Canadian Texts Available Online

Ali Symons reports here that the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada has made its The Book of Alternative Services and other resources available for download. The PDF files for these materials are linked through Symons’ report, but have not yet appeared on the ACC’s Worship Resources webpage.

Symons’ report also noted that the meeting of the ACC’s General Synod next month will include consideration of new principles for liturgical revision, as well as a motion “asking the Faith, Worship, and Ministry (FWM) Committee to start work on the next generation of liturgical texts.”


    1. Sorry, but reading through the proposed 1998 Sacramentary, I’m not a fan, and I can see the need for Card. Medina’s letter of 2002. Where did the ICEL get the impression that rewriting the Introductory Rites was under its purview? Since when, in the Roman Rite, are the Penitential Act, the Kyrie, and the Gloria mutually exclusive?

      1. Not being a Roman Catholic, I wouldn’t know about the intricacies of the Roman rite. But is Cardinal Medina the best, most well-respected and credible authority on the Roman liturgy? Didn’t he issue Liturgiam Authenticam, which historian Peter Jeffrey OSB called “the most ignorant statement on liturgy ever produced by a modern Vatican congregation”?

      2. I’ve read the 1998 text and think the English prose is of a much higher standard than the impending 2010 text, which suffers greatly from semantic and syntactic ambiguities and errors. The 1998 prayers are more meaningful than the 1973 version, and more elegant and understandable than the 2010 version. We cannot hold our heads high and present the 2010 translation to the Catholic English-speaking world as the pinnacle of Catholic liturgical translation prowess.

        Re. the 1998 translation, it’s a great sadness that 13 years of ICEL’s work was flushed away in so disedifying and disrespectful a manner by the CDW.
        For the story see John Wilkins –

      3. Yes, Dr. Jeffrey (who’s OblSB, not OSB) made that remark (and a few others beside. He’s pretty unforgiving of LA, and has his ducks in a row to illustrate why.)

      4. Matthew, have you considered the merits of the points he makes in the letter I linked, or are you disregarding it simply because Card. Medina is not “the best, most well-respected and credible authority”? (Who would that be, by the way, and when can we get him or her to weigh in on the 1998 and 2010 English Roman Missals?)

        I’ll compare the propers at some other time, but the ordinary of the Mass in the 1998 version suffers from incredible “creativity” on the part of ICEL. It has numerous points of departure from the Latin text of the Missal – I don’t mean in terms of translation, I mean in terms of drawing up new texts. It appears to be a distinct creature from the Latin Roman Missal it was meant to translate; it is more of an English version of the Roman Rite, rather than an English translation of the Roman Rite.

        Before we end up having a different version of the Roman Rite for every country (or diocese!) – and I say this with no disrespect meant to the various religious orders who have their own venerable variants of the Roman Rite – I’d like to experience the Roman Rite in an English translation without all these alterations.

      5. Hi Jeffrey,
        I’m no fan of the proposed revised rites in 1998. But in ICEL’s defense, they PROPOSED it to bishops’ conferences, and it was BISHOPS who approved it and sent it to Rome. This is the purview of bishops, I think. Personally I was glad Rome threw this in the wastebasket, based on my preferences for a standard entrance rite – but I grant that ecclesiologically it was entirely appropriate for the conferences to approve these kinds of liturgical adaptations.

      6. Hello again Jeffrey –
        We may or may not agree with it, but I think V2 did seem to countenance different versions of the Roman rite in different countries, “provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved.” (SC 38) “The Church does not wish to impose a rigid uniformity,” we read in SC 37. Comme le prevoit was in force in 1998, which not only allowed but called for creative and original texts. Even Liturgiam Authenticam allows for original texts, but Cardinal Medina simply said “we’re not going to consider any right now,” which was arbitrary on his part. It concerns me that “creativity” is used as a negative term by you.

      7. Let us not forget the often overlooked Varietates Legitimae, which provides the proper guidelines for inculturation and the Roman Rite. It is the official guidelines for the implementation for SC 37 and 38.

        There is also an interesting little book on the subject called The Forgotten Instruction: The Roman Liturgy, Inculturation, and Legitimate Adaptations by Kenneth J. Martin. It goes into the provisions made in all the liturgical rites for the inculturation and legitimate adaptation.

