Cardinal Cupich: "The Gift of Traditionis Custodes"
  • francis
    Posts: 10,677
    Charles

    Pay no attention to the people in pews... Simply go to worship God in the mass
    Thanked by 2tomjaw Chris Garton-Zavesky
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    Francis, I have no reason to go to a mass EF or OF unless I am working as a musician. I attend Byzantine Divine Liturgy when worshipping and not working.

    I am not a betting person and don't gamble. For one, the chances of winning are small, for another, I am too cheap to waste money on betting. But if I were, my own observation is that words from the cardinal and rumblings from Rome are a set up for the suppression of the 1962 missal. I hope I am wrong since it would be devastating for some good friends who are attached to that liturgy. It just seems to me, however, that a trajectory has been mapped and the suppression of of the 1962 is the intended result.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937

    Wasn't the point of "turning the priest around", so that he faced the people instead of the tabernacle and the crucifix, that the priest would say by this very gesture, "LOOK AT ME!"?



    Chris, I remember being told at the time of the Council that the sacrificial aspect of the mass was over emphasized to the point the table aspect of the altar had been lost. The mass is a meal for Christians. However, I realize facing the people isn't traditional except for maybe the earliest days of the church. The tradition is that priest and people face east, the direction from which Christ will return. I suspect half of western churches face every direction except east since that tradition was monkeyed with ages ago.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,218
    Most TLM’ers that I know actively participate... and are engaged via their missals.


    Thought of that today as I left Mass (NO). Reading along in the missal focuses one much more on the text and meaning than merely listening.

    And as a past President of CMAA often said, "actuosa participatio" is conforming oneself to Christ in self-sacrifice. Then, maybe, singing or responding. IOW, there is a hierarchy and singing/responding is not at the top of it.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw Gustavo Zayas
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,218
    my own observation is that words from the cardinal and rumblings from Rome are a set up for the suppression of the 1962 missal.


    You're right, except for one major thing: Bishops can ignore that diktat and many of them probably will. Then Francis will go the way of all flesh, TC will be 'forgotten,' and the EF will continue as before.

    How do I have such confidence? Read Mgr. Hayburn's Papal Legislation on Sacred Music and note that umpty-dozen Popes have repeated themselves umpty-dozen times throughout the centuries. Face it: the Pope is in Rome, and that's a LONG way from most Diocesan puzzle palaces.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw Gustavo Zayas
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,025
    If the pope were to order the suppression of the 1962 Missal, no bishop or priest in communion with Rome could disobey that without consequence. That hasn't happened yet.

    I agree with CharlesW that TC is a pastoral, preparatory provision for the eventual suppression of preconciliar liturgical rites in the Roman Church.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • francis
    Posts: 10,677
    .. the Mass will never perish... only those who try to destroy it
    Thanked by 3sdtalley3 dad29 tomjaw
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,218
    Who said "disobey"?

    The matter can be ..........ahhh............studied.....that's it!! Studied! For, say, a year. Consultation with various pastors, professors, laity, periti.......oh my, that takes time, you know.

    Game-playing was invented by Churchmen, friend. I've seen plenty in my 50 years of working for the Church. Don't make any foolish bets.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,025
    A directive from the pope stating that preconciliar liturgical rites are no longer authorized for use in the Roman Church as of such-and-such a date would not have to be studied. It would have to be obeyed. No game-playing or parliamentary maneuvers would be able to thwart it.

    Even now, a bishop is within his authority to suppress the preconciliar liturgy in his own territory.

    It's not hard to see where this is all going.

    This author agrees it's coming:
    https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/traditionis-custodes-challenges-everyone/

    Yet, Francis might still want to insist the old missal be decommissioned, even if Summorum Pontificum-communities were assessed positively, for two possible reasons.

    There is the question of whether the prior missal, even if some of its adherents today live commendable Catholic lives nourished by that form of Mass, is nonetheless no longer legitimate because it represents a preconciliar lex credendi incompatible with the doctrinal developments of Vatican II which informed the work of the Consilium and the postconciliar liturgical books.


    But there is another reason he would in any case determine that those currently celebrating Mass with the 1962 Missal must stop. Regardless their form of Catholic life, however commendable, and regardless their attitudes toward the liturgical reform, whether accepting or resistant, their actions, their persistent celebrations with the preconciliar missal de facto reject that conciliar reform. Again, Francis’s principle is straightforward: the Church after the council will be faithful to the council and the papacy; we will use the ritual books revised at conciliar mandate and given papal approval.


