All I know for certain is that God the Holy Spirit doesn't contradict God the Son, and we know what God the Son said about the permanence of the marriage bond how he defined adultery. Popes have taken God the Son at his word for 2000 years - until now. Was everyone out of step until Pope Francis read Cardinal Kasper's book about mercy? We are to be in this world but not of it. That doesn't mean that we should be ostriches, otherwise the Church wouldn't expect us to do our civic duty by voting without assessing which is the best candidate. We are to hold fast to the Truth and speak out against falsehood. Not speaking out against what is wrong is the same as actively participating in the wrong. Ed seems to be saying that we should ignore everything while focusing on God and waiting for Divine intervention. St. Nicholas didn't wait for a bolt from the sky. Heaven intervened after he had stood up for the Truth and been denounced by the passivists. I would also ask Ed how does he know he isn't one of those pious hypocrites that cause the Pope so much angst? Sorry Ed, if that's an impertinent question and if half your time is dedicated to saving the whale, but your responses to me give the impression that mine is a lesser faith because I choose to speak out against something that I believe to be wrong rather than keeping quiet and waiting for direct intervention from Heaven. Speaking out and praying are not mutually exclusive. We should trust in God, but I think that God also expects us to play our part. Apostasy doesn't happen overnight. It creeps up slowly, drip feeding sugar coated poison as it takes hold. That's what I see in this Exhortation. The sugar coating is in the flowery prose telling us what we want to hear, with the drop of poison in the footnote. I have seen comments from lovers of this Exhortation saying that nobody is being forced to give Communion to people in "irregular" situations, so the prudent thing to do is mind our own business. That's a variation of the argument used to support everything the Church has opposed to date such as artificial birth control, abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia. Now it has found its way into God's Church. Well I have news for all of you who say it's nobody's business and we should sing dumb about it: Christ's teaching on marriage and the Eucharist is everybody's business and the world has reached this sorry state because that teaching was ignored and effectively contradicted in the name of mercy. Here's the text of the Polish Bishops' view on the matter before the Synod: http://sunday.niedziela.pl/artykul.php?dz=watykan&id_art=00040 I get the impression that the Polish Bishops don't share Cardinal Kasper's belief that there is little difference between an act of spiritual communion and Sacramental Communion. Please God, these and other Bishops who proclaim God's truth to be unchangeable will unite in opposing this innovation. Now that I've worn you all out with my rants, I promise to give this thread a miss for a while and go back to praying for the Pope and all the Cafeteria Catholics. Lately, I've taken to praying for him rather than for his intentions.
Here's a mickey mouse break down of THE ISSUE at hand: Does Paragraph 298 of Amoris Laetitia Promote Adultery? 0 BY STEVE SKOJEC ON MAY 2, 2016CATHOLIC LIFE, FEATURED, MARRIAGE, THE CHURCH Among the more controversial paragraphs from Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia (AL), 298 seems to be a real ideological Rorschach test. Some people see the problem with it, and some don’t (or choose not to). Since it has come up several times in various online discussion, I’d like to try to break it down in the hopes of providing some clarity. There’s nothing harder to explain, in my opinion, than the obvious, so please bear with me as we take the time to pick it apart. Let’s start with the relevant portion of paragraph 298: The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate”.329 The second and third sentences are referencing a specific hypothetical situation — “a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity…” — and it is on this that we must concentrate to find our answers. Let’s start by unpacking the language: “A second union consolidated over time” — here we are speaking objectively about an adulterous second relationship after a valid marriage. It may be a second “marriage,” it may be a case of cohabitation, the specific context is unclear. But the preceding sentence says “the divorced who have entered a new union,” so we know what it isn’t: a valid, sacramental marriage in which sexual intercourse is licit. We know that this union has, at least at some point, involved sexual intercourse, inasmuch as it has brought forth “new children.” We know that since this union is not a valid, sacramental marriage, that any sexual activity engaged in by the couple is adulterous. We know that this situation has some longevity to it, since it is described as having“proven fidelity.” This isn’t a one night stand, or even a relationship of a few months. There has been time for the conception, pregnancy, and birth of at least one new child. Those involved in the union have “a consciousness of its irregularity”. This is a very strange way of putting it. The document does not, as far as I’ve been able to find, define “irregular” (nor can I find such a definition in the Code of Canon Law) but context makes this much clear: irregular unions, in the way that AL refers to them, are relationships that are sexual in nature but do not meet the requirements for valid, sacramental marriage. This means that there’s really no other way to explain this “consciousness of…irregularity” than to say, “Those involved know they’re living in a relationship