When Pope Benedict issued Summorum Pontificum, he wrote that he hoped having the EF Mass celebrated more frequently that both Masses would have a gravitational pull on the other. What would the ideal, well-celebrated EF Mass look like with some influences from the OF Mass?
My suggestions:
1. The procession to the altar is accompanied by a strong vernacular metrical hymn.
2. After the priest arrives at the altar, the hymn comes to a conclusion and the Prayers and the Foot of the Altar begin with the congregation participating with the altar servers in all spoken responses.
3. As the priest approaches the altar, the choir chants the Introit and the priest incenses the altar.
4. The Kyrie is sung in Greek with active congregational support.
5. The priest intones the Gloria and it is sung by all.
6. The priest chants the Opening Collect.
7. The Liturgy of the Word is celebrated from the Ambo as in the OF Mass, with a lector from the congregation reading the First Lesson facing the congregation in the vernacular. The priest remains at his chair for this and the Gradual. The Gradual is sung by the choir or cantor.
8. The priest then approaches the altar for the prayers prior to the Gospel. The Roman Missal is transferred to the Gospel side of the Altar.
9. The Priest or deacon goes to the ambo and proclaims the Gospel in English, singing or saying it.
10. The homily follows and is integral to the Mass, not separate from it.
11. The priest returns to his chair for a moment of silence then approaches the altar for the Credo and introduction to the Offertory Antiphon. He sits while the choir sings the offertory antiphon and the collection is taken. The Gifts of Bread and Wine, along with the collection are brought to the priest and he goes to the altar to begin the offertory.
12. The Mass continues as usual, but the postures of the OF Mass are followed. All stand for the Orate Fratres and Secret. They remain standing for the Preface Dialogue and singing of the Preface. They remain standing for the Sanctus and the priest, choir and congregation all sing the Sanctus together--in fact all sung parts are sung together, the priest does not say any parts of the congregation independently from them.
13. The Congregation kneels for the Roman Canon that may be said in an audible voice.
14. The congregation stands for the Pater Noster through the Agnus Dei. They kneel for the Domini Non Sum Dignus. Appropriate anthems are sung during Holy Communion.
15. After Holy Communion by intinction, the vessels are purified, the Communion Antiphon is sung.
16. The Prayer after Holy Communion is Prayed. Brief announcements are made and the Ite Missa est is chanted along with the Final Blessing and the proclamation of the Last Gospel. All depart with a strong vernacular recessional hymn.
34 comments:
Intinction!!!!
I'm not sure what to make of the comment, "Intinction!!!!" Is that positive or negative?????
Father, you offer thought provoking ideas; I would assume you would be facing adorientum. The only influence the EF can possible have on the OF is outward participation, which you have presented, but I would be a bit cautious, to much participation can have a negative effect. What I mean is, what makes the EF special is how it leads us to focus and interiorize the Mass. It is the prayerful nature of the EF that makes it have a deeper and more profound influence. The hard part is how do we increase the participation outwardly, without loosing the intense prayerful nature found in the EF. I think there would have to be parts that are not said aloud, but followed by the congregation. Uniting with the priest in prayer to God the father will always have a stronger affect on the individuals reverence and piety. Praying together aloud can lead one to just saw things from memory and not focus on what the meaning and reason of the prayer is. On the other hand, kneeling and praying in silence together, reading the prayer causes us to focus more intently. I know one can just recite the prayers with out focus also; it's just not as easy, because you have to pay more attention to read them.
I assume since vernacular is mentioned in particular to denote something different, that Latin is expected in the remaining parts of Mass? I like this arrangement and would attend. Also assuming all the things that are not mentioned, but presently found would remain the same. Perhaps considered to not be in need of change, putting to rest the idea of the Council as having had to change EVERYTHING.
Yes, everything else would be the same including all parts of the Mass in Latin, ad orientem (in fact I see the EF pulling the OF toward ad orientem). However, I have a 1965 transition Roman Missal which is basically the 1962 missal and was used for about two or three years. It allowed for all the parts of the Mass that the people heard and participated in vocally to be in the vernacular. Only the priest's quiet parts as well as the Roman Canon, also prayed quietly, were in Latin, but Latin was highly encouraged for all parts and was along side the vernacular in the same Missal.
