Francis The Jansenist
Although a wealth of information about Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is gushing forth in cyberspace, the four articles on this site (Francis, The Talking Apostate, Do Not Permit Yourselves To Be Snookered, Day Three of Francis The Lay Pope and Francis The Head Citizen Of The One World Ecumenical Church) have provided readers with a pretty good introduction to the newest apostate who presides over the counterfeit church of conciliarism. This article, which will be kept reasonably concise, is designed to help readers understand that Bergoglio/Francis is the quintessential creature of the "Second" Vatican Council, which owes much of its heretical origins to the Jansenist heresy that was condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.
Here are a few salient points before I let you return to enjoying the Feast of Saint Joseph.
First, "Father" Federico Lombardi, S.J., contended yesterday that what the conciliarists refer to as the "Petrine Ministry" and that a Successor of Saint Peter merely "presides in love" over others, not that the papal office that carries with it the right to teach, govern, sanctity and, if necessary, discipline men in all that is contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith:
The main part of the press conference was dedicated to how the Mass inaugurating the Petrine Ministry of the Bishop of Rome will be celebrated. “The correct term for the ceremony,” Fr. Lombardi clarified, “is not enthronement but inauguration. As successor of Peter, the Pope is Bishop of Rome and the Church of Rome 'presides in love' over the others. Also, it is a celebration rich with symbols that recall the Pope's tie to St. Peter, beginning with the place where, according to tradition, Peter was martyred.” (Details of Francis the Jansenist's Abominable Liturgical Service of Inauguration of Bishop of Rome's Petrine Ministry.)
The conciliarists are being used by the adversary, who prowls about the world seeking the ruin of souls, to proclaim very boldly that they no longer believe in the papacy. They believe that a true Bishop of Rome exercises only the "Petrine Ministry" as he "presides in love" over others. He is not a monarchy, which is why there is no coronation and why the term "Mass of Papal Coronation" has been changed to "inauguration."
Pope Pius VI condemned this as heretical in Auctorem Fidei:
3. In addition, the proposition which states "that the Roman Pontiff is the ministerial head," if it is so explained that the Roman Pontiff does not receive from Christ in the person of blessed Peter, but from the Church, the power of ministry, which as successor of Peter, true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church he possesses in the universal Church,—heretical (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.)
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict and Luis Mario Bergoglio/Francis both reject the immutable doctrine of Papal Primacy and Papal Infallibility.
Ratzinger/Benedict manifested his rejection of Papal Primacy in numerous ways, starting with the removal of the Papal Tiara from his coat of arms, something that Bergoglio/Francis is continuing. There were also numerous occasions when Ratzinger/Benedict referred to the necessity of exercising the "exercise of the Petrine Ministry" along the lines of his misrepresentation of the history of the First Millennium in order to effect "unity" with the schismatic and heretical Orthodox churches:
Turning then to refer specifically to "the study of a crucial theme in dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox: 'the role of the Bishop of Rome in the communion of the Church in the first millennium'", a study which will subsequently "also extend to the second millennium", the Holy Father recalled how he had asked Catholics to pray "for this delicate dialogue which is so essential for the entire ecumenical movement". (CONTINUE TO PRAY FOR THE UNITY OF ALL CHRISTIANS; this link may no longer work. it was a Vatican Information Service report on a general audience address of Ratzinger/Benedict.)
After all, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, in the same bull in which he excommunicated the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and thus inaugurated the schism between East and West, designated the Emperor and the people of Constantinople as "very Christian and orthodox", although their concept of the Roman primary was certainly far less different from that of Cerularius than from that, let us say, of the First Vatican Council. In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 198-199)
It remains for the question of the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all the Churches to be studied in greater depth. What is the specific function of the bishop of the “first see” in an ecclesiology of koinonia and in view of what we have said on conciliarity and authority in the present text? How should the teaching of the first and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the first millennium? These are crucial questions for our dialogue and for our hopes of restoring full communion between us.
We, the members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, are convinced that the above statement on ecclesial communion, conciliarity and authority represents positive and significant progress in our dialogue, and that it provides a firm basis for future discussion of the question of primacy at the universal level in the Church. We are conscious that many difficult questions remain to be clarified, but we hope that, sustained by the prayer of Jesus “That they may all be one … so that the world may believe” (Jn 17, 21), and in obedience to the Holy Spirit, we can build upon the agreement already reached. Reaffirming and confessing “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4, 5), we give glory to God the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who has gathered us together. (The Ravenna Document. For more information, see Anti-Apostles All.)
Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II was the first the use the "novelty" "Petrine Ministry," doing so in Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995, an "encyclical letter" that was the antithesis of Pope Pius IX's Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868, Pope Leo XII's Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 29, 1894, and Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, and Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928):
Whatever relates to the unity of all Christian communities clearly forms part of the concerns of the primacy. As Bishop of Rome I am fully aware, as I have reaffirmed in the present Encyclical Letter, that Christ ardently desires the full and visible communion of all those Communities in which, by virtue of God's faithfulness, his Spirit dwells. I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility in this regard, above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation. For a whole millennium Christians were united in "a brotherly fraternal communion of faith and sacramental life ... If disagreements in belief and discipline arose among them, the Roman See acted by common consent as moderator".
In this way the primacy exercised its office of unity. When addressing the Ecumenical Patriarch His Holiness Dimitrios I, I acknowledged my awareness that "for a great variety of reasons, and against the will of all concerned, what should have been a service sometimes manifested itself in a very different light. But ... it is out of a desire to obey the will of Christ truly that I recognize that as Bishop of Rome I am called to exercise that ministry ... I insistently pray the Holy Spirit to shine his light upon us, enlightening all the Pastors and theologians of our Churches, that we may seek—together, of course—the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned".
This is an immense task, which we cannot refuse and which I cannot carry out by myself. Could not the real but imperfect communion existing between us persuade Church leaders and their theologians to engage with me in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject, a dialogue in which, leaving useless controversies behind, we could listen to one another, keeping before us only the will of Christ for his Church and allowing ourselves to be deeply moved by his plea "that they may all be one ... so that the world may believe that you have sent me" (Jn 17:21)? (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995.)
The eradication of the Catholic Faith has been "an immense task" for the conciliarists." Jorge Mario Bergoglio is intent on completing that task for as long he chooses to say in his "democratic" position in the "Petrine Ministry" as he "presides in love" (a variation of Wojtyla/John Paul II's and Ratzinger/Benedict's "civilization of love) over others. His very words and actions in the past six days since his "election" by his brother apostates on Wednesday, March 13, 2013, demonstrate that he is a "democrat," the "new world pope," the head citizen of the One World Ecumenical Church. And it was to advance false ecumenism that the conciliar revolutions conceived of, composed and then implemented the "simplicity" of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. Bergoglio/Francis, the "simple" ostentatiously "humble" "Bishop of Rome," simply wants to finish the job as he promotes heresy in simple terms with simple gestures and a simplicity of ceremonies in order to simply do away with any residue of Catholicism left in the conciliar structures as though he was using a simple, cost-effective chemical spray to remove the "mold" that could rot away at the complete victory of the conciliar revolution.
Second, one of the "immense tasks" that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis wants to complete in the time that he exercises the "Petrine Ministry" is to "simplify" the liturgy even more than it has been "simplified" in the past sixty years dating back to the original "reforms" that Fathers Annibale Bugnini, C.M., and Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M., were able to get Pope Pius XII to approve in the 1950. His good friend, the revolutionary named Claudio "Cardinal" Hummes, the retired conciliar "archbishop" of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, explained the new "Petrine Minister's" desire for a "new way of "doing" the Novus Ordo service.
[Q:] In what sense is reform necessary?
[Cardinal Hummes:] Not just of the Curia, but many other things: our way of celebrating ["fazer", lit. "making", "doing"] mass, of doing evangelization, this new evangelization needs new methods. The pope spoke in the meeting with the cardinals of new methods, we need to find new methods.
But mainly the Roman Curia was mentioned, that it needs to be reformed structurally. It is too large, but all this need a study, we do not have many coordinates.
Many say it is too large, that an extension was made here, another there, another room here, another commission there, but this one here does not have sufficient prestige... All these things that happen in such a structure.
The church does not work anymore. This whole question that happened lately shows how she does not work. And, once this new design is made, you have to look for the people adapted to fill these positions, these jobs. (Pope's greatest friend and most influential Apostate "Cardinals".)
Well, of course, the counterfeit church of conciliarism does not "work" because it hath not a true pope and true bishops, save for those in the Eastern rites (and even that is dependent on who consecrated a particular bishop and what form that a true Eastern rite bishop used to consecrate another bishop), and true sacramental rites, which have been used to promote false doctrines and to promote unheard of blasphemies and sacrileges as part of what passes for Catholic liturgical rituals and pastoral praxis.
Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II used that phrase "immense task" as early as 1965 when discussing the "liturgical reform:"
Certainly we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local tradition: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense. (Archbishop Karol Wojtyla, 1965, Quoted and footnoted in Assault on the Roman Rite. This has also been noted on this site in the past, having been provided me by a reader who had access to the 1980 French book in which the quote is found.)
