0 members (),
328
guests, and
113
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,524
Posts417,636
Members6,176
|
Most Online4,112 Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688
Moderator Member
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688 |
Here's a review from a different perspective: Journal: �Pastoral Music� April/May. 2007 National Association of Pastoral Musicians � [book review]
Books (page 43)
The Divine Liturgies
The Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh, The Divine Liturgies of our Holy Fathers John Chrysostom and Basil the Great: Responses and Hymns Set to Carpathian Plainchant. 467+ pages, hardcover. ISBN 0-9774069-3-8. Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church, 2006. Available from Byzantine Seminary Press. $15.00.
The Byzantine Catholic Church of the USA ("Pittsburgh Metropolia") has taken an epochal step toward the renewal and adaptation of its liturgical tradition in America. In January 2007, its Council of Hierarchs (the near-equivalent of a synod) published The Divine Liturgies. This pew book is accompanied by a seven-CD instructional recording by the renowned Schola Cantorum of St. Peter the Apostle, directed by its founder, J. Michael Thompson, who is also director of the Metropolitan Cantor Institute of Saints Cyril and Methodius Byzantine Catholic Seminary in Pittsburgh. Years in the making, this book is epochal because its translation of the Chrysostom and Basil formularies and propers corrects many of the mistakes (both semantic and stylistic) found in the Byzantine Catholic Church's first pew book (1978). Equally-if not more important � it "rationalizes" the musical setting. As pioneers in the use of English in Catholic liturgy, the Byzantine Catholics were limited by the scholarly resources available in the 1960s and '70s when they produced their first official texts. To the great credit of the Council of Hierarchs, they were willing to revisit their Church's work in spite of the fact that a generation of faithful has already memorized the (flawed) text. The hierarchs also realized that the previous setting of Carpathian plainchant ("prostopinije") sometimes displayed a collision of musical and textual accentuation. In other words, the cadences of the English translation frequently conflicted with the cadences of the plainchant. This is a common occurrence when those who know a chant in one language (e.g., Slavonic) are suddenly required to transpose that chant's melody and rhythm to a text for which that melody and rhythm were never intended. Musically, the equivalent is "broken English." To the extent possible, the new pew book corrects this flaw. There remain instances when this has not proved possible be-cause of the nature of the chant and the requirements of accuracy and consistency in translation. However, the pew book provides so many options for the ordinary of the Divine Liturgy that one need not use the more cumbersome settings. A final reason why the new book is epochal is that its production was thoroughly collaborative and official. In other words, this was the effort of a Church guided by its chief shepherds. Anyone familiar with Eastern Christianity realizes how significant this is. Thousands of resources for Eastern Christian worship exist in English, but only a handful express the consensus of a Church's leadership, thus facilitating liturgical unity. Of course, as might be expected, the jettisoning of the previous translation and pew book has spawned a "cyber revolution," but as anyone with experience in "liturgical transition" knows, twelve to eighteen months usually suffices for congregations to adapt to the textual and musical changes, and once they have done so they find it hard to believe that they ever used the previous version. The fact that the Council of Hierarchs stands unanimously behind this change guarantees that the transition will be crowned with success (cyber revolutions notwithstanding). Turning to the actual contents of the pew book, one finds that in addition to music for the congregation for the Chrysostom and Basil formularies, the book also includes several prayers of preparation for Holy Communion as well as the vesperal ordinary for Saturday vigil liturgies. This is followed by all of the propers generally needed for parish worship as well as the short memorial service (panachida) and general moleben ("rogation" service) frequently appended to Eucharistic liturgies. The pew book concludes with eight hymns for use before and after the liturgy or du ring Communion and a helpful glossary of liturgical terms. The absence of the presidential prayers from the pew book is presumably intended to compel the congregation to immerse itself in the liturgy rather than in the book. This is certainly a bold corrective to the Western tendency to make every single word of the service available in print. Of course, this will require that clergy truly "inhabit the words," that is, prayerfully articulate every phrase, so that no one needs to see what the priest or deacon is reading. The inclusion of almost every text needed for the celebration of vespers and Divine Liturgy on Saturday evening is certainly a welcome addition and will serve as an example for other Catholics of the Byzantine tradition (e.g., Ukrainian Catholics). Tragically, when the latter introduced Sunday vigil "Masses" (in an understandable attempt to curb the exodus to Roman Rite parishes), they did so in a pseudomorphic fashion, entirely omit-ting the Sunday "first vespers." The new? Byzantine Catholic pew book codifies the creative