        As a brief aside, it is interesting how both 1973 Sacramentary and the 1998 Sacramentary followed the same translation instruction and arrived at very different results. We know the 2010 Missal follows LA, but keep in mind this provides only broad principles. There is also a Ratio Translationis for the English language developed by the CDWDS that ICEL had to follow.

      8. Fr. Anthony,

        I recall hoping at the time that the 1998 translation would be approved, but that the monkeying around with the structure of the entrance rite would be dumped. I got half of what I wished for, which is better than usual.

  1. Thanks for the news and links! It’ll be interesting to see if the Canadian materials strike out on the same paths that the Episcopal Church is taking in Enriching Our Worship

  2. Occasionally I’ve attended Anglican Eucharists celebrated according to the Canadian BAS. When reading the BAS rubrics I was surprised to find that the final blessing is optional. At all the BAS Eucharists I’ve attended the priest offered his/her blessing both at the absolution and at the conclusion.

    The BAS rubrical preface contends that the final blessing is optional since it is a vestige of previous times of infrequent communion. The final blessing is now “superfluous” because communion itself contains a blessing and almost everyone now receives. (BAS p181) No suggested final blessing is included. (BAS p260) From what I remember the priests simply gave the Prayer Book final blessing, not the Roman benedicat vos …

    I don’t think the BAS reasoning could be theologically justified from a Roman perspective. I’m rather puzzled that the BAS promulgators would drop the final blessing given that the final blessing is a non-negotiable part of the reformed Roman Mass. The “new Mass” and the modern Anglican liturgies are quite similar. So similar, in fact, that it’s easy to forget that the theological underpinnings can be quite different.

    1. The blessing is optional in Rite II of the 1979 BCP of the American Episcopal Church, basically for the same logic. It also makes a certain amount of sense euchologically: the semi-fixed post-Communion prayers in the BCP ask that the Holy Spirit “send us out” –> all that’s left, then, is the dismissal. (That’s the logic, anyway. And most of us give a blessing at the end of the Rite II liturgy. Old habits, or good sense — take your pick.)

      If by “blessing” at the absolution you mean the sign of the cross, it serves two functions: one, it’s indicative in the historical sense — the action has no power in this case, but it’s the age-old ecclesiastical way of pointing at whatever we’re talking about (e.g., this + people we’re absolving, this + bread and wine that we’re offering to you for consecration, this + “whatever” that we’re asking you to bless). More importantly, it drives home the point that we understand this moment to have sacramental efficacy: it is real absolution in a church where private auricular confession is advised but not enjoined: “all may, none must, some should.” (And well-trained Anglican/Episcopal priests are taught to formulate their intention to absolve at that moment.)

      There’s a joke about the Canadian BAS: what isn’t from the BCP is from the Revised Roman Missal. That “joke” holds more true when one begins to look at revised Anglican Prayer Books from the Southern Hemisphere — West Indies, for example, or South Africa. There was a lot of free exchange in those days: our scholarship, Rome’s euchology, etc.

  3. (1) I’d like to thank Matthew Webster for posting a link to the download of a better quality set of files of the ICEL 1998 Sacramentary than the PDF files that we have all been working with for a long time.

    (2) Jeffrey, Medina had an axe to grind. He is not the most reliable anything when it comes down to what we are talking about. He couldn’t even speak English, by the way.

    (3) Jeffrey again. Did you ever see the various ICEL developmental stages, issued as progress reports, on the whys and wherefores of the new Missal (i.e. what ended up as the 1998) translation)? If so, you’d understand why the introductory rites contained different alternatives. If that still doesn’t make any sense to you, go away and read GIRM 20 and 46 and then come back and speak to us again.

    (4) Jeffrey yet again: yes, we are going to end up with a slightly different version of the Roman Rite for each country, it seems. What has been approved so far is a base generic text, which we have not seen (and may never see). What each Bishop’s Conference will be sent is a recognitio along with the individual text for each country, which may well be different for each territory (i.e. incorporating some or all of the modifications that each Conference requested).

    It’s really good when we can discuss things based on factual data, not on people’s opinions.

