Monday, June 8, 2015

MORE FROM LITURGICALLY CONFLICTED IN MACON

Alright, I admit it. I am liturgically conflicted. I love both forms of the one Latin Rite! Everyone knows this. This conflicted experience for me makes me muse on my own liturgical spirituality and its diversity and how confusing it can be.

But let me say this. I think most priests are liturgically conflicted especially those priests who celebrate a myriad of styles of celebrating the Ordinary Form of the Mass which is not the case for me!

In my parish, all our Sunday Ordinary Form Masses are sung and use the same music. There is no difference between Masses except our 9:30 AM Mass has a full choir that adds to the sound and where they might do one or two anthems independently of the congregation. All the other Masses have a cantor from the choir loft to facilitate the congregational singing. The sameness of all our Masses brings a liturgical unity to our parish as though we were to have only one Mass on Sunday for everyone which in fact would be the ideal.

Our congregation sings too. It is very noticeable for the parts of the Mass in particular but for the hymns too. The Our Father is chanted each Sunday and without accompaniment. It is here that I truly notice the volume of the congregation. And on top of that, at the end of Mass almost everyone remains in the Church for the conclusion of the recessional hymn. In fact on the Memorial Day weekend, our music director decided to sing "America" after the four verses of the recessional hymn. I had already gotten outside after the second verse of the first recessional hymn and no one, and I mean one left the church until all the verses of the second recessional hymn were sung, I think 4, of America the Beautiful. Where else in the world does this happen?

But many parishes have a variety of styles of music for their various Masses. Some priests have an Ordinary Form Mass with no music. Then there will be a Spanish Mass with very upbeat music. Then there will be a choir Mass with more traditional types of vernacular music. Then there will be a contemporary sounding Mass or a lifeteen type Mass with music totally alien to our Latin Rite tradition.

I would say that is a conflicted, unintegrated approach to the Ordinary Form.

What is my conflict though, you might ask?

Yesterday I celebrated our 7:45 AM Mass and 5:00 PM Mass, both Ordinary Form although we have different types of Catholics at both, but the singing and music was almost identical.  The propers were chanted in a simply way by the cantor and the congregational singing was very good. Everything is chanted or sung by congregation for their parts and the priest for his parts. All is accompanied by organ except for the accapella  parts such as the Our Father, although with robust chanting. But it isn't Latin; it is all English which is fine by me. It is Anglo in other words.

But then I had the 2:00 PM High Extraordinary Form Mass. Our men's schola was particularly strong and excellent yesterday. The congregation participated in the parts normally associated with the altar boys (men in our case) and schola. We sang a hymn, I believe, "Alleluia, Sing to Jesus" as the processional, I and the servers began the "Prayers at the Foot of the Altar" quietly as this hymn was concluded by the congregation and smoothly transitioned to the Introit chanted in a beautiful way by the schola, well harmonized and covering the rest of the quiet action of the PATFOTA as well as my ascending the altar and incensing it and allowing me time to say the Introit quietly and to move to the middle of the altar in time for the schola to begin the Kyrie to which all participated at the appropriate time. Then all of us, and I mean all, chanted the Gloria.

The Mass proceeded flawlessly. The only fly in the ointment was that the small schola was not prepared to chant the Sequence which I simply read aloud in Latin and my Latin, I must brag, is getting very good although many say I pronounce it with a strong Tuscany Italian accent!

The spirituality and sound of the Latin Chanted Mass (and I think this would be the case even in an Ordinary Form Mass chanted all in Latin) is different than my other Ordinary Form Masses that day.

There are two spiritualities at work and the ethos of the Latin Mass is simply different. It is as different as an Anglican/Episcopal Eucharist verses a Catholic Extraordinary Form Gregorian chanted Mass.

In the Extraordinary Form, there can be different styles too. There is a different spirituality between a Chanted Mass and a Low Mass. And chanted Masses might use "concert" Masses by the great composers that are very different than Gregorian Chant with a different kind of soaring that tweaks the adrenalin of those who hear it, similar to what some contemporary Catholic music does to one's adrenalin.