Intinction is a GOOD thing.
Definitely a POSITIVE.
Sorry for the confusion. I can't help chuckling, actually outright laughing with almost tears in my eyes, to myself when I imagine one wondering if "Intinction!!!!" meant how something like 'how dare one suggest such a thing' or 'yes please do it'.
I admit that I have a dry sense of humor, but it is funny.
In all seriousness:
So, when can you implement some or all of your suggestions?
(The sooner the better.)
from
"Anonymous at 7:44" I like that name perhaps I'll use it.
Questions:
May the procession hymn be non-metrical? If not, why not.
What is the advantage of "Foot of the Altar" prayers?
If no incense is used, what happens to the chanted introit?
What purpose is served by moving the Missal from one side of the altar to the other?
Must preaching be done in an ambo?
"Priest approaches the altar for the Credo" I'm not sure what this means...?
Roman Canon only? Why?
Intinction expresses such liturgical pusilanimity. You can't be serious... But I suspect you are. Why intinction?
Go the Mass is Ended . . . But DON'T go because I was only kidding, we have another Gospel for you. What are we telling people by this mixed message?
Unless the EF extract actually has necessary meaning in and of itself, imposing it on the OF won't help. More likely, it will hurt. What you suggest is an omnium-gatherum liturgy - little of this, little of that, with no internal liturgical OR historical integration. Liturgical jigsaw puzzle with pieces from five different scenes.
Non-starter.
Oh my ears and whiskers!! Pater Ignotus, I actually think I agree with you on your last three points, i.e. the "mixed message" ending and the feeling of cut and paste. However, I am willing to wait for the result and see how it feels. I have never liked intinction. I prefer receiving in one kind on the tongue...period. Intinction always reminded me of when we used to dip our Pecan Sandies cookies in the grape juice in kindergarten. That last statement may have earned me extra time in Purgatory...
I rather think that the OF can have no gravitational pull on the EF becasue it is so completely sterile as reverent Liturgy compared to the EF. Although I tended to agree in the immediate aftermath of SP that the Holy Father wanted to see the EF and OF exert a gravitational pull on each other, as time marches on I not only don't see it happening (well not OF to EF, there has certainly been EF to OF pull) but I have also come to believe it was never His Holiness' intentio in the first place. He would have been much more likely to approve use of the 1965 MR which Father alludes to in SP had he really thought there was hope for a pull between OF and EF in a two way direction. The OF and the 1962MR are night and day, they literally don't speak the same language.
Keeping in mind that the OF that the Council envisioned is not the OF we have today, but some travesty created by recalcitrant apostates, the Holy Father would have knowingly selected the 1962MR as the last viable Liturgy the Church possessed and selected it in hopes that it's pull could help drag the OF (no doubt kicking and screaming) back into something vaguely resembling Orthodox Liturgy.
Probably not in my lifetime, but within 50 years, the shame that was the OF will be little more than a foot note in the history of the Church, probably mentioned in the same breath as the Arian Heresy.
Almost forgot, intinction offers one very HUGE advantage. It removes from the Faithful the option of receiving in the hand.
As with all things in the Chruch today, what people really NEED is freedom FROM choice.
"Freedom from choice..." Nicely put, Templar.
Ignotus: "What you suggest is an omnium-gatherum liturgy - little of this, little of that, with no internal liturgical OR historical integration. Liturgical jigsaw puzzle with pieces from five different scenes. Non-starter."
Well, at long last, I find myself in agreement with the good Pater. Non-starter, indeed.
Perhaps this proves only that, after the liturgical chaos of recent decades, there should be a moratorium of perhaps a century before discussing any of the revitalization of the ancient Mass that may well have been needed even before Vatican II. For now the well has been so poisoned that orthodox believers have no stomach for any more "creativity".