solution devised by the Pittsburgh Metropolia several decades ago (that is, the practice of joining Saturday evening vespers to the Liturgy of the Eucharist) and should help revive familiarity with vespers. As regards the propers, the reconciliation of text and music is a major achievement (though, again, not without its difficulties), and the simultaneous publication of the seven CDs will greatly facilitate mastery of these chants. Every troparion, kontakion, prokeimenon, irmos, and communion verse in the entire book is sung on the CDs. Rarely has a prospective cantor been aided so comprehensively in his or her desire to learn a chant tradition. In the remaining section of the book, the only surprise is that the editors have not included more "devotional hymns," that is, the chorales that constitute part of the unique Ruthenian-Byzantine patrimony. Not being a member of any of the committees that worked on the pew book, and not being privy to their guiding principles, this reviewer can only guess that the publishers wanted to revive the use of scriptural communion verses and encourage the use of matins chants before the Divine Liturgy. Of course, there is always the possibility that the Pittsburgh Metropolia will publish an entirely separate hymnal with English renderings of the aforementioned chorales. This would be a welcome initiative, though at the present time no more than thirty or forty such chorales exist in serviceable translations. Before concluding, permit me a few remarks from the perspective of those for whom the Carpathian chant tradition is a second (or third) "musical language" or one rarely heard at all. There is no doubt that certain aspects of this tradition are an "acquired taste." And it is certainly lamentable that today it is increasingly difficult to find a congregation that sings with the dynamis heard in days past and so central to the chant's genius. This reviewer will never forget the impressions from his teen years when he saw "icons rattle" as the Holy Spirit turned the lungs of 400 or more Carpatho-Rusyns into billows for God's mighty word. Thus, "acquiring" this "taste" is not as easy as it once was. Nonetheless, codifying this chant is an appropriate expression of hope for its revival, especially as the Holy Spirit is no less alive today than two generations ago. This pew book should certainly help the Spirit's servants fill their lungs again with sacred breath. Another remark pertains to the absence of harmonization, both in the pew book and the CDs. This seems to mitigate the potential of these chants, especially as some congregations do add a second or third voice to the melody. The CDs, in particular, can sound tedious after a while. But two observations are in order. First, the pew book and CDs are a foundational resource: They are intended to codify the most basic component of the Carpathian chant tradition for easy mastery. Second, nothing precludes�in fact one expects� subsequent publications and recordings that will showcase the harmonic potential of these chants. J. Michael Thompson has already produced other recordings of harmonized Carpathian chants on The Liturgical Press label, and this reviewer looks forward to a seven-CD set of recordings of similarly arranged chants based on the new pew book. To achieve this, may he and all of those involved in producing these epochal resources enjoy mnohaya, mnohaya lita (ad multos, multos annos). Peter Galadza
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 178
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 178 |
Fair enough on the book and its music. What about the missing Litanies, the inclusive language and one verse Antiphons? People haven't even realized that, since they're too confused with the book and music. Just wait until the rest of it hits the fan... my guess is that the Stewardship Campaign will have seen its last year in the year 2007.
Experience the Red Book, you'll never need anything else!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226 |
What about the missing Litanies, the inclusive language and one verse Antiphons? Yes. I would be interested to hear Fr Galadza's view on these issues.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 487
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 487 |
Father Deacon John,
Christ is Risen!
thanks for the article.
I know that you and I probably aren't in agreement on this subject but it is nice to read different perspectives.
This article has a lot in it, I'm pressed for time so these are only my first impressions.
It is interesting how my review was from the pew, live and in person and his 'review' is not, unless he attended an RDL somewhere that I missed in the article.
"The new? Byzantine Catholic pew book codifies the creative solution devised by the Pittsburgh Metropolia several decades ago (that is, the practice of joining Saturday evening vespers to the Liturgy of the Eucharist) and should help revive familiarity with vespers."
'creative solution', that's an interesting label.
It was developed several decades ago and should help revive familiarity with vespers? So let's see, after several decades 90%+ don't have vespers and the vast majority of our people don't know what vespers is. It's pretty safe to say that reviving familiarity with vespers isn't going to happen this way. In fact, in the unlikely event that this idea took off getting 'pure' Vespers practiced would be even more arduous than it is now.
Here's a crazy idea, offering Vespers on Saturday evenings! Wouldn't that be a better way of improving familiarity with Vespers?