But this brings me to the "filled" silences of the EF Mass. I have come to appreciate the silent canon which elevates its solemnity, Mystery and sense of wonder and awe for all. It is "filled" silence, actual liturgical prayer is occurring during the grand silence. Many who think in terms of "new and improved" for the Ordinary Form Mass rather than just "different" are appalled by a silent canon. They think it is a proclamation that must be directed to the congregation with eye contact from the priest and gestures toward the congregation. Any hint of the priest's prescribed liturgical piety are snarkily denigrated (just go over and see the silly post and name calling on Praytell concerning the different ways priest consecrate the Host with staged videos to complete the insults!)

The filled silences of the EF Mass are quite different than the contrived "empty" silences of the OF Mass. There is no real comparison and the contrived "empty silences" leads to zoning out.

  So the "filled" silences of the EF Mass is conflicting to me in Macon compared to the contrived "empty" silences of the Ordinary Form Mass!

Is it okay to be conflicted in Macon? I ask; you answer!


42 comments:

Dialogue said...

I think there are many of us who just want to worship God. Why can't the Modernists just admit that they are pagans and leave us alone? They don't believe that only Jesus saves souls from Hell, or that He does so only through the Catholic Church. They don't believe that the Holy Mass is Christ's Sacrifice to our Father, so they turn it into a noisy pseudo-orgy. Let them do their own thing and leave us alone.

Anonymous said...

I don't think "Dialogue" wants to dialogue. I think he/she just wants everybody who doesn't agree to shut up and go away. Not exactly dialogue to me.....

Anonymous said...

Conflicts, by their very nature, require resolution.

Dialogue said...

Anonymous,

Once the Modernists are honest about their rejection of key Catholic truths and about what they are trying to do to the Roman Mass, then it will be possible to engage them in dialogue. Dialogue requires honesty and integrity as a starting point. Deceptions and manipulations do not allow for dialogue.

Catechist Kev said...

This is a tad off topic, Father - yet I thought you would find it interesting (since you have been posting a lot on the Holy Sacrifice... for which I am thankful).

http://blog.adw.org/2015/06/on-the-worthy-reception-of-holy-communion/

CKev

John Nolan said...

Fr AJM

One thing puzzles me - if the schola is proficient enough to chant the Introit, Gradual, Alleluia, Offertory and Communio for the Feast of Corpus Christi, why do they balk at the Lauda Sion, which though long is not difficult? They also have the option of beginning at ECCE PANIS ANGELORUM which shortens it considerably. The celebrant says quietly the Gradual, Alleluia and Sequence and then sits down until the schola has sung all three. The time it takes for the schola to sing the Gradual and Alleluia (which are quite elaborate) is quite long enough for the celebrant to recite quietly Gradual, Alleluia and Sequence. If you recited the Sequence aloud you must have been standing at the altar for some considerable time doing nothing.

Are you sure you are offering a High Mass in the EF according to the 1962 books or your own version of it? Do the deacon and subdeacon actually follow the rubrics? They are quite precise and need to be practised under the eye of a competent MC. I've said this before, but the MC is essential in a sung Mass in the older rite. You surely have a senior server prepared to take on the role and I have also said before that I am prepared to ship to him gratis a copy of Fortescue-O'Connell.

You say you all chanted the Gloria. As celebrant you intone it and then recite it - similarly the Credo. Yes, things changed in 1965, but the EF is for better or worse the rite of 1962. In fact some of the 1962 changes are not usually adopted (if they ever were, which is doubtful, since they were superseded by the wholesale changes of 1965). I sing for the EF most Sundays and occasionally the priest lets later customs intrude, which is understandable, but a good MC will have a quiet word with him afterwards.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

It wasn't a solemn high Mass but just high with no deacon or subdeacon.

Dialogue said...

John Nolan,

I, too, was wondering about this. They could even sing it in a monotone, if necessary. But, as far as I know, in the Sung Mass everything that can be sung, must be sung. The celebrant is not free to change this rule.

John Nolan said...