Pater Ignotus, are you sure you are a Catholic Priest? If you do not understand the Biblical and traditional reason for the pulpit or ambo, you need to go back to seminary school. Prayers at the foot of the alter are a no brainier, this action gives a point of reference that the sanctuary and alter, are sacred, that the action of the Mass is Holy, gives reverence to Christ in the Eucharist. Unless you believe the Eucharist is just a symbol, and you are protestant, then the prayers at the alter would make no sense. Father McDonald has put fourth for the sake of discussion, and thought how to put into action the Mass as put fourth by Vatican II. I guess you disagree with the Pope also! It is continuity, Catholic identity, respect, reverence, OBEDIENCE, establishing a sense of the sacred, are you blind to the fact that these things have been lacking in the Church the last 40 years. The Church has never done anything arbitrarily; every action has an intended meaning. As a priest you should educate yourself on the reasons for the actions of the EF and why they are done in that way. We are the same human beings today we were 600 years ago, in some ways a bit more educated but still the same. Problem is today we think we now better. Relativistic arrogance.
Mack -First, it is altar, not alter.
Second, there is NO "biblical tradition" of prayers at the foot of the altar, or moving the missal from side to side on the altar, or a host of other things we have done in the liturgy.
Good Father McDonald has put forward suggestions I don't think would improve anything for the reasons I stated. I also asked for some clarification.
We have continuity in the mass in what matters. Maniples, moving missals, lifting chasuble hems, (none biblical)etc etc etc simply do not matter unless one is primarily interested in historical trivialities.
I suggest that mass is far more - infinitely more - than historical trivia, which is why I take exception to attempts to make trivialities into essentials.
When Traditionalists go one a tear about things that are of no importance - that's right, moving a missal from one side of the altar to the other is of no importance whatsoever - the world lets go with a BIG YAWN and finds something else to be interested in.
So go on being concerned with maniples on the forearm and kid leather gloves on bishops' hands, and the world will continue to ignore you.
Poor Pater Ignotus lives as though Summorum Pontificum was never promulgated. He lives in the past. We have to pray that he adjusts to the Church and World constantly changing and gets with the program. He reminds me of those right after Vatican II who just simply had a hard time with change. Well it has happen and more changes in the future, flexibility is the key to survival of the rigid. As well, any question concerning the legitmate celebration of one of the two forms of the one Latin Rite cannot be answered until Pater Ignotus celebrates the EF Mass and asks questions from experience.
I disagree with you about the biblical reference to the pulpit, it is alluded to in 2 chronicles, when it says Solomon preached from a brazen scaffold, and in Nehemiah, when Esdras stood upon a step of wood and read the law of God. This elevated position and public action suggest a position of perfection. In the early church the bishop would speak from his cathedra, which the word pulpit is derived. So reading the Gospel from the pulpit or ambo is steeped in church historical tradition. You seem to be obsessed with maniples, and lifting garments. The EF is so much more and your sentiments are disrespectful to all who cherished this Mass over the centuries. The OF and EF could be in continuity, but this is not the reality, if it was why is the Holy Father steering us in the direction he is. The OF clearly lacks the sense of the sacred, reverence, and lacks the prayerful posture and focus of the EF. The OF can become much better with the influence of EF. I am not a Traditionalist, but one can see the train wreck of the last 40 years, the bad theology, poor catechism, poor priestly formation, and abuse is a direct result of a failure of proper implementation of Vatican II, and the progressives, that pushed a flawed liberal agenda, which has failed the Church profoundly. What I don't understand about your condescending attitude, is why are you so repulsed with orthodoxy, why this hostility to the past, you seem to find some amusement in demeaning the EF and those who see a richness in it, to include the Pope. Please illuminate us.
Mack - Pulpit is derived from the Latin pulpitum, meaning "raised platform." Cathedra (a bishop's chair) is derived from the Greek kathedra, meaning "seat" or "bench." I did not question reading the Gospel from a pulpit or ambo, but asked if preaching had to be done from the ambo, following Fr. McDonald's suggestion.
You make an error common to many traditionalists who argue (wrongly) that any discussion of the pro's and con's of liturgical actions is a sign of a lack of orthodoxy. Good Father McDonald put forward suggestions. I responded, asking a perfectly legitimate theological/liturgical question, and you accuse me of being less than Catholic. That's a shame because it make conversation about these questions difficult.
I am not repulsed by orthodoxy. I am concerned that too many people misunderstand what is considered a matter of "orthodoxy" and what, in this instance, is not.
I am not obsessed with maniples. I use them as an example of the sort of thing that could and should be eliminated from the liturgy as they do not support the goal of the liturgy. (I wonder if they ever did, but that is another question.)