Father Peter Galadza is with the UGCC in Canada. So it will be interesting to see if those who criticized Father Serge, who is also from the UGCC, for being outside our juridiction and commenting on our new liturgy will do the same with Father Peter. I welcome all educated views on this myself, especially from our UGCC brethern.
If he's been to St. Elias in Brampton, Ontario I wonder how he can put up with some of the watered down parishes across North America in the UGCC. St. Andrews in Parma, OH for example has recited liturgies, no incense, altar girls, 40 minutes in and out. Definitely a far cry from St. Elias.
I'll post more later.
Monomakh
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
Journal: �Pastoral Music� April/May. 2007 National Association of Pastoral Musicians � [book review]
Books (page 43)
The Divine Liturgies
Equally-if not more important � it "rationalizes" the musical setting.
As pioneers in the use of English in Catholic liturgy, the Byzantine Catholics were limited by the scholarly resources available in the 1960s and '70s when they produced their first official texts.
To the great credit of the Council of Hierarchs, they were willing to revisit their Church's work in spite of the fact that a generation of faithful has already memorized the (flawed) text. The hierarchs also realized that the previous setting of Carpathian plainchant ("prostopinije") sometimes displayed a collision of musical and textual accentuation. In other words, the cadences of the English translation frequently conflicted with the cadences of the plainchant.
This is a common occurrence when those who know a chant in one language (e.g., Slavonic) are suddenly required to transpose that chant's melody and rhythm to a text for which that melody and rhythm were never intended. Musically, the equivalent is "broken English." To the extent possible, the new pew book corrects this flaw. There remain instances when this has not proved possible be-cause of the nature of the chant and the requirements of accuracy and consistency in translation. Verbally tracking and backtracking over his own estimations the author of this review makes it very plain to all that the music settings for the RDL remain significantly flawed. His apparent reaction to that is kin to saying "Ahwell..." There is always the question of whether or not to hew so closely to an "original" setting that one produces, in reality, ugly and unsingable and spiritually bereft settings. Apparently that's ok for the reviewer who will never have to sing them, much less sing them in the sacred context of the liturgy. Thank you for posting this review. The author apparently sits the middle ground between skirting obvious truth, and keeping "professional" peace. Not alway an enviable skill. Mary
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,231
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,231 |
From Father Peter's review: "The absence of the presidential prayers from the pew book is presumably intended to compel the congregation to immerse itself in the liturgy rather than in the book. This is certainly a bold corrective to the Western tendency to make every single word of the service available in print. Of course, this will require that clergy truly "inhabit the words," that is, prayerfully articulate every phrase, so that no one needs to see what the priest or deacon is reading."
Unfortunately, the we've also picked up the "Western tendency" to have none of the prayers taken silently either. Everything has to be "heard" or recited, otherwise, you're "not really participating in the liturgy." Eventually what will happen, as it has in the Roman mass, the prayers loose their effectiveness and will not be LISTENED to or paid attention to by the people, because they're heard over and over and over, and end up meaning nothing in their recitation and their hearing.
As for the praise for the "creative solution" of the vespers/liturgy combo and it's effectiveness on reviving familiarity with vespers, I have no comment.
It's true that this book is good in it's completeness and it's attempt to restore more of the tradition and practices lost over the last century or more. Also in it's attempt to provide music for all parts. I will concede that point.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 487
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 487 |
It is really interesting to me how I keep hearing that the reason we are changing the music is because we want to make it 'authentic' and 'traditional'.
But with Vespers this talk goes out the window.
With multiple verse antiphons this goes out the window.
With litanies this goes out the window.
etc.
?????????
Monomakh
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,373
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,373 |
If Fr. Galadza thinks it is a great book, does that mean the Ukrainian Catholic Church will use this translation? Don't hold your breath!
Xpucmoc Bockpece!
Ungcsertezs
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
Journal: �Pastoral Music� April/May. 2007 National Association of Pastoral Musicians � [book review]
Books (page 43)
The Divine Liturgies
The Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh, The Divine Liturgies of our Holy Fathers John Chrysostom and Basil the Great: Responses and Hymns Set to Carpathian Plainchant. 467+ pages, hardcover. ISBN 0-9774069-3-8. Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church, 2006. Available from Byzantine Seminary Press. $15.00.
Response to a Book Review
Our colleague, Father Peter Galadza of the Metropolitan Andrew (Sheptytsky) Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, Saint Paul�s University, Ottawa, has published a review in the journal Pastoral Music of the National Association of Pastoral Musicians, discussing the new �pew book� of the Pittsburgh Byzantine-Ruthenian Metropolia. Father Peter is himself an outstanding student of liturgiology � his recent book on Metropolitan Andrew and the liturgical problem in the first half of the twentieth century is a scholarly landmark which all of us should read with careful attention.