Although most of you will be reading this after the "inauguration ceremony," at which the pro-abortion, pro-perversity Vice President of the United States of America, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., a Catholic who remains in perfectly good standing in the conciliar structures despite his support of these and other evils, reports yesterday, Monday, March 18, 2013, the Feast of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem and the Commemoration of Monday in Passion Week, indicated that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is making sure that his inaugural service in the "Petrine Ministry" is kept "simple," which is why he will sit down today during the administration of what purports to be Holy Communion to the faithful as he had on Passion Sunday (which "Sunday in the Fifth Week of Lent" in the Novus Ordo calendar) at Santa Anna Church, the parish church of the Vatican that is notorious for its Cranmer table and its lack of communion rails).
This "simplicity" was condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei and rued by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947, even though he later approved some elements of the liturgical revolutionaries' agenda that he had criticized in Mediator Dei:
31. The proposition of the synod enunciating that it is fitting, in accordance with the order of divine services and ancient custom, that there be only one altar in each temple, and therefore, that it is pleased to restore that custom,—rash, injurious to the very ancient pious custom flourishing and approved for these many centuries in the Church, especially in the Latin Church.
32. Likewise, the prescription forbidding cases of sacred relics or flowers being placed on the altar,— rash, injurious to the pious and approved custom of the Church.
33. The proposition of the synod by which it shows itself eager to remove the cause through which, in part, there has been induced a forgetfulness of the principles relating to the order of the liturgy, "by recalling it (the liturgy) to a greater simplicity of rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice"; as if the present order of the liturgy, received and approved by the Church, had emanated in some part from the forgetfulness of the principles by which it should be regulated,— rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it.
66. The proposition asserting that "it would be against apostolic practice and the plans of God, unless easier ways were prepared for the people to unite their voice with that of the whole Church"; if understood to signify introducing of the use of popular language into the liturgical prayers,—false, rash, disturbing to the order prescribed for the celebration of the mysteries, easily productive of many evils.
(Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794
The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days -- which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation -- to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayer books approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.
The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.
The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.
Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table form; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.
Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.
This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the "deposit of faith" committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn. For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls' salvation. (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.)
"For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls' salvation." Anyone who cannot see that this one sentence describes the effects of the innovations of the abomination that is the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service is not being intellectually honest. The Novus Ordo service is of its very nature as much a revolution against Catholic Faith and Worship as that represented by the liturgies of Protestant sects, no matter what Ratzinger/Benedict may contend to the contrary as he persists in his own personal fantasy until the very end.
Part of the false designs of the conciliar revolution that Bergoglio/Francis has promoted in Argentina and that he is going to great lengths to demonstrate as the "Bishop of Rome who exercises the Petrine Ministry" is the mandating under penalty of Mortal Sin exterior acts of penance as he preaches a false "mercy" and of the necessitating of "preaching Christ crucified." The elimination of mandated penances is at the foundation of the Novus Ordo liturgy and the conciliar ethos, something that is borrowed en toto from the Jansenism condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei:
The same awareness of the present state of the world also influenced the use of texts from very ancient tradition. It seemed that this cherished treasure would not be harmed if some phrases were changed so that the style of language would be more in accord with the language of modern theology and would faithfully reflect the actual state of the Church's discipline. Thus there have been changes of some expressions bearing on the evaluation and use of the good things of the earth and of allusions to a particular form of outward penance belonging to another age in the history of the Church. (Paragraph 15, General Instruction to the Roman Missal, 1997.)
4.The proposition affirming, "that it would be a misuse of the authority of the Church, when she transfers that authority beyond the limits of doctrine and of morals, and extends it to exterior matters, and demands by force that which depends on persuasion and love"; and then also, "that it pertains to it much less, to demand by force exterior obedience to its decrees"; in so far as by those undefined words,"extends to exterior matters," the proposition censures as an abuse of the authority of the Church the use of its power received from God, which the apostles themselves used in establishing and sanctioning exterior discipline—heretical.
5. In that part in which the proposition insinuates that the Church "does not have authority to demand obedience to its decrees otherwise than by means which depend on persuasion; in so far as it intends that the Church has not conferred on it by God the power, not only of directing by counsel and persuasion, but also of ordering by laws, and of constraining and forcing the inconstant and stubborn by exterior judgment and salutary punishments" leading toward a system condemned elsewhere as heretical. (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.)
How can Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis preach Our Blessed Lord and Saviour crucified when He is crucifying Him anew by his promotion of false doctrines and his offending Him in matters pertaining to what purports to be Sacred Worship but are actually circuses that have been choreographed by the devil himself?
Third, how can Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis speak of the "need for mercy" when he reaffirms adherents of of false religions in their falsehoods and when he goes into their temples of false worship?
How is it any kind of Spiritual Work of Mercy to invite leaders of false religions to what they think is the "installation" of a true Successor of Saint Peter, starting with the head Talmudist in Rome?