If Fr. McDonald does not know what value moving the missal from one saide of the altar to the other has, he should say so, and not try to conceal his lack of understanding my saying "You'll understand it when you do it."
Pater Ignotus some of your questions I do not answer for you already know the answer. Also as ecumenical you are with separated Christians, I am shocked you are not as ecumenical with your own people in full communion. We all know that moving the missal in the EF from one side to the other has to do with the Epistle being read on the right side of the altar from the congregation's perspective and the Gospel on the left. Many Epsicopalians and Lutherans continue this procedure of different sides of the sanctuary until this day for the reading of the Epistle and the reading of the Gospel and so did many Catholic churches when the readings were allowed from the ambo on one side and a lectern on the other. I saw it done this way at an outdoor Mass at St. Peter's Square as recently as 2006 for the beatification of Spanish Martyrs.
In terms of the Go in Peace, followed by the Final Blessing and reading of the Last Gospel, all good things are extended and the Eastern Rite has even the giving of a blessed (not consecrated) bread following Divine Liturgy! You know as well as I that some Episcopal and Lutheran Churches will have the recessional with the clergy and at the end of the hymn the minister at the entrance of the Church invites the Congregation to turn and face the entrance for the final blessing! I wonder where they got that?
Pater, Pulpit is also called analogium, from preaching the word of God and ambo (ab ambiendo)which is the immediate predicessor of the pulpit. In the early church the bishop preached from his cathedra, a survival of this is in the French and German word for pulpit (chaire and predigtstuhl). So these word in the understanding of a position of perfection are derived from the same source.
Also their is a biblical reference to prayers before the altar, before the high priest entered into the Holy of Holies, he sad prayers of atonement. The correlation is obvious, and should not need any explanation.
Pater, If I have been less than charitable in expressing differences with your post, forgive me. It may have to do with the tone of your post, they have a condescending, and arrogant tone, which is not conducive to constructive dialog. It seems you want to play one up man ship with Father McDonald. The other problem is, it is hard to assess what your position is. Quit dueling, and state your position clearly so one can determine your true position on an issue. When you jest about maniples and lifting garments it sends a signal that you find the EF to be a joke or some how inferior, and we all know it is not.
Pater has a neurotic need for an antagonist, Mack. As long as we continue to provide him with one, his snotty little comments and querulous remarks will continue. But, Fr. MacDonald has many pearls to cast...
Fr. McDonald - I asked "What purpose is served by moving the missal from one side of the altar to the other?" You said, "The epistle and Gospel are read from different sides." But in your suggestion #7, you state that the Epistles and Gospel should be read from the ambo. If the readings are from the pulpit, what purpose is served by moving the missal on the altar?
Mack - Fr. McDonald plays one-upmanship just as freely and with as much humor as I. You can't indict me without equally indicting him. Besides, he has posted these things on this blog because he WANTS responses! I didn't read any disclaimer saying "Only Those In Agreement Need Post Responses."
The maniple morphed from a handkerchief into a "sacred" vestment and does not serve the purpose of the liturgy. I would suggest it never actually did. The lifting of the chasuble hem seems to have been an attempt to keep the priest from being set afire by thurible sparks - a laudable necessity. But the necessity is gone and the hem lifting should follow it.
Vatican Two instructed the Church to reform the liturgy because the liturgy needed reform.
I agree with Fr. McDonald that we need better celebration of the OF. I wholeheartedly disagree with him when he suggests that mish-mashing the two together is the way to accomplish that good end. In fact, I think the suggestios would actually do greater harm than good because it is not supported by 1) good liturgical theology or 2) good historical understanding of the liturgy.
Pater Ignotus said:
"Vatican Two instructed the Church to reform the liturgy because the liturgy needed reform."
And where is the prove to this statement? V2 recommended organic reform (and that can easily be questioned as tyhe work of modernists heretics) but what we got iin place of organic reform was liturgy by commitee and even that was not followed, instead it was free for all in the Sanctuary. The OF doesn't even look like what it's supposed to look like, let alone like the true Liturgy of the Ages.
Temp -
Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy
"21. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it."