However, back to Father Peter�s comments on the new Ruthenian �pew-book�. He describes this as �an epochal step toward the renewal and adaptation of its liturgical tradition in America.� He then tells his readers that the Council of Hierarchs of the Pittsburgh Metropolia is �the near-equivalent of a synod�, which is not exact: a synod can elect bishops; a council of hierarchs cannot. This review is primarily a list of various aspects of the �pew book� which our colleague finds utterly praise-worthy, almost to the point that one begins to wonder about the cause of this remarkable panegyric or encomium. But perhaps a closer look at some of our colleague�s specific points will help.
Our colleague asserts that �this book is epochal because its translation of the Chrysostom and Basil formularies and propers corrects many of the mistakes (both semantic and stylistic) found in the Byzantine Catholic Church's first pew book (1978)� Maybe and maybe not; there are those, including the present writer, who would suggest that in at least some cases the book offers a translation which is inferior to that which the Ruthenians were using previously.
Our colleague then tells us that the new book �rationalizes� the musical setting (since the book contains many varied musical settings, one might ask which musical setting Father Peter is referring to). More importantly, to say that someone is �rationalizing� is not always taken as a compliment. The dictionary tells us that this verb means, for example �to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable�, �to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives�, or even �to provide plausible but untrue reasons for conduct�. If this really what our colleague wishes to say, I can only agree � but somehow I suspect that this is not what Father Peter meant.
Our colleague praises the book for correcting the inevitably flaws which arise when chant forms composed for use in one language are transposed into another. In itself, the point is quite valid. Whether the �corrections� in the new book are much of an improvement � or indeed are enough of an improvement to justify the inconvenience � will remain a matter of opinion. In this connection, our colleague comments that �the pew book provides so many options for the ordinary of the Divine Liturgy that one need not use the more cumbersome settings� � I could wish that Father Peter had specified which settings he finds more cumbersome�.
Father Peter is particularly happy with the process which produced this book. He writes that: �A final reason why the new book is epochal is that its production was thoroughly collaborative and official. In other words, this was the effort of a Church guided by its chief shepherds.� This assertion is disingenuous, not to use stronger expressions. The production of this book and the other books to match it was not collaborative in the least; the overwhelming majority of the Reverend Clergy, let alone the faithful, of the Church upon whom this book is being imposed, were not even consulted, much less invited to participate in any process of discussion or criticism. I shall not even discuss how the signatures of the hierarchs may have been obtained. But I suggest that our colleague, who has written an excellent history and analysis of how the editions of the �Ruthenian Recension� published in the nineteen-forties and thereafter, came into being, should have applied the same standards of inquiry in this present instance.
Father Peter asserts that this book is �thus facilitating liturgical unity�. That is strange. The book distances the Pittsburgh Metropolia still further from the other Local Churches of the Ruthenian tradition. It distances the Pittsburgh Metropolia even more severely from the rest of the Catholic Churches of the Byzantine liturgical family. As for the Orthodox Churches, anyone who can read should compare this �pew book� with a normal Orthodox edition and notice the overwhelming number of discrepancies. One has the strong impression that a serious aim of this book is to �create� a Byzantine-Ruthenian-American �Rite� to wall off this Metropolia from everyone else.
With seigneurial disdain, our colleague writes that �Of course, as might be expected, the jettisoning of the previous translation and pew book has spawned a "cyber revolution," but as anyone with experience in "liturgical transition" knows, twelve to eighteen months usually suffices for congregations to adapt to the textual and musical changes, and once they have done so they find it hard to believe that they ever used the previous version. The fact that the Council of Hierarchs stands unanimously behind this change guarantees that the transition will be crowned with success (cyber revolutions notwithstanding).�
Whether this particular liturgical change will be �crowned with success� is very much still to be seen � partly it depends on just how one defines �success�. The �cyber revolution� normally refers to the effect on information technology brought about by cybernetics; it is not in itself a value-laden term. Our colleague does not choose to explain why he is using this term in what appears to be a pejorative sense. If he advocates a collaborative production � and he certainly seems to advocate that sort of process � why should he object to people making use of modern information technology to seek the relevant information and offer their input? Or, perhaps, does he only advocate the sort of �collaboration� that says �oh, that�s just wonderful!� If so, one would ask our colleague to reflect on the slender value of the collaboration of sycophants.