that violates the 6th Commandment, and/or Our Lord’s general teaching on marriage.” It appears then that we have a fairly clear picture of what we’re discussing in this hypothetical: long-term non-marital relationships that have generated children, and are acknowledged by the participants to exist in violation of the Church’s/God’s teaching on marriage. (This last part is important, because it handily dispenses with any claim of ignorance.) The section of AL 298 in question continues: “…a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins.” This is very odd language. What does it mean? “the great difficulty of going back” — the obvious meaning here is, “to separate from this union and to return to the original spouse.” “Without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins” — this is extremely vague. It could mean almost anything. New sexual sins? Sins of abandonment of duty to another or dependent children? What kinds of sins? And how does “feeling” a thing change the moral obligation one is under to make an act of the will based on an informed conscience? Now let’s look at the last sentence of that section: “The Church acknowledges situations ‘where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate’.329” I left the footnote on there, because it’s very important, but we’ll get to that in a second. The assertion in this sentence exists in contradiction to prior Church teaching as expressed in the encyclical Casti Connubii (CC). CC quotes St. Augustine when it says: By conjugal faith it is provided that there should be no carnal intercourse outside the marriage bond with another man or woman; with regard to offspring, that children should be begotten of love, tenderly cared for and educated in a religious atmosphere; finally, in its sacramental aspect that the marriage bond should not be broken and that a husband or wife, if separated, should not be joined to another even for the sake of offspring. This we regard as the law of marriage by which the fruitfulness of nature is adorned and the evil of incontinence is restrained. (CC 10; my emphasis) Familiaris Consortio (FC), Pope John Paul II’s own post-synodal apostolic exhortation on marriage and family, also deviated from this prior teaching by admitting the exception of those who live in such unions while living in perfect continence — the complete abstaining from any conjugal relations. (You’ll note that CC argues that it is by separation that the “evil of incontinence is restrained”, but FC posits that these couples can, in fact, live together chastely.) FC also upheld the prohibition on allowing those in such unions to receive Confession or Communion without repentance and a change of life. From FC 84: [T]he Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage. Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they“take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.” Though this paragraph of FC is referenced in footnote 329 of paragraph 298 of Amoris Laetitia, its specific formulation of the requirement to live in continence is not directly cited anywhere in the document. (In fact, the word “continence” appears only twice in AL — both as a reference to purposefully chosen virginity, which is therein diminished from its properly-defined role [Trent; 24th session, 10th definition] as a higher calling than marriage.) So, to return to footnote 329 and wrap this up: when you read the phrase, “certain expressions of intimacy”, what does it call to mind? Doing taxes together?
Continued: This same prohibition was also conspicuous by its intentional omission in paragraph 51 of the 2015 final Synod report, which quoted only the part of FC 84 that supported the narrative we now see in AL 298: Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid. Do you see the way the teaching on this is being gradually repealed over the course of time? What appears in Casti Connubii explicitly is revised so that it appears with an exception inFamiliaris Consortio, which is itself revised so that it doesn’t appear at all in Amoris Laetitia. (Introducing error through gradualism is a favored post-conciliar trick, and it reminds me very much of the replacement of the first and greatest commandment with the second inEvangelii Gaudium 161, which itself first coalesced in a less egregious conflation in Gaudium et Spes 24.) So let us return to 298, and its attendant footnote. We have been presented with the situation of second union in which the participants know they are violating God’s law (and, consequently, that of the Church) but feel that they are unable to separate for the good of their children and for fear of falling into some other, undefined sins. Now, with that as our context, we look to footnote 329, which states: 329 John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (22 November 1981), 84: AAS 74 (1982), 186. In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern WorldGaudium et Spes, 51). This is where we see the big issue. Let’s parse it again: “In such situations” — ie., second unions which are knowingly adulterous “many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living ‘as brothers and sisters’ which the Church offers them” — these individuals also understand that the Church calls them to live in perfect continence. “point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, ‘it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers'” — here is where the rubber meets the road, folks. These couples have understood and accepted the existence (and perhaps the correctness?) of the moral proposition of continence in illicit unions, but then go on to “point out” something contrary to it. Namely, that when “certain expressions of intimacy are lacking” then “faithfulness is endangered” and “the children suffer”. This “acceptance” of the command to live as brother and sister while objecting to it is a principle corroborated in another paragraph from AL — 301 — which states, in part: Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin. When the Church itself through her Supreme Pontiff creates an official document that makes excuses for obstinacy in sin, we are in very dangerous territory indeed. So, to return to footnote 329 and wrap this up: when you read the phrase, “certain expressions of intimacy”, what does it call to mind? Doing taxes together? Watching a movie? Playing soccer? Maybe a nice game of Boggle? “Intimacy” is a word which by its definition indicates a very close relationship. “Expressions of intimacy” between members of the opposite sex primarily connotes physical affection, up to and including sexual intimacy. If I were to “express intimacy” with a woman who was not my wife — even if sex were not involved, only holding, kissing, etc. — would that be, do you think, a form of adulterous act? Would my wife think so? Would you, if it were your spouse? Would you feel cheated on, perhaps? Of course, “expressions of intimacy” which are so important that without them “faithfulness is endangered” are much more likely to be sexual in nature. Not to be crass, but in modern culture, we hear incessantly about how when sexual needs are not met, affairs tend to follow. A plain reading of this text makes clear that this is what is being expressed. I’ll paraphrase it for clarity: “In second marriages or committed post-divorce relationships, many people, understanding that the Church calls them to abstain from sexual contact of any kind, point out that when this sort of intimacy is not a part of the relationship, it’s far more likely that one (or both) of the spouses will fall into infidelity (again), which could hurt the children who have come from that union.” These are people who have already been excused, in 298, from separating — as Casti Connubii once indicated was morally necessary to avoid falling into further adultery. Now, we see yet another excuse: “If they’re not allowed to engage in at least some of the acts proper to spouses, the second union might fail, too. They should be allowed to do it. You know, for the kids.” This is, as written, an implicit promotion of the continuation of adultery — in a document issued by a pope.
I take no offense at you Dolours. You have spoken your mind and are free to choose your part, as are we all. No one is putting their head in the sand here and I ask for your prayers because my blood is yours and yours is mine in our Christ. Peace and keep swinging, Ed
Anyone who can read the above and NOT see the major issues in this Exortation is absolutely and willingly supporting a diabolical agenda. Sure, they may be passively agreeing with this agenda but they are in fact NOT fighting on Truth's side. Soldiers don't sit on the sidelines waiting for the General to win the war single-handedly. They fight, lose limbs, shed blood. They are mocked by the enemy's soldiers and will gladly die fighting for what is right and true.
So let's look closer at what is happening in the church and in the world. First question to all those who are beside themselves within the confusion. What has your anxieties and outbursts of feelings and words done to this point to make things better and what do you hope to gain by them? Has anyone's expressed concerns and frustrations with Pope Francis, bad Cardinals, Bishops or Priests done anything to correct what you see as wrong? There is no doubt in my mind we are within the end of an age. A correction from God is taking place. The only thing that approved and alleged prophecy is telling us is to pray and do penance. All the wailing and complaing that I see on this forum has not changed the course of the events taking place one bit. I can see it has taken the peace from many hearts. It has brought many into the confusion. I think it is time for everyone to take a breath and see what the confusion is doing to your soul. Are you at peace through it all? Are you letting the devil win, because we are participating in the confusion in lieu of prayer and trusting in the Lord and his plan? Where does ones concerns, fears and confusion go from here? Heaven has been telling us to pray, trust and don't worry. Do you really think if only the world would listen to us it would change? Is Blessed Mother telling us to battle with words or with the rosary and prayer? Satan is unchained and the only way he is chained again will be through the rosary as our Lady has been revealing for a century or more now. Why do some still think they can make a difference through anything but prayer and penance? Go ahead and stay mad, loose your peace and see what it brings you and those around you. I have been there-done that. As for me I will trust, pray and not worry as God has a plan and he can only use us if we are in his will and at peace. Peace of heart is much stronger than anger at this moment.
I am not convinced we can be certain that we are at the end of an age, at least not just yet. The Church does not commit Herself regarding private prophesy and compels nobody to accept it as part of that body of the Faith that we are obliged to believe. Therefore, it is possible that the present confusion and possible apostasy may continue and even degrade further, perhaps much further. God may simply decide that we have made our bed and can lie in it, maybe for a century or two.
This kind of insult and attack is apparently tolerated at MOG. So be it. Enjoy the Kool Aid. (There's the possibility that one may remain completely at Peace, yet still defend the Faith from all enemies. Some will choose to engage it elsewhere.)