    1. 2. Again, could you address the actual issues Medina raised in his letter? (Do we know that Medina was the ONLY person behind that letter? Perhaps there was some native English speakers involved too? Regardless, he brings up issues about deficiencies of repeated failures, over several attempts, to translate certain phrases.)

      3. No, I’ve never seen the development stages of the 1998 translation. I’ve only been interested in the liturgy for three years, and I have very little idea where to get access to many of these sources. I don’t have subscriptions to the numerous journals, nor am I intimately familiar with any of the foreign-language periodicals or articles often referenced here and elsewhere. I’m a “newbie”.

      I have read GIRM 20 & 46. What particular direction do you wish me/us to go from here? GIRM 46 says that “In certain celebrations that are combined with Mass according to the norms of the liturgical books, the Introductory Rites are omitted or performed in a particular way.” It does not say that stand-alone Masses can pick and choose which of the Penitential Act, Kyrie, and Gloria to use. (The 1998 Sacramentary includes an “other” under the Introductory Rites, referring to GIRM 46, I imagine.) How does the exclusion of two of those “effectively foster active and full participation and more properly respond to the spiritual needs of the faithful” (GIRM 20)?

      4. Slight differences I can understand, wholesale rewriting (e.g. of the Introductory Rites) I cannot.

      1. I’m hoping Paul can shed particular light on the issue of the Introductory Rites as they were shaped with respect to the 1998 ICEL Sacramentary. I can only comment generically on the “common wisdom” that circulates among academic and pastoral liturgists regarding these rites: (1) that they are overloaded when all the customary elements are retained — not only in the chronometric sense, i.e., that they take too much time, but pastorally in that they move from praise to confession and lament to praise again, without integral connections in that movement. . . which brings us to (2) that certain elements customarily constitutive of the Introductory Rites are most appropriate in one or another liturgical season; thus the “Sprinkling Rite” during Eastertide, the Gloria at Christmas, the Penitential Litany during Lent, etc.

        I’m not arguing pro-or-con here, just passing along the information. From my own Anglican Perspective, I admit that I appreciate the flexibility our introductory rites offer (in Rite II): invocation, optional Collect for Purity, and/or Kyrie or Trisagion or Gloria (or other Canticle of Praise), but generally not all of the above at any given time. Thus Christmas and Easter can be invocation and Gloria (Christmas) or Pascha Nostrum (Easter); Lent is invocation + Collect for Purity + Kyrie, Ordinary Time is invocation + Collect for Purity + Gloria, etc.

      2. Another issue I have is the constant editorializing (although perhaps that’s not the right word) in the ICEL texts for the Introductory Rites. Every possible action of the priest is preceded by some comment by the priest – necessary in that case, I suppose, so that people know what option is coming next? It’s as if we can’t be expected to know what we’re doing at Mass unless we’re told.

      3. Jeffrey, you’ve asked here twice for a response to Cardinal Medina’s letter. No one is going to respond, not because the charges laid in the letter are irrefutable, but because one would need 20 pages and one has 1000 characters.

        There is one thing however that I will point out. Even the most uninstructed reader should be able to see that the means used are disproportionate to addressing the stated issues. This is a very small list of issues for a LOT of text. Yet on the basis of two pages of critique, ICEL is dissolved and reconstituted? After 13 years of work, the entire translation — completed and approved by formal canonical vote — is without exception thrown in the wastebasket, and a new one begun from scratch? No.

      4. Rita, someone with the ability to author an article on this blog could address the critique/criticisms in Card. Medina’s letter. I’m not requesting a point-by-point rebuttal, just some sort of response.

        “This is a very small list of issues for a LOT of text.”

        The list is not exhaustive, and some examples mention that they are found throughout the text.

        As for the dissolution and reconstitution of ICEL, I am not in a position to weigh in.

    2. Well, I think Cody has hit the spot.

      There are two types of liturgists: the rigid ones who say “How dare you tinker with the rite?” and the pastoral ones who look at things with a broader perspective.