You can add to that statement the work of the great theologians and historians of liturgy from the 125 years leading up to Vatican 2 whose work revealed the need for reform and restoration. They did the grunt work and the Council Fathers, enjoying the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit, expressed the need in their Constitution.
Maniples, hem-lifting, moving the missal from one side of the altar to the other, and numerous other elements of the Old Rite were jettisoned precisely because have nothing to do with the inner nature of the liturgy. Included in this category could be the "Last Gospel" and the Leonine Prayers, both of which were relatively recent additions to the liturgy.
Mack - I do not find the EF a "joke." I, agreeing with the Council Fathers of Vatican 2, find the EF a liturgy very much in need of reform and restoration. I don't see how that goal is accomplished by the melding that Good Father McDonald proposes.
With respect Pater Ignotus, your prior post claimed the Council called for reform; when challenged you posted that part which called for restoration; and in your subsequent comments use reform and restoration interchangeably. But they are not interchangeable as the dictionary shows.
Reform means to put or change into an improved form or condition; to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses.
Restore means beneficial change, more specifically, reversion to a pure original state, to repair, restore or to correct.
So the Council called for restoration, to fix the abuses which existed. The "Spirit of V2" types instituted reform instead. And the disobedient Bishops and Priests filled with that false spirit actually brought about a revolution: (which is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time.)
For me it is as clear as the nose on my face that if we truly wish to embrace Vatican II, the OF should be scrapped in it's entirety and the mandates of the Committee called in the wake of Vatican II start over again on it's "restoration" of the Liturgy.
Temp - Sorry, but restoration can also mean removing. Our "restored" cathedral in Savannah had several elements removed when the building was restored, such as a poorly working sound system, a poorly working HVAC system, etc.
Restoration can also mean adding elements. Again, at the cathedral a new baptismal font, ambry, and confessional were added.
Restoration is not, as you suggest, merely fixing abuses. There were elements of the ritual -maniples, elevated hems, moving missals, etc. - whose removal from the rite was a form of reform.
It is disingenuous for you to suggest that when the Council fathers stated that there were elements of the ritual, of human origin, that should be changed, that, as you see it, nothing would be changed.
The Fathers of the Council, who taught with authority, saw it differently.
Well Pater your true colors finally come out. I must say your pastoral sensitivity to those who prefer the EF is quite reprehensible. You show your disobedience to the Holy Father, along with all the Saints through out the ages. You disrespect the sacred Liturgy that is loved by many, to include Ecclesia dei commission, the Priestly Fraternity of Pope Pius V, our Orthodox brothers and sisters who have express their support for it's reestablishment. It is because of people like yourself that we have had schism as we do with Society of Pope Pius X. The Tridentine rite finds it's origin in the liturgy of Pope Gregory the Great, and was a blessing to the church for the next 1400 years, must be the longest running joke in history.
I am not being disengenious you are misunderstanding me or twisting my meaning.
I am NOT suggesting that things could not be removed from the EF, what I said was that the Council called for "restoration" of the Liturgy (now called EF) and what we got was something created out of thin air, a complete fabrication from a nothing. It was neither restoration or reform actually, it was revolution.
I find it is you who is being disengenious when you refuse to admit that the EF is actually the ONLY truly organic liturgy the Latin Rite Church posses. The OF was a fabrication. We will NEVER fulfill the wishes of teh Council with the OF, if we wish to honor V2 wwe should do what they asked and "restore" (however you wish to define it) the EF and not just build a Liturgy from scratch as they did with the OF.
Temp - Your claim that "what we got was something created out of thin air" is preposterous and demonstrably false. What we got was a substantial restoration of the liturgy, eliminating those elements which were out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy. The liturgy existed for 1500 years beofre Trent.
Mack - I bear no blame - none - for the sin of schism committed by the SSPX. I do not disrespect the Sacred Liturgy; rather I understand it to be the source and summit of my life as a Catholic. That is why I am passionate about it.
Pater Ignotus said...
Temp - Your claim that "what we got was something created out of thin air" is preposterous and demonstrably false. What we got was a substantial restoration of the liturgy, eliminating those elements which were out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy. The liturgy existed for 1500 years beofre Trent.