    Unless new evidence moves Francis to rethink his methods, this is where we ultimately return: adherence to only the postconciliar liturgical books. If so, and Francis proceeds to implement the second stage of his plan, hopefully he will in some fashion offer, as Pope Paul did in 1969, words of understanding and advice to those Catholics losing the form of the Mass they hold dear.
    Thanked by 1Don9of11
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 546
    Thankfully, we will never get there. The idea that anyone can look on the obliteration of what was the central and most significant part of Catholic life for centuries and centuries in favor of something which (valid though it is) was concocted by a clique of radicals 50 years ago is hard to fathom. I cannot believe God will allow that to happen.
    Thanked by 4tomjaw sdtalley3 KARU27 Gustavo Zayas
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,377
    It is not either/or but both/and, engagement of the heart and mind. And Paul VI's documents do say what you cite - but if he meant the readings and orations it is hogwash. "Intellectuals" like me and Paul VI and no doubt most here have grave difficulty in fully grasping that half the adult population has an IQ below 100. I think he meant the structure and connection between actions, I sometimes wonder how many of an average NO congregation do not notice things like the colour of vestments.
    At the same time we can note that Jesus added "mind" to Deuteronomy's list of faculties with which we must love God. We know that despite the liturgy of their time being in the common tongue, Ambrose and Augustine, to name but two, explained something of the readings to their congregations.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    Supposedly the sermons are meant to elaborate and explain the scriptures. How long since anyone has heard that on Sunday? You are likely to hear the latest ramble because father was too lazy to create a sermon.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    I cannot believe God will allow that to happen.


    He allowed the Council, a rewrite of the liturgy and a host of other things. If you had asked most Catholics 10 years before the Council if the things that actually happened would happen, they might have laughed at you.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,377
    "most Catholics"? One bishop at VII said he feared that Latin would fall out of use - some Council Fathers burst out laughing at such a ridiculous notion, others were probably laughing at his naivete.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW tomjaw
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    I know that music went to hell in a wheelbarrow and was not expected. A fellow musician even older than I has told me the first NPM meeting almost broke into a fist fight between traditional musicians and the newbies who wanted everything changed. For the most part, the newbies won that one in practice.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw KARU27
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 546
    I'm truly not trying to be antagonistic, it just seems impossibly incoherent for something which was acceptable and good and absolutely central for so long to suddenly become unusable on pain of sin. Maybe I'm naive.
    Thanked by 3CCooze tomjaw KARU27
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    No game-playing or parliamentary maneuvers would be able to thwart it.


    Communion in the Hand
    Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion
    Generous Application of the permission to allow the Traditional Form
    Girl altar boys
    Letter to (then) Cardinal McCarrick
    Latin taught in seminaries after the Council
    (shall we make a complete list?)

    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,735
    Serviam,

    Wasn't the point of "turning the priest around", so that he faced the people instead of the tabernacle and the crucifix, that the priest would say by this very gesture, "LOOK AT ME!"?

    The missal of Paul VI still presumes the priest is facing the altar, not the people, hence the rubric to turn around at the “ecce Agnus Dei”

    Chris, I remember being told at the time of the Council that the sacrificial aspect of the mass was over emphasized to the point the table aspect of the altar had been lost. The mass is a meal for Christians.

    How delightfully Protestant. Luther and Cranmer both took to this like flies to…

    Jokes aside, this is a very Protestant understanding of the fundamental nature of Mass.

    Our liturgy stems from ancient Jewish rites which were wholly sacrificial. Granted( there is now a meal component, but it is sacrifice first and foremost. I really fail to see how having the priest stand with his back to the tabernacle is a good thing to even the slightest degree.
    Thanked by 3dad29 tomjaw Gustavo Zayas
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    Having the tabernacle on or above the altar is an abuse that originated after Trent. The church opposed it for years and finally threw in the towel when it couldn't change it. Before Trent churches had sacrament houses that were placed somewhere besides the altar. It's like the sign of the cross from left to right, again opposed by the pope. Or in our own day, holding hands during the Our Father. When nearly everyone is doing it, abuse or not, it becomes not worth the fight to reform it.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,735
    When nearly everyone is doing it, abuse or not, it becomes not worth the fight to reform it.