      One example: the RCIA says that the Rite of Election should take place on the 1st Sunday of Lent, in the context of Mass. I believe that there is a small number of dioceses who do both of these, but they are now the exception. Since the rite was published, people have realized that having it on Sunday can make it difficult for people to get to it. A significant proportion of dioceses, my own included, have it on the Saturday, the day before. (Some larger dioceses have more than one celebration, on successive Saturdays.) We have also realized that having it during Mass means that we need to dismiss the catechumens before the Liturgy of the Eucharist — those catechumens who are precisely the main focus of the rite of enrolement of names — and that it clearly makes no sense to continue the celebration without them. I don’t know of a single diocese that still holds the Rite of Election in the context of a Mass.

      How dare we touch the rite? Well, because it makes sense to do so!

      The same kind of thing is true mutatis mutandis for the introductory rites at Mass. (ctd)

      1. There are two types of liturgists:. . .

        I’ve always said there are two kinds of people: those who say there are two kinds of people and those who know better.

    3. (ctd) GIRM 20 says (my italics): “Because the celebration of the Eucharist, like the entire Liturgy, is carried out through perceptible signs that nourish, strengthen, and express faith,
      the utmost care must be taken to choose and to arrange those forms and
      elements set forth by the Church that, in view of the circumstances of the people
      and the place, will more effectively foster active and full participation and more
      properly respond to the spiritual needs
      of the faithful.”

      This means that you can’t simply go through the motions of the rite. This is in line with SC 11: “Pastors of souls must realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration; it is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects.”

      Now let’s apply this to GIRM 46: “[The] purpose [of the introductory rites] is to ensure that the faithful, who come together as one, establish communion and dispose themselves to listen properly to God’s word and to celebrate the Eucharist worthily.” In other words, two main purposes:
      (a) to bond the bond faithful more closely together as a celebrating community (to use language closer to the previous translation)
      (b) to prepare them to hear the Word and respond to it in Eucharist (ditto).


      1. “Pastors of souls must realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration; it is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects.”

        “More … also.” I see a both-and situation here, where the priest is expected to celebrate the liturgy properly – according to the mind of the Church – but also to ensure that the faithful know what it is they’re doing. And that knowledge comes primarily through catechesis, as SC 14 & 19 go on to say.

    4. (ctd) Now, the big question is “What happens if the introductory rites don’t actually achieve those twin purposes?” Sometimes they may, sometimes they may not. (It’s the same kind of question as with the four purposes of the Opening Song of the Mass.)

      If they don’t, it becomes necessary to “tweak” the rite so that it has a chance to work.

      This, I believe, is what ICEL was attempting to do in its proposals for the introductory rites. The readings of each Mass are different. Sometimes they are joyful, sometimes just upbeat, sometimes penitential in mood, sometimes quite serious, sometimes somewhere else on the spectrum. In order to prepare the faithful to listen to the Word, it may be necessary to adjust the introductory rites in the light of the individual set of readings concerned.

      This, in fact, is how liturgy evolves (cf. my remarks about the Rite of Election above): by tweaking when it is clear that this is necessary. Not to do so is to commit the sin of ritualism: going through the rite as it stands merely because that’s how it is in the book (and cf. my remarks on GIRM 20 and SC 11 above). That’s a sin that a lot of liturgists commit, actually, along with the sins of rubricism and minimalism, but let’s not get into those here. Pastoral liturgists, however, generally do not fall into that trap, but their reward is to be berated by those who do not understand what are the values in play.

      That’s probably enough to be going on with.

      1. “…berated by those who do not understand what are the values in play.”

        Can’t we move beyond the “if you had a better understanding, you would agree with me” line of argumentation? The idea that the GIRM includes rationale allowing not only itself to be disobeyed but also SC 22.3 is bizarre. Moreover, is it really the expressed intent of the GIRM to give an exhaustive and authoritative account of each goal of every part of the mass? It seems to me that the force of the document is a legal one, not a doctrinal one. Am I commiting a sin if I don’t believe that the purpose of the entrance chant is such and such? Of course not. However, I am committing a sin if I leave out the entrance chant or antiphon entirely.

      2. I think what we’re arguing about is two different ways of interpreting the Church’s documents.

        The idea that the GIRM includes rationale allowing not only itself to be disobeyed but also SC 22.3 is bizarre.

        It’s far from bizarre. The very next paragraph goes on to say that the Instruction is giving general guidelines (i.e. not detailed instructions, every jot and tittle of which must be followed). In its previous incarnation, it was often pointed that the Latin for GIRM’s description of Mass was forma typica, which those who wanted to interpret things literally translated as “The Typical Form”, while those who were viewing it more broadly translated as “A typical form”.