LOL...oh yes, and thank the Heavens that Masonic Bastard Bugnini restored the Liturgy to exactly what it was before Trent, right? Gimme a break.
I have always tried to listen to you and engage you on a serious level PI, but the notion that the Liturgy which we are currently forced to endure called the OF is in any way shape or form even remotely like what the Church used as Liturgy before the Council of Trent is Modernist clap trap.
Temp - Your "Masonic B*****d Bugnini" comment tells me a great deal about the fruits of the EF in your life . . .
For Christians, charity is a requirement, not an option.
And I have to question Fr. McDonald's judgment in publishing such an uncharitable comment.
The first major change to the Latin Rite came when Pope Gregory the Great saw the need of reform in the Church and he looked to the liturgy as the primary way to do so.(sounds like Pope Benedict and Pope Gregory are on the same sheet of music?). The Mass of Hipolitus was not sufficient in transmitting the faith as it had developed through the first 700 years, the liturgy of Pope Gregory was organic development, and in continuity with the earlier liturgy. The changes to the liturgy from Pope Gregory to the Council of Trent were few , and the changes where not radical departures from what was before. Trent addressed the issue of liturgical abuse (Now that’s funny, Bugnini and company encouraged what Trent wanted to stop?) While no one here is saying that certain aspects of the Tridentine Mass can not be changed or removed (i.e. maniples lifting hems etc..) what most see is the radical departure from the EF. The similarities between the EF and the OF are at the basic required elements at best. This is what I mean when I say the Mass was striped of it's beauty and mystery. If 1400 years ago Pope Gregory saw the deficiencies in the Mass of Hipolotus, why would anyone think it would be sufficient today. We are experiencing the same situation today that Pope Gregory faced then. History is a great teacher. While Bugnini may not be a b****d he sure screwed up big time. In Bugnini’s attempt to please the protestants, he reverted to what he saw as the earliest form of the liturgy, which means there is no organic growth, but just the opposite, a reduction in development. While I am all for Ecumenical dialog, it is the protestants that must come to us not us come to them, after all we are the Church established by our Lord Jesus Christ, and we did not leave in protest against the faith, even when they addressed the Patriarch of Constantinople with their heretical views, he rejected them and told them to return to the true faith. That has not changed, they have to return home. The over simplification and dumping down of the faith and liturgy has been influenced by protestants. This is their m.o. return to the earliest form of the faith to insure it’s authenticity, reject development and never move deeper in the faith.
The first major change to the Latin Rite came when Pope Gregory the Great saw the need of reform in the Church and he looked to the liturgy as the primary way to do so.(sounds like Pope Benedict and Pope Gregory are on the same sheet of music?). The Mass of Hipolitus was not sufficient in transmitting the faith as it had developed through the first 700 years, the liturgy of Pope Gregory was organic development, and in continuity with the earlier liturgy. The changes to the liturgy from Pope Gregory to the Council of Trent were few , and the changes where not radical departures from what was before. Trent addressed the issue of liturgical abuse (Now that’s funny, Bugnini and company encouraged what Trent wanted to stop?) While no one here is saying that certain aspects of the Tridentine Mass can not be changed or removed (i.e. maniples lifting hems etc..) what most see is the radical departure from the EF. The similarities between the EF and the OF are at the basic required elements at best. This is what I mean when I say the Mass was striped of it's beauty and mystery. If 1400 years ago Pope Gregory saw the deficiencies in the Mass of Hipolotus, why would anyone think it would be sufficient today. We are experiencing the same situation today that Pope Gregory faced then. History is a great teacher. While Bugnini may not be a b****d he sure screwed up big time. In Bugnini’s attempt to please the protestants, he reverted to what he saw as the earliest form of the liturgy, which means there is no organic growth, but just the opposite, a reduction in development. While I am all for Ecumenical dialog, it is the protestants that must come to us not us come to them, after all we are the Church established by our Lord Jesus Christ, and we did not leave in protest against the faith, even when they addressed the Patriarch of Constantinople with their heretical views, he rejected them and told them to return to the true faith. That has not changed, they have to return home. The over simplification and dumping down of the faith and liturgy has been influenced by protestants. This is their m.o. return to the earliest form of the faith to insure it’s authenticity, reject development and never move deeper in the faith.
Post a Comment