness. Action is recklessness. De-escalation is buying calm. Interdiction is provocation. Cook recommends retreat, then cites the retreat as proof there is no strategy. And he blames Riyadh for the Houthi escalation - as if the Houthis had not been firing at Saudi cities for years, as if Iran's proxy project began this July. A possible Saudi miscalculation does not absolve Iran and the Houthis of their own violence! Underneath all of it sits the oldest false narrative in the file: that Saudi Arabia is weak. Remember Yemen. The Kingdom had the capability and the intent to end the Houthi project militarily. What constrained it was Western political pressure in the name of human rights - war powers votes, suspended munitions, withdrawn targeting support. Riyadh was told to stop. It stopped. Then it absorbed years of missiles and drones on its airports, its cities and its oil infrastructure while holding a truce it was never legally obliged to hold! You can argue the restrictions were right. You cannot impose them, watch the adversary rearm through the corridor you protected, and then call the result a Saudi failure. Restraint imposed by allies is not incapacity. Saudi Arabia is not the architect of this crisis. It is the state repeatedly asked to carry the cost of other people's strategies - and it is now building, with Ankara and Islamabad, an architecture that reduces its need to. The criticism came before the agreement was a week old. That says less about Saudi strategy than about how hard it is for some analysts to read an order they no longer write.

𝐌𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐞𝐥 𝐀𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢

476,072 次观看 • 1 个月前

Mary will crush the head of the serpent: it is a biblical prophecy found in Genesis 3. In Genesis 3:15, right after sin enters the world, God makes a promise. He tells the serpent that it will not win in the end. He speaks about a woman and her offspring who will stand against the serpent and defeat it. This moment is often called the first hint of the Gospel, because it points forward to God’s plan to save His people. From the very beginning, the Church has seen a deeper meaning in this verse. The early Church Fathers understood that this woman points to Mary, and her offspring is Jesus Christ. Just as Eve was present at the fall through her disobedience, Mary is present in God’s plan of salvation through her obedience. Saint Irenaeus, writing around 180 AD, explained it clearly: “the knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience.” Eve listened to the serpent and trusted its voice, which brought sin, suffering, and death into the world. Mary, on the other hand, listened to God with humility and trust, saying yes to His will even when she did not fully understand. Through Mary’s yes, Jesus entered the world. He is the One who truly crushes the power of the serpent by His death and resurrection. Mary does not replace Jesus, but she plays a real and important role by cooperating with God’s plan. This shows us something simple but powerful. God works through our yes. One act of trust can open the door for grace, just like Mary’s did. 💬 Do you believe Genesis 3:15 is really talking about Mary, or only about Jesus?

Dana Rachel 🇻🇦

23,929 次观看 • 1 个月前