        It seems to me that the force of the document is a legal one, not a doctrinal one.

        Well, you have to know something about the history of rubrics, praenotanda, etc. In their original state, they were of the order of ‘helpful hints’ to celebration. Over the course of time, they became much more prescriptive and strict. Some of us are still living in that era, and don’t realize that in our own time, they have changed again to include rationales for praxis. In other words, they have begun to tell us Why as well as What and How. Therefore,

        Am I committing a sin if I don’t believe that the purpose of the entrance chant is such and such?

        No, but you’re adopting a pick-and-choose attitude to what is said. And what is said is quite clear: (ctd)

      3. (ctd) “the utmost care must be taken to choose and to arrange those forms and elements set forth [Latin proposita] by the Church”

        I say again, this means you don’t have any option. You must choose and arrange with the utmost care… If you don’t, you are actually not taking your responsibilities seriously. You are on liturgical auto-pilot.

        We have a duty to make our celebrations live, and this necessarily means rooting them in the culture in which they are celebrated, not leaving them to float around in an abstract cloud somewhere.

        Making our celebrations live is what all of us on this blog are about. Some of us prefer to do this by adopting a literalist approach to the Church’s guidelines on celebration. Others see a broader perspective, hence my remark about the values in play, which increasingly appear (as I have demonstrated) in the documents themselves.

        But for the literalists to slag off the others for not literally obeying the rules is just as uncalled for as the others slagging off the literalists for being unable to comprehend the rationales presented and unable to distinguish the difference between rubrics and praenotanda of the past and those of the present.

      4. I still see your position as untenable. The adaptation process about which you are speaking is laid down in SC 37-40 and Varietates Legitimae 34-37. Priests cannot change anything; they may only make choices from options given. There is a mechanism to address the concerns you have, and that is at the level of bishops’ conferences in consultation with the Holy See. Perhaps you could give an example of what you would consider an illicit change that a priest is forbidden to make, because from what you write, just about any adaptation is potentially licit and a priest’s discretion is potentially limitless. What do you mean by “change”? SC 22.3, Var. Leg. 37, and GIRM 24 must mean something, and liturgical adaptations not allowed for or envisioned in the text or rubrics can only be seen as changes, I would think.

      5. I actually haven’t been using the word “change”, Ioannes, you have. I have been quoting “choose and arrange”. I think there’s a difference.

      6. Tweak strikes me as very different from “choose and arrange.” Choose and arrange are not the only words you have been using. I would consider tweak a euphemism for change.

  4. Regarding the Introductory Rites, many places have already added their own rites. In between the sign of the Cross and the Penitential Act, there is the Rite of Warming up the Crowd. “Hey, good morning everyone. Who’s from out of town? Anyone’s birthday? Well, stand up miss! Beautiful day isn’t it? Why don’t we all take a few minutes to shake everyone’s hands and talk to them? I think we’ll just skip that Gloria thing because there isn’t enough time now.”

  5. More seriously, many parishes use a true Gathering Rite during the ‘quieter’ seasons of Advent and Lent. Typically, it consists of an extended Gathering Chant (e.g. Taizé, but there are many other possibilities) followed by the Opening Prayer (Collect) of the Mass. Obviously there is a bit more to it than that, but those who do this are following the provisions of MCW (1972) 44 which said that, of the introductory rites, the Entrance Song and the Opening Prayer are primary, all else is secondary.

    This practice, a development (one might say) of the rite, has been found not to be objectively sinful but in fact an aid to the prayer of the people.

  6. My PP and I were rather looking forward to the possibility of changing the introductory rites according to season or celebration – not that we would dream of so doing, of course. And there wouldn’t be enough evidence to hang us anyway as, if we has (which we didn’t), all service sheets were (would be) incinerated after the celebration. So we’re both (and I know I’m speaking for him too) a tad sad at the way things worked out. Take the Gloria, for example: Can anyone tell me why it’s where it is apart from a series of historical accidents?