    #Arianism #contraception #abortion

    With all due respect, truth, is truth, is truth, and right is right, and never wrong. Any abuse, no matter how widespread is worth the fight, as anything other than what God desires detracts from the honor and reverence we all owe Him.
    Thanked by 3dad29 tomjaw Gustavo Zayas
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    We often make assumptions as to what God desires on things that may not have critical importance to Him. Does He care about colors of vestments? Maybe not. Does He care about placement of altar items? Probably nowhere near His greatest concern. Many things that folks get bent out of shape over really don't have long-term significance. God's mind is unknowable and beyond our understanding. We might have fewer liturgical wars if we kept that in mind.
    Thanked by 1Marc Cerisier
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 546
    But Charles, certainly God would be displeased at willful disobedience of liturgical rules which His own Church has created, no?
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    If you buy the argument that every liturgical rule is equal in importance. They likely are not. I think it better to work on changing the rules that are dated and no longer significant rather than wholesale disobeying them.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,218
    A fellow musician even older than I


    C'mon, maaaaan!! Really???
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    Really! I didn't attend the first NPM convention and have tried to avoid the rest of them, too. I have declined several invitations that had all expenses paid.


    C'mon, maaaaan!! Really???


    If that's a presidential imitation, please stay downwind.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,735
    If you buy the argument that every liturgical rule is equal in importance. They likely are not. I think it better to work on changing the rules that are dated and no longer significant rather than wholesale disobeying them.

    Here we start to veer dangerously close to the idea that was formally condemned that the church needs to "modernize" to remain relevant. Ancient rites remain as relevant as ever, even when centuries old. In fact, the weight of the rituals becomes even heavier with the passage of centuries.

    It is true, that not every rubric is of equal importance, but I do challenge you to have a conversation with someone while they deliberately turn their back to you—especially if they are asking you for something reallllllly important. I suspect you'll find it irksome, to say the least. In fact, we know that 'turning your back on someone' is used by many as a deliberate means of causing offense in general body-language terms. Thus, this posture at Mass strikes me as not of little consequence. Couple in the fact that during the consecration, the priest isn't talking to the people, but to God the Father, in Christ's name, and this posture is also confusing and sends a mixed message. But alas, we've lapsed back to the sacrificial tenor of the Mass, which is so oft maligned by modernists (be they overt or innocent & poorly informed).
    Thanked by 3tomjaw sdtalley3 Gustavo Zayas
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,063
    So certain things that were originally abuses—like the silent Canon and the tabernacle above the altar—becoming accepted in the pre-conciliar liturgy is fine, but that same logic doesn't apply to others associated with the post-conciliar liturgy? That seems like cherrypicking to me.
    Thanked by 3CharlesW CHGiffen Marc Cerisier
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Serviam,

    I think you will find that the latest rubric presumes versus populum celebration, but I grant your point.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    we know that 'turning your back on someone' is used by many as a deliberate means of causing offense in general body-language terms. Thus, this posture at Mass strikes me as not of little consequence.


    I would note I am not fond of priests and altars facing people during mass. However, they do it. I have yet to understand the difficulty the west has in understanding the meaning of facing east. Although priests do turn their backs on the tabernacle at certain points even in the TLM. in general, if priests and altars are going to face the people, the tabernacles should be moved.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,735
    127. "The Priest, turned towards the people, extending and then joining his hands, adds" the peace of the Lord be with you always."
    This implies he was previously turned away from the people, so it specifies he is to face the people here.

    132. "The Priest genuflects, takes the host, and, holding it slightly raised above the paten or above the chalice, while faicng the people, says aloud: Behold the Lamb of God..."
    again, implies he may have previously been facing away from the people

    133. "the Priest, facing the altar, says quietly: may the Body of Christ keep me safe for eternal life."
    This is perhaps the most damning; it clearly implies that facing the altar is different from facing the people, which is specified in the preceding rubrics. This is especially true when contextualized by the centuries of mass versus deum as the norm.

    (after communion)
    139. "Then, standing at the altar or at the chair, and facing the people, with hands joined, the Priest says: let us pray"
    Again, this implies that he might otherwise be at the altar facing away from the people, so now he goes to stand there but faces the people instead, à la "ecce agnus dei" of old.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,152
    A fellow musician even older than I

    C'mon, maaaaan!! Really???

    Good grief! How many of us are octageneriatrics? ... (raises hand)
    Thanked by 2CharlesW dad29
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    I will be 74 this month so not quite there yet. Wishing for many years for you in health and happiness.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    This is especially true when contextualized by the centuries of mass versus deum as the norm.


    That's the issue. The norms have changed, like it or not.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Three hundred years before 1570 would only be 1270. The Mass, including the Proper repertory was set and stable AT LEAST by 900 when the first notated Graduals and Antiphonals were notated. The Gelasian Sacramentary, which contains the Roman Mass in fundamentally its received (i.e. "Tridentine") form was compiled under Pope Honorius, who reigned from 625-
    638, so, yeah, 7th century, not 5th. I think that you are laboring under Uniate propaganda.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,735
    That's the issue. The norms have changed, like it or not.
    Charles, as would seem evident by what I've shown above, the norms, haven't changed, strictly speaking. Or perhaps I should say, the rubrics have not changed, even if people are choosing to ignore them. I will grant, however, that they are indeed poorly worded in the new missal. Such seems to be a theme with said missal, unfortunately. It is well-known that versus populum, tearing out reredos, communion in the hand, felt banners, and on and on and on, were all fads and abuses that were never properly curtailed by ecclesiastical authorities. This does not make them legitimate, however. It merely makes them long-standing abuses which still need correction.