The rubrics for a Missa Cantata (aside from the deacon's and subdeacon's roles) are the same as for the Solemn Mass. A deacon (wearing stole over choir dress) may chant the epistle. There should be an MC, two acolytes and a thurifer. In England and North America the use of lights and incense were allowed under indult since few parishes had enough clergy to field a deacon and subdeacon. John XXIII later extended this to the whole Church.

John Nolan said...

Dialogue

Sometimes Offertories are replaced by motets or organ solos, but from the 20th century onwards it was expected that the Propers be chanted. I can't imagine any schola not wishing to sing the Sequence; there are only five in the entire year in the strictly Roman Rite (other Uses have retained more). Lauda Sion has an ambitus of an octave and a half which is unusual for chant but not daunting for even an average singer. Compared with the melismatic Gradual and Alleluia which precede it, it is easy-peasy, and if you're that desperate you can shorten it.

Asperges-Introit-Kyrie-Gloria-Gradual-Alleluia-Sequence doesn't give you much of a break, but you can have a snifter during the homily and it's more-or-less downhill after that.

WSquared said...

All I can say is that I really hope that I might get down South to Macon and to your parish to experience what you are trying to achieve, Father.

As for everybody singing, I'm neither here nor there regarding any insistence that they do: "active participation" isn't "doing more stuff at Mass." Listening and contemplation are not "passive" activities; one does them intentionally.

But I do notice that when it comes to Masses where everybody does sing robustly, it's often the EF. Everybody has learned the Ordinaries through repetition, and they sing all of it-- Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei. All of it. Plus, I suspect it's that nobody goads us to sing or "leads" us into song: we sing if we wanna, and if we don't wanna, we ain't gonna. But Gregorian chant is awesome: why wouldn't we want to sing it, if/when in fact we do?

When I helped out at a choir that was singing at the EF for the first time ever, I could tell that everybody was nervous, because they'd worked really, really hard. They were, by their own admission, usually a contemporary group. But they took on the Latin Mass, and took it on, they did; they did a lovely job. There were times during practice when the "De Angelis" got a bit stilted in the flow, but only because, not being used to chant, they were hanging onto every note, to make sure they got it right: the paradoxical thing about chant is that its ability to gel is commensurate with your entering into the music-- when you let go. It's not at all that excellence doesn't matter, but rather that excellence isn't about "performance." It's not only about what you "do" with that form of music, but what that form of music gives you, and how it disciplines you as a singer.

The fact is that they needn't have worried: when you sing for the EF, you aren't a "song leader" or "worship leader" in the sense that has become almost pervasive in the way the OF is treated in most parishes, unfortunately. The schola or choir serves the liturgy and sing the music that is integral to it: knowing that It's Not All About You takes a ton of pressure off and frees you up to focus. When it came to the Ordinaries, the folks in the pews almost drowned us out, anyway! Usually, a lot of the EF Masses are going to be full of people who know never to take that form of the Mass for granted.

Bill Hobbs said...

I think there are many of us who just want to worship God. Why can't the traditionalists just admit that they are obsessed with the remnants of the Roman Empire and leave us alone? They don't believe that Jesus came announce the Reign of God or that God is a bigger than even the the Catholic Church. They don't believe that the Last Supper is Christ's ultimate example of true service to one another, so they turn it into a theatrical medieval performance. Let them do their own thing and leave us alone.

jolly jansenist said...

Bill is obviously a modernist/lib. The Eucharist is not Christ's "ultimate example of true service to one another." That is a completely humanistic/horizontal theology that sees Jesus as just another great human who set a great example for us to follow
until, like everything else, we rot in the earth. The Eucharist is a Sacrifice, the re-enactment of Christ's saving act which foreshadows the resurrection of the dead and His return in Glory. The so-called "theatrics" reveal how we see ourselves before the Majesty of God…we either honor him in awe and humility, praising Him and acknowledging His majesty through dress and ceremony, or we turn it into a celebration of the human spirit with lots of talky crap and "existential theology" and other BS.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

But Bill, if a liturgist has good will and is seeking the Lord, who are you to judge?

Dialogue said...

Dear Bill Hobbs,

It seems your comment is a response to one of my own. Unlike Modernism, the Church has not defined "Traditionalism" as a heresy.