Look at the heretics and infidels that will be present at the "inauguration" service in but three hours from the time of this writing:
At the present moment, the main delegations that are expected to attend are:
- 33 delegations representing Christian Churches and Ecclesial Communities (14 Oriental; 10 Western; 3 Christian organizations; others). Among these will be present: Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I; Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of all Armenians Karekin II; Metropolitan Hilarion of the Patriarchate of Moscow; many metropolitans; Anglican Archbishop Sentamu; Secretary of the World Council of Churches Fykse Tveit; etc.
- 16 members of important Jewish delegations including: the Jewish community of Rome; international Jewish committees; the Chief Rabbinate of Israel; the World Jewish Congress; the Anti-Defamation League, etc.
- As well as delegations of Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jainists, etc.
To date, delegations of various sizes and levels from 132 countries have confirmed their attendance.
“The delegations,” Fr. Lombardi emphasized, “are coming to Rome following information of the event made public by the Secretary of State. There were no 'invitations' sent out. All who wish to come are warmly welcomed. It must be made clear that no one has privileged status or will be refused. The order will depend on protocol and the level of the delegation.” (Details of Francis the Jansenist's Abominable Liturgical Service of Inauguration of Bishop of Rome's Petrine Ministry.)
This is an act of mercy?
No, this is crucifying Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ anew as He is mocked in what can be termed a veritable "World Parliament of Religions" and "Assisi IV."
Rome has indeed become the seat of Antichrists galore, and it is no accident that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis has chosen as "simple" "papal" ring patterned after the one worn by doctrinally, liturgically and morally corrupt "Blessed" Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick:
It was designed by Enrico Manfrini The ring was in the possession of Archbishop Macchi, Pope Paul VI's personal secretary, and then Msgr. Malnati, who proposed it to Pope Francis through Cardinal Re. It is made of silver and gold. (Details of Francis the Jansenist's Abominable Liturgical Service of Inauguration of Bishop of Rome's Petrine Ministry.)
Francis The Head Citizen Of The One World Ecumenical Church will take "possession" soon, albeit as an ecclesiastical robber baron, of the Basilica of Saint John Lateran, which is a pope's cathedral as the Bishop of Rome. He will paid obeisance not only by the apostate "cardinals" in attendance but also by representatives of the "People of God" after having received acts of obedience from six apostate "cardinals" this morning. Even this is a work of "simplicity," you see, as every apostate cardinal, for example, paid his obeisance to at least four of the other conciliar "popes" (I did not watch Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's "inauguration" and thus cannot state definitively that the every "cardinal" had done so with him)"
Six cardinals, two from each order, among the first of those present approach the Pope to make an act of obedience. Note that all the Cardinal electors already made an act of obedience in the Sistine Chapel at the end of the Conclave and that all the cardinals were able to meet the Pope in the following day’s audience in the Clementine Hall. Also, at the moment of “taking possession” of the Cathedral of Rome—St. John Lateran—it is expected that the act of obedience will be made by representatives of the various members of the People of God. (Details of Francis the Jansenist's Abominable Liturgical Service of Inauguration of Bishop of Rome's Petrine Ministry.)
It must be remembered that Francis the Jansenist's desire for "simplicity" is no work of "mercy" as his very beliefs, words and actions show that he is as cold-actual as the Jansenists towards the Most Sacred Heart Jesus no matter how much he preached from "his heart" about "mercy."
Let us call to mind once again a prayer Pope Saint Pius X composed to warn us of those who dare to corrupt doctrine in the manner that the conciliar revolutionaries have done and will continue to do:
"Watch, O priests, that the doctrine of Christ, not your fault for losing the face of integrity. Always purity and integrity of the doctrine ... Many do not understand the zealous care and caution should be used to preserve the purity of doctrine ... When this doctrine can not be kept longer incorruptible and that the rule of truth is no longer possible in this world, then the Son of God appear a second time. But until that day we must keep intact the sacred tank and repeat the statement of the glorious Saint Hilary: 'Better to die in this century that corrupt the chastity of the truth .” (Pie X, Jérome Dal-Gal OM Conv. 1953, pp. 107-108).
To Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart belongs the triumph that will vanquish the lords of Modernity and Modernism once and for all.
May our own efforts to make reparation for our sins, many though they may be, to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary help to plant a few seeds so that more and more Catholics, clergy and laity alike, yet attached to the false structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism will once and for all in order to receive true Sacraments from true bishops and true priests who make absolutely no concessions to conciliarism, men who are never afraid to speak the truth and act with complete integrity in its behalf, knowing that no true pope can do, say or act as the conciliar "pontiffs" and "bishops" have done, said and acted.
May Our Lady help us abundantly in these days of apostasy and betrayal. And may her Most Chaste Spouse, Saint Joseph, protect us to remain ever faithful no matter the assaults that are made against us for defending the truth without compromise.
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?