Father Peter observes, quite correctly, that the pew book lacks the bulk of the texts of the episcopal, presbyteral and diaconal prayers � both those done aloud and those which are properly done in mystica. Our colleague further observes, again correctly, that this �will require that clergy truly "inhabit the words," that is, prayerfully articulate every phrase, so that no one needs to see what the priest or deacon is reading.�
The trouble here is that the overwhelming majority of our hierarchs, priests, and deacons do not have the talents for enunciation of Charles Laughton, nor have they received the much-needed specialized training that this sort of reading requires. Father Peter may not fully realize that simply attempting to accomplish this by decree is unlikely to succeed.
Father Peter is pleased that the new book provides for the combination of Vespers and the Divine Liturgy for the Eucharist on Saturday evenings and the evenings before the feast days. I�m sorry. I do realize that in many parishes these �Saturday evening Masses� are the best-attended �weekend Mass� available. I still consider the whole business deplorable, for reasons which I am prepared to state but shall abstain from here, because these comments are already long.
Patient pastoral work in some parishes � including at least one parish with which Father Peter is quite familiar � has shown that it is entirely possible to make Vespers, or even the Vigil Service, significant and attractive to good numbers of the faithful without sugar-coating it by tacking on the Eucharist so as to �excuse� the faithful from coming to Church on Sunday.
Still, the effort of our colleague to stimulate some further discussion on this book should be welcomed � and the best way to welcome it is to respond with further discussion.
Serge Keleher
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
Of course, as might be expected, the jettisoning of the previous translation and pew book has spawned a "cyber revolution," but as anyone with experience in "liturgical transition" knows, twelve to eighteen months usually suffices for congregations to adapt to the textual and musical changes, and once they have done so they find it hard to believe that they ever used the previous version. There is a certain complacency amongst American Catholics that allows them to get used to almost anything. And then there are those for whom the Hierarchs are responsible, whether they acknowledge it or not, who have left for other jursidictions. And finally, one can only hope that congregations will not find it hard to believe that they ever recited the Creed in a version that comports with that handed down from the Councils and with Rome's current directives.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 646 Likes: 1
Cantor Member
|
Cantor Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 646 Likes: 1 |
It is really interesting to me how I keep hearing that the reason we are changing the music is because we want to make it 'authentic' and 'traditional'.
But with Vespers this talk goes out the window.
With multiple verse antiphons this goes out the window.
With litanies this goes out the window.
etc.
?????????
Monomakh Keep in mind that the music is not the translation, nor vice versa, they are two seperate issues! What does vespers have to do with Fr. Peter's review? If parishes don't do vespers, perhaps they would dare to inject a small portion of vespers into a vigil Liturgy and at least have some exposure to the beauty of vespers? Multiple antiphon verses, or the disuse of them has nothing to do with the music at all! Same is true regarding the litanies.
Last edited by Steve Petach; 05/01/07 10:39 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 178
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 178 |
It is really interesting to me how I keep hearing that the reason we are changing the music is because we want to make it 'authentic' and 'traditional'.
But with Vespers this talk goes out the window.
With multiple verse antiphons this goes out the window.
With litanies this goes out the window.
etc.
?????????
Monomakh Keep in mind that the music is not the translation, nor vice versa, they are two seperate issues! What does vespers have to do with Fr. Peter's review? If parishes don't do vespers, perhaps they would dare to inject a small portion of vespers into a vigil Liturgy and at least have some exposure to the beauty of vespers? Multiple antiphon verses, or the disuse of them has nothing to do with the music at all! Same is true regarding the litanies. Yes, Steve, but to say that we have a better Liturgy now that the music is more authentic is simply not true. Add all the other missing elements in, combined with the restored music, and now we've got something that could have been history in the making, not only for us but for our Orthodox brethren. Right now, we've got a lopsided Revised Divine Liturgy.
Last edited by Stephanie Kotyuh; 05/02/07 07:13 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
It is true, of course, that one can legitimately distinguish a discussion of the liturgical music from a discussion of the texts and/or a discussion of liturgical changes.
However, it is also true that the liturgical music is closely intertwined with the text, and is affected by various sorts of liturgical changes, so that these phenomena can properly be seen as a "unity in complexity".
By way of analogy: in theory one could serve the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom wearing Ethiopian vestments and using a church edifice appointed for Unitarian rituals. But would anyone seriously assert that "