    There is great danger in believing that simply because something has been done for a while, it is magically legitimized. (Life-long adultery, anyone?) There is more to it than that. It is true, that "tradition has the force of law", but when the church moves and thinks in centuries and millennia, I think it reasonable to suggest that we haven't reached that qualification for the new mass yet.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    The Gelasian Sacramentary, which contains the Roman Mass in fundamentally its received (i.e. "Tridentine") form was compiled under Pope Honorius, who reigned from 625-
    638, so, yeah, 7th century, not 5th. I think that you are laboring under Uniate propaganda.


    I don't think so. Rubrics changed, were changed by Pius V, parts of the west probably didn't follow rubrics to begin with or made up their own, all issues Trent hoped to address. And yes, we all said the Gloria in 600 A.D. None of that is any guarantee it was done precisely as it is done today. There was a great period of chaos when what was happening in Rome had little to do with what was done elsewhere. Again, Trent hoped to fix that. So what happened even under Pope Honorius may not have been the same as what was done in the 4th century in Rome. It is primarily a people problem. People, even high churchmen, have a disturbing tendency to do as they please. That is how things get changed for good or ill. At least that much is constant since it is still happening today. No surprises there.

    I would place more reliance on Orthodox history than on Uniate. The eastern Catholic churches - not all of them - are too Latinized. That is why we are losing people to Orthodoxy.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    Charles, as would seem evident by what I've shown above, the norms, haven't changed, strictly speaking.


    One of the big issues in trying to communicate with TLM folks is that they hold up pre-Vatican II practices as being the norm all should subscribe to. Folks, the TLM is a distinct minority now and most of the church has moved in another direction. Then you get the, "but we're right and all of you are wrong" from the TLM crowd. No one is buying that. The church, using its lawful authority has made changes. I don't even like some of those changes but they were made and are valid. I don't see most of the church ever wanting to go back. To believe it does is a pipedream.
    Thanked by 1Marc Cerisier
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,735
    Charles,
    a.) I do not attend the TLM (although I like to whenever I'm given the opportunity). I minister full-time in a N.O. Parish.

    b.) I'm certainly not calling into question lawful authority (although I do question whether or not it is lawful, per se, to suppress the ancient rite). I don't question that there is indeed a lawful authority.

    c.) no one is disputing that the novus ordo missæ currently rules the roost. What I'm debating is the fact that it is not even said according to its own rubrics, and that the rubrics of the new mass, are supposedly, an outgrowth of the old.

    If this is true, then just because most N.O. masses are doing it "wrong" (again, even according to the rubrics as promulgated by Paul VI) doesn't make it right. If we are to have a "hermenutic of continuity" both theologically and liturgically, it stands to reason that the postures of the new rite are to be informed by the old. (Much ink has been spilled speaking of "mutual enrichment".) So unless the rubrics tell you to face the people for all of Mass (no one has been able to show me this so far) then the not-unreasonable assumption is that the ancient posture is retained, unless otherwise noted (as I did so above).

    This is what I'm calling into question. The rubrics imply that one is supposed to face the people at various points, as a foil to whatever posture was held preceding that action (again, presumably, facing the altar).

    You can't just throw up your hands and say, "it's the novus ordo. This is how it's done!". Is that how it's supposed to be done? That is the question. The conclusion I've come to is, "no". So if we are going to do novus ordo, let's do it right.
    Thanked by 4tomjaw a_f_hawkins rich_enough Gustavo Zayas
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    The conclusion I've come to is, "no". So if we are going to do novus ordo, let's do it right.


    I cant disagree with that since it isn't done right in too many places. I was lucky enough to work for 20 years with a curmudgeon priest who would tolerate no deviation whatsoever from the rubrics. At the time, I may not have always realized just how well off I was.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    So, I guess since obviously the Liturgy of St. John Chrystostom was used at the Last Supper we should all should all sing "Many Years" for an emperor who hasn't existed in centuries---God forbid we change a rubric.

    Changing a couple rubrics doesn't change a Rite. Chrystostom wouldn't cease to be if they stopped praying for a non-existent emperor of Byzantium.