However, if we assume it to be so, and define it as the total rejection of the constitutions and decrees of the Second Vatican Council, then I can agree that it is a problem for the Church. That said, I am not aware of persons fitting this "Traditionalist" description actively disturbing the freedom of Modernists. Further, I have not read any statements from such "Traditionalists" denying the present Reign of God, or the distinction between God and his Church. I've also never read any anti-Vatican II rhetoric by presumed "Traditionalists" describing the Holy Mass as a mere theatrical spectacle (the Low Mass, in fact, is almost totally lacking in anything that could be described as ostentation, even by secularists). Finally, since Christ's ultimate act of service was His Crucifixion ("greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends), I'm not sure what you mean by the "service" comment.

Please respond. Thank you.


Father McDonald, thank you for providing this forum for constructive dialogue.

Bill Hobbs said...

Yes Dialogue, I was pushing back at you because quite honestly, your presentation of those of us who are progressive is equally "over the top." I enjoy reading this blog although not from Georgia, but I admit I get frustrated at the same old tropes being rolled out to bash those of us who long for the full and complete implementation of Vatican II. (Yes Fr. MacDonald - those same few photos of clown Masses - I am 52 years old, have lived all over the country and have never witnessed anything close to that - nor to I suspect the overwhelming majority of Catholics). I grow frustrated when either side of the aisle "proof texts" their arguments - more to bash others over the head then provide fuller growth in the faith that I know that all of us here love. i have no intention of disappearing - I resent the the implication that progressive Catholics are pagan. In fact - I would be happy to be rid of all the pagan elements that have crept into our faith and practice (some have been with us hundreds, even thousands of years...) Finally, please stop asserting that if only the traditional Mass had been kept, we would still have full churches and all would be right with the world. The Pew, CARA and other sociological studies continually point out that that is simply not true. The departure of Catholics - and in reality the huge number of other former church attenders was and is a sociological and cultural phenomenon not a liturgical one.

Anonymous said...

Father McDonald, I want to commend the men's schola at yesterday's Holy Mass. Their chanting was truly ethereal!
And your description of "filled silence" really hit home. I've never been able to express in words that aspect of the difference in the two forms of Mass.

Mallen

jolly jansenist said...

I am a little weary of this "who am I to judge" crap. Many of us are believing Christians and devout Catholics who understand why we believe what we believe. Some of us have graduate degrees in theology and Church history and years of pastoral service in protestant denominations. We know bad theology and secular humanism when we see it, and we are called by our faith to challenge it and, yes, judge it. If Bill is such a great guy and not a pagan, then he needs to stop using careless theological language and ask himself how he squares his obviously progressivist views with Catholic doctrine. The logic of progressivism is paganism…sorry about that, Bill ol' boy, but that's the haps.

Anonymous said...

JJ....I am a little weary of this "some of us have graduate degrees in theology and church history and years of pastoral service in protestant denominations." crap.

jolly jansenist said...

Well, Anonymous, some of us do…how about you? I guess not…is that why you never contribute anything of substance to the blog?

Flavius Hesychius said...

Good 'ol V2... something I'll never have to deal with again... thankfully.

Dialogue said...

Bill Hobbs,

Modernism is a defined heresy, which Pope Paul VI noted is still alive and well in the age of VCII. If you have somehow come to understand the constitutions and decrees of the Second Vatican Council as promoting Modernism, then I think you have misread those documents. Further, the heresy of Modernism is unrelated to "progress". The Church promotes both social progress and personal progress in virtue.

jolly jansenist said...

The key phrase here is "in virtue."

Bill Hobbs said...

Dialogue,

You're putting words in my mouth - not an uncommon experience in the comments section. I have done graduate coursework on Vatican II and the documents of the Council, so I am pretty well versed on what they say. If only more people on this site and others would actually read the documents - and more importantly lived them out and put them into practice - we would all be better off - don't you think? Nor do I equate Modernism (which arose out of the Church's fear in the late 19th and the early 20th century to mean that we can't do anything modern...

Flavius Hesychius said...

Mr. Hobbs, I'm confused.