  7. The real “preparatory” problem is that people have a great incentive to come late to Mass and to leave early from Mass in order to avoid the gaggle before and after Mass.
    If we can’t or won’t restore the practice of quiet before and after Mass to allow private preparation (e.g. rosary, divine office) and private post-prayer then it seems best to have a variety of optional public preparations (e.g. rosary, divine office, hymns, preludes, etc) and begin the Liturgy of the Word straight forward right on time so that people would know that they are supposed to gradually fill up the Church during the optional public preparation.
    We could have similar optional post-services that would gradually empty the parking lot (e.g. postludes: “Te Deum” like services for birthdays, Wedding Anniversaries; services for mission like environment, peace, etc.). The mega churches provide people with a variety of events for their weekend worship service, and we could do the same by creatively using the 15 minutes before and after Mass. It would also help us to get over the practice of piling everything under the sun into the Mass itself.

  8. Ioannes’s latest response and Jack’s remark about optional public preparations makes me think of the Zaire Entrance Rite, in which the gathering and preparation to listen to the Word typically takes about an hour, involving people arriving. singing, prayer, dancing, making the space sacred, etc. That’s a fairly substantial tweak of the rite, and one which has the blessing of Rome. Furthermore, it doesn’t change the basic shape of the rite, in the same way that ICEL’s proposals would not have changed the basic shape of the rite either.

    The Zairean practice seems to me to follow in the tradition witnessed to by Egeria, where people gathered ahead of time to pray and sing, while waiting for the clergy to arrive and the Liturgy of the Word to begin. Joseph Gelineau tells us that in the 4th-5th century Syrian Church there was a similar practice, organized by the monks as people were arriving. At that time, monks were both male and female. Gelineau tells us that these ascetics did not take on particular liturgical functions. They safeguarded the gift of living prayer in the midst of the people.

    So it could be that in such tweaking we are not indulging in novelty but in fact returning to earlier practices of the Church — a usus antiquior indeed!

    1. Of course, the difference here is that obviously Rome thought its blessing was necessary for this “tweak” to be permissible.

      And, if American culture is to be inculturated, it would be to arrive late, eat fast, and leave early. (As Edith Wharton put it almost a century ago in The Age of Innocence, “It was one of the great livery-stableman’s most masterly intuitions to have discovered that Americans want to get away from amusement even more quickly than they want to get to it.”) Though if Communion could be served to people in their cars, that would probably be preferred by more consumers, oops, people not in the pews. Perhaps the homily could be podcast to their automobiles. No need for a gathering song or song of sending, except maybe a jingle as auto wheels trip over the entrance and exits to the parking lot, America’s true home. We have to meet people where they are, after all.

  9. The Greek Orthodox practice, at least here in the USA, appears to be to have Matins, about a hour long service, before the Divine Liturgy on Sunday. When I attended one several years ago, only the cantors, priest and deacon and several people were there at the beginning of Matins. The church slowly filled up during Matins; the Archbishop even came in about half way through, every one bowed toward him as he made his way to his place in the sanctuary!

    I understand Jewish services are similarly long, and read some advice to visitors to help them not have my experience with the Greek Orthodox.

    Most liturgical traditions often place an hour of the office, e.g. Terce in our case, before the beginning of the Liturgy or blend a hour of the office with the liturgy, e.g. Vespers with the Liturgy at a vigil service on the eve of the feast, often done at our local Russian Orthodox Church. People there are very tolerant of people coming in late; they go right up front, kiss the icon which is in the middle of the church before the front row, and go light a candle near the iconostasis, all while the priest and choir are right there chanting away.

    All these traditions are very old, from the days when there were not pews in the churches, so you didn’t want to have people just standing around. And of course they did not have watches, and our culture of punctuality.

    1. Also, it’s been my experience in Russian churches that people continue to participate in the liturgy through private devotion even after the initial veneration of icons and candle-lighting. Some read a prayerbook, others continue to venerate icons, and some pray silently to themselves. Personal devotion during Mass used to be quite acceptable. Nowadays I feel a bit self-conscious when I take out my Rosary at EF low Mass and slip off into meditation during the “silent parts”.

      Maybe a litte “discontinuity in unity” is not an entirely bad thing. I don’t want to start a flame war on “active participation”. Still, sometimes it’s okay to ‘detach’ from following the liturgy. It’s possible to be a part of worship without participating in corporate action.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.