    I'm going to stop now, because it's like arguing liturgy with a Ukrainian priest that I know: No good will come to the Catholic Church until the Roman Pontiff submits to the Partriach of Moscow, and accepts the True Orthodox Faith.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    What would be good would be if the popes behaved as did popes during the first thousand years of Christianity without all the Renaissance imperialism. Patriarch of Moscow? Why him? Catholics were never part of the Russian church in any formal sense. Cyril and Methodius came from Constantinople. Chrysostom is not the oldest eastern liturgy. The St. James and St Basil are a good bit older and it is difficult to establish just how old the Ethiopian liturgy is.

    For the record, I get a lot of flack for remaining in union with Rome. A number of my friends have given up on it and think I am wasting my time and effort being aligned with the current Pope. I can see their point but plan to stay where I am.

    I will relate what an Orthodox bishop stated. There have been minor liturgical changes in Orthodoxy, but nothing like the wholesale upending and rewrite that occurred in the west. He has a point.
    Thanked by 2Salieri ServiamScores
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    I will relate what an Orthodox bishop stated. There have been minor liturgical changes in Orthodoxy, but nothing like the wholesale upending and rewrite that occurred in the west. He has a point.

    With this I agree. But the "wholesale upending and rewrite" didn't happen in 1570, it happened in 1969. I think that some after Vatican II tried to claim that the Tridentine Reform was a major revision in order to justify the Montino-Bugninian liturgy. Modern scholarship (including traddies like Alcuin Reid, and non-traddies like Christoph Tietze) disproves the idea that Trent was a major revision.

    Some things may have seemed like a major revision when the Roman Missal of 1570 was imposed on places that had been using a diocesan Missal that couldn't show an existence over 300 years; but that would have been the case if Chrystosom or Basil or James were imposed in those places, too.

    Patriarch of Moscow? Why him?

    Because I find the Russians the most annoying. I mean, just look at Putin standing in the Imperial Box at St. Basil's Cathedral. Actually, because it was the first Eastern patriarchate that came to mind.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw ServiamScores
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    I think Trent did upend some liturgies because the old Roman liturgy you referenced wasn't practiced in many places outside of Rome. Was Sarum gone by then? I don't remember exactly.

    Russians: Annoying? They can be. I think the marriage of, I think, the granddaughter of the last Byzantine emperor to a Russian Tsar gave them some legitimacy. They considered themselves to be the "New Rome" after the first Rome and Constantinople (2nd Rome) had fallen. Now they consider themselves the guardians of Orthodoxy, something the Greeks will eagerly dispute.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    But Sarum would have stayed: It was KO'd by Fat Henry & Co., not Trent. Just as the Parisian Use (which isn't a Neo-Gallican use like Amiens) continued in use until the 19th century Romanization, spurred on by Gueranger's Ultramontanism.
    Thanked by 4a_f_hawkins CharlesW ServiamScores tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,377
    GIRM does say, when discussing church design that altars intended for saying Mass should be freestanding (my emphasis)
    GIRM 299: The altar should be built separate from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable whenever possible. ...
    Though the accuracy of the translation has been questioned.
    Thanked by 2ServiamScores tomjaw
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,735
    We can surely thank the Protestant periti for that gem.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Nathan_the_Organist
    Posts: 434
    The quote Hawkins brings up showcases a terribly vague use of English grammar. The commas setting off the phrase "in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that mass can be celebrated at it facing the people" can be interpreted to show that it is interrupting the sentence "The altar should be built separate from the wall which is desirable whenever possible." In this case "desirable" is referencing the position of the altar relative to the wall.

    It would also be possible to interpret the commas as having "which is desirable...". referencing "facing the people." We would need to reference the Latin to get the full picture.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,162
    The Latin is just as ambiguous. The textual history of this little paragraph is rather difficult, unfortunately. The “official interpretation" from the CDF is that is the building of the altar that's desirable.
    Thanked by 3a_f_hawkins ServiamScores Nathan_the_Organist
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    One of the complaints about the altars in the early sixties was that the altars had become little more than a shelf. One could not go around the altar and incense it, either. I suspected it was because tabernacles had been attached to the altars and no one's arms could reach across a large altar to the tabernacle.
    Thanked by 1a_f_hawkins
  • Elmar
    Posts: 501
    We can surely thank the Protestant periti for that gem.
    No need for protestants, German catholics will do; our main difference from our protestant neighbors is the territory of birth.

    Btw in our local protestant Sankt(!)-Peter-und-Paul-Kirche they preserved the medieval high altar and even in the last round of church restauration a few years ago they decided to put it back in its original place.
    Also they have a lot of 'ad orientem' in their almost-a-catholic-NO-mass services.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW ServiamScores
Add a Comment