You say 'Why can't the traditionalists just admit that they are obsessed with the remnants of the Roman Empire and leave us alone?', but a certain V2 document says 'Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.' You also say , 'they turn it into a theatrical medieval performance.', but a certain document of V2 says, 'The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.'

Now, since you have 'done graduate coursework on Vatican II and the documents of the Council', I'm sure you can tell me why what you've written isn't in conflict with the 'documents of V2'.

Anonymous said...

Many confuse/conflate Modernism and Modernity.

Failure to come to terms amiably with modernity leads to decrepitude. Some one or some thing that remains stuck - not rooted but stuck - in the past is going to become more and more irrelevant as the decades and centuries pass.

Jansenist, while touting his own credentials, if the first one on this blog to dismiss anyone else's credentials, saying that they aren't worth the vellum they're printed on. But HIS degrees - Oh, now, that's another thing all together - Vandy and Chicago...oooohhh!

Dialogue said...

Bill Hobbs,

When you object to my comment on Modernists by referring to "your presentation of those of us who are progressive", it seems clear enough that you're equating Modernism with progress, especially since I have never criticized progressives.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

FH, I thought you were glad to be free of the true Church and all the ecumenical councils held under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, even the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council of the Church. Of course saying your are glad to be rid of the true Church, her full communion and her last pastoral Council which has the authority of the Magisterium nonetheless, only compounds your schism and mortal sin.

But I find it interesting that you continue to quote Vatican II to another poster here. Seems interesting to me and a bit hypocritical.

Dialogue said...

Father McDonald,

If only poor FH would quote the decree on ecumenism: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained", or Lumen Gentium: "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved".

jolly jansenist said...

Anonymous, when on this blog have I "dismissed" anyone's degrees? And, acknowledging one's degrees, since one is making theological/doctrinal comments and observations, would seem to be both a good idea and a courtesy.

Bill Hobbs said...

FH - you may want to quote more than just one point from Vatican II's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy which does indeed state: “The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (no. 36 #1). However, it continues... “But since the use of the vernacular, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or in other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use may be made of it, especially in readings and in some prayers and chants” (#2). And undoubtedly, the fathers of the Council envisaged some use of the vernacular, and left it to be decided after the council - “It is for the competent ecclesiastical authority… to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used. Its decrees have to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See” (#3).

Bill Hobbs said...

FH - as I previously noted in my follow-up comment - which possibly might have alleviated your confusion, my comments were intentionally over the top. I was trying to point out to "Diagolue" that his comments were in the first...

Flavius Hesychius said...

No, Father, it isn't hypocritical to ask someone to explain why their opinions don't conflict with documents they supposedly hold as authoritative.

Mr. Hobbs has set the perimeters of the discussion, not I. His comments presuppose V2 documents to have authority, and I'm merely working from there. Were we talking about, say, the recitation of the Beatitudes as the third antiphon in the Divine Liturgy, we'd be using a different set of documents, making different presuppositions.

As for your first paragraph, I don't believe Rome to be the true Church, nor do I believe the Holy Ghost guided V2. If I did I wouldn't be Orthodox. I've never said I'm 'glad', just that I have no regrets and that I don't have to deal with the Vaguest Council Ever (TM).

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

FH, my warning to you is as much for my salvation as yours. I have a responsibility as a priest and your pastor that I will answer for at my personal judgment if I did not tell you the truth!

Dialogue said...

FH,

Schism is a damnable offense. Please reconsider your decision. If you are just tired of Modernism, then that's understandable, but not worth losing your soul over.

jolly jansenist said...

Well, Flavius, since Vat II produced no doctrine nor anything definitive, I think it is fair to question whether the Holy Ghost guided it…or, if it did, perhaps it was in a manner of judgement on the Church for conceiving the Council in the first place. Maybe the ghost guiding it was the Headless Horseman…if they did a video documentary of Vat II, it would probably look like the Keystone Cops with collars and vestments…little red and purple hats running around. The aftermath has certainly been worthy of some great slapstick...

Flavius Hesychius said...

Mr. Hobbs, I saw I also read that on the Vatican's site, and had a feeling you'd object with it, but rather than anticipate a response I decided I'd wait for it.