Christ assures us one of his great gifts is a peace that the world cannot give. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid. It is also a wonderful sign that we are in a right relationship with God when we have His peace. What a gift, inner peace. Peace of soul is a result of a process of conversion that is that radical turning away from sin to obedience to the words of Christ. No one who is in a state of serious sin can have this peace. It is the mission of the Church to call sinners to repentance and conversion in order that they can make peace with God in the confessional and live the Divine Life of grace in union with the Holy Trinity. I thoroughly recommend Fulton Sheen's classic book 'Peace of Soul' that helps one to find serenity and joy through a process of conversion to Christ and His Church. Chapter 12 is available online in the link below. The cascade of Divine Power cannot operate on a person so long as he lives under the illusion either that he is an angel or that sin is not his fault. He must first admit the fact of personal guilt; then—though the consciousness of having been a sinner does not vanish—the consciousness of being in a state of sin is relieved. God becomes a possibility to a despairing soul only as it begins to see that it can “do all things in Him who strengthens me.” […] A new self is needed, and man cannot renovate himself. No vague humanism, no busy dedication to social causes, can root out the sense of guilt— because guilt implies a personal relationship with God. And a personal relationship implies love. For us to become truly moral, there must be a surrender to an all‐loving Christ Who can do what no human can do. And then the pain passes away: Though the emptiness of soul that sin has given us sees itself confronted by Christ, the emphasis is immediately shifted from our sin to His mercy, from self to the Cross. Once the will to sin is abandoned, then the soul sees that it has become acceptable to the Savior—not because it was good, but because the Savior is Good. In other religions, one must be purified before one can knock on the door; in Christianity, one knocks on the door as a sinner, and He who answers to us heals. The moral crisis is ended when Christ confronts the soul, not as a law, but as Mercy, and when the soul accepts the invitation, Come to Me, all you that labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you. (Matt. 11:28) http://www.northamericanmartyrs.org/pdf/The_Psychology_of_Conversion.pdf
Maybe your supposed peace has come through the unapproved. I know you are up to your eyeballs in it.[ garabandal ,verne ,luz maria,medgujorje to name a few] Peace comes from truth. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Defend the faith to whom? Which choir are you preaching to? Are they listening? Are you changing hearts? Are you bringing the fruits of the Holy Spirit to those you argue with or are are they only a sound board for your many frustrations? One can accept DeGaulle's position and not follow any prophecy approved or alleged but, to what end? Even the Church in the words of those since Pope Leo XIII are saying loudly we are in the battle between the 'the gospel and the anti-gospel, Christ and the antiChrist so one can't say we have not had saints and heaven itself pleading for our generation to wake up to its many manifestations. With ignoring all the messengers God sent to tell us to pray, pray, pray it is no wonder all that is left is to argue about the confusion to a few like minded people. What value is there in this? If drinking the kool-aid, as you say, is what we who trust in prayer to effect change are doing then I will be okay being judged in that. If on the other hand one is spreding anger (especially toeards the Vicar of Christ on earth) then you will have to see how that works out for you on judgement day as well.
Mac, in all respect what was the last pope you acknowledge as valid? If you can't see a valid pope in 100 years how could you recognise the voice of God's many messengers in the past 100 years?
Mark, time to shake the dust from your feet and on move on. That is approved and direct from the Man himself I have not been reading this thread as I guessed what was in it and did not care to get dragged out of the safety of the boat. Evil is at work all over our world at an increasingly feverish pace and there's a few posters here who have fallen prey to the great liar and are in his trap now throwing daggers questioning our Pope and God's Church. I have given them my advice in the past, that they are putting their souls at great risk by accusing our Pope falsely, and causing scandal by jeopardizing the souls of impressionable people who may read their words and fall prey to evil's lies and accusations. Don't let them steal your peace, that does not come from God. Fear, confusion, doubt, and anxiety come from the fallen one. You have said your peace, as have I, and it falls on deaf ears. Time to shake the dust and move on . . .
Im not sure where this idea comes from that I dont recognise any Pope since Pius X. I accept all the Popes. Pius XII was excellent. I think Pope Paul VI caused harm, Benedict was good, I think Pope Francis is causing damage. All valid.
It does not matter whether you see these popes as valid. What matters is the opposition to all attempts to contemporise the faith and make it more meaningful and available to the people of today. The vernacular is a case in point. What also matters is the continued disobedience to the authority of the Church which tantamounts to Protestantism within a Catholic cloak. It comes from insinuations aimed at the church since Pius X of a creeping heresy called Modernism and that the Trads are the only true remnant of the Faith - a bit like the seeming elitism of some followers of the LITDW. I notice you did not mention Sts. John Paul II OR John XXIII. Do you see these great saints as modernists? For those who read this please bear in mind that there is a world of difference between a Modern Church and A modernist Church. Just as there is a world of difference between a Traditional church and a traditionalist Church. This distinction is greatly abused by those who oppose change considered necessary by the Church. Pope Francis may have acknowledged the Catholicity of SSPX. He has not approved their disobedience not their false witness to the Church of today. Your favourite word for me is obsession. Mine for you is obfuscation. At least we have the ob in common.
I hope my referencing a great article and subsequent post didn't give you the impression that those defending Truth aren't at peace. Speaking up doesn't steal one's peace. The rosary is THE WEAPON in this war but for those who don't even realize there's a war raging will they be praying incessantly for souls?
Look around at the culture. A few things come to mind of Biblical signs of the times. Observe well the signs of the times. Mankind has been living in sin for a long time - for several centuries now -- we are now living the last dregs of Divine mercy and understand that the Year of Divine Mercy is providential and is coming to an end soon! But sin continues to dominate and darkness rules the world despite the call of the prophets and our Lady for mankind to repent and believe. We live in the times of Noah, Sodom & the Tower all at one time - a Godless, pagan, demonic era unlike any other in history. Noah & the Flood The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. Sodom & Gomorrah Get them out of here because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.” Tower of Babel Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens so that we may make a name for ourselves. We cannot change the direction of the world without Divine intervention. The Church is in the storm taking in water. No exhortation or encyclical can save the world from the storm. We cannot change the direction of the world without Divine intervention - Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Our Lady has come, it is her Time. She has come to save us during these end times. We would have been destroyed already had God not allowed our Lady to come in this Marian era (Revelation 12). Her Immaculate Heart bleeds because she looks at us in sin and at our sinful habits. We need to offer sacrifices in reparation to her Immaculate Heart. When we see the fire fall from the sky remember it is the sin of man that draws down the justice of God especially the sins of the flesh and the sins of Sodom, the sin of the pride of the Tower & the wickedness of this era as in the era of Noah. Keep praying the Rosary, make sacrifices, and take refuge in the Ark of her Immaculate Heart and be apostles of the Revelation (apostles of the Woman clothed with the sun and with the moon under her feet and 12 stars for a crown). We are the apostles of the Latter Days aka St Louis de Monfort. Let us all be schooled in the school of Mary - simplicity and docility.
Joe, I'm so glad to read your post, although I don't agree with all of it. I'm no traditionalist but I see in this document a giant leap on the modernists' agenda. This particular change is one that has long been lobbied for by the modernists, and in some cases practised (disobediently since it has only now been permitted by the Church). When the document was first published, many people said there was no change so there's nothing to worry about and that the Church would never declare it permissible for people in adulterous relationships to receive Communion. Now that Cardinal Schonborn has said that there is change and the change is the very thing they said wouldn't happen, the same people are still saying that there's nothing to worry about. I actually believe that there is a diabolical agenda to undermine Christ's teaching on marriage within the Church, and that this is another box ticked on that agenda. Anything that goes against Christ's teaching is diabolical. Sin is also diabolical but that doesn't mean that all sinners are devils, otherwise we're all in deep trouble. I mentioned my crisis of faith in an earlier post. The crisis I'm talking about is the obligation to complete obedience to the Pope even though I see grave error in this document. Now, I know that I will never get to tell the Pope to his face, but am I not obligated to speak out against it to anyone who will listen so that when I stand before God I can say that I didn't give assent by my silence? Is my obligation to obedience to the Holy Father greater than my obligation to speak out against something that I firmly believe is wrong? When Pope St. John Paul banned giving Communion to people in "irregular" relationships, it didn't stop Cardinals speaking in favour of it and subsequently practising it. Why is disobedience ok for them and not for me? Please don't tell me that it's ok for them because they are Cardinals. I hope, Joe, that you're feeling better. I lit a candle for you in the Santa Croce Church when I was in Rome.
Fatima, I have no doubt of the battle we are in, of Principalities and Powers, but can we be absolutely certain of the exact details or the precise time-frame? I think Pope Francis asked for three daily Hail Mary's. Maybe I imagined it, but I try and say them anyway. He needs them and knows he does. We know for a certainty that Our Lord will win, indeed already has won, this battle, but the casualty list has yet to be decided. What is unquestionably true is your point that the rosary is more effective than anything we might say in debate. I just don't share your certainty that the game is going to play out in the next year or so. It may well do so, but it could happen the world will suffer a whole lot longer. Maybe I'm just a pessimist. [Nor am I denying the approved prophesies, but as the Church teaches they are conditional rather than deterministic, I am wary of treating them as a calendar of future events].