Without further ado...

The problem, naturally, is that it says that the use of the vernacular may be extended, not that Latin is to be abolished in totality. How many parishes actually use any Latin at all?

'Some vernacular' does not equal 'no Latin'.

(On a side note, the excerpts you and I have posted merely confirm my views about V2 being the Vaguest Council Ever (TM).)
___________________________________________________________

Dialogue,

Of course Rome would say that. So do the Oriental Orthodox, but no one takes them seriously.

Now, for this: Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved

I clearly don't 'know' any such thing about the Catholic Church, or else this conversation wouldn't exist.

Flavius Hesychius said...

Jansenist, my ribs hurt now.

Father, I understand (a little) that it must be hard knowing one of your flock is, in the eyes of the CC, committing a grave and damnable sin, and I appreciate your concern for my spiritual well being. For what it's worth, you're the kind of pastor one would want and I commend you for that.

Dialogue, it goes wayyyyy beyond modernism.

Templar said...

I'm a Traditionalist. I am particularly fond of the Old Traditions, like Roasting Heretics and telling them God can't hear their cries for Mercy if they're not said in Latin. LOL

jolly jansenist said...

Templar, you bring the wood and I'll bring the matches.

Anonymous said...

I know of a 16 year old girl who is joining the Church because of the Latin Mass. She does not like the NO Mass and does not want to be that kind of Catholic...Modern. I know a man who didn't join the Church until he found the TLM. He didn't see the difference between the NO Mass and his traditional Methodist service. I was the exact same way as him, except I am kind of a cradle Catholic (raised by non-practicing Catholic mom). I have invited 2 boys, ages 10 and 9, with me to Latin Mass. They loved it much more than their Harvest church that gives donuts at children's church. I have been to the SSPX TLM and blown away by the reverence. Backs are never turned on the altar. Not even in the confession line. No body was snooty or rebellious acting. They were respectful, humble, and there for Christ.
People who truly love and respect Christ and His Church, crave Tradition. Still can't figure out why we have to fight for the TLM and be labeled as anything but devout. Innocent kids, and adults who are tired of psuedo worship in Protestant churches both see it clear as day which Mass is gold.
And it's not possible to love the forms equally. Not possible. They are battling for a reason. One will win. Many people won't like it, but Christ tells us there will be a Remnant (I pray I am worthy).
Jesus is not Joel Osteen. The Mass is not for our egocentric feelings.

Color Me Trad




John Nolan said...

Color Me Trad

I don't see the two 'forms' as being in conflict; in fact most of the priests I know who celebrate the classic Roman Rite also celebrate the Novus Ordo, in Latin and English. However, there is a clear dichotomy between the two, although they are both valid - the validity of the Roman Rite is not in dispute whereas the validity of the Novus Ordo depends a lot on the preamble to the GIRM which declares that it is in conformity with the Mass as defined at Trent. If one does what the Church intends, that is sufficient, although there is a question as to how many liturgical abuses are allowed before a Mass becomes invalid.

The Pauline Missal is very much of its time (the mid-20th century) and the way in which it was fabricated, and the motives of many of its fabricators are now well known. It is severely compromised on many levels; Bugnini himself regarded it as an interim measure leading to a completely inculturated liturgy wherein texts were locally generated and approved, and the further they departed from Roman norms, the better. Rome seems to regard it as more permanent and since 1970 there have been three editions. 'Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia 2002' suggests that its genesis is recent.

The Roman Rite (at present in its 1962 edition, but I expect that to change - in particular the Octaves and the pre-1955 Ordo for Holy Week will be restored in 20 to 30 years if not sooner) is part of the current life of the Church and will remain so.

In the long run a house built on sand cannot stand. The Novus Ordo will not last a thousand years, possibly not even a hundred. By all means take it on its own terms and celebrate it properly - even attempt to improve it. Try to derive as much spiritual benefit as you can from it. Don't shun it out of principle. But do all you can to support the authentic Rite or TLM. Boys of 10 or 9 need to learn how to serve Mass. Having experienced it they will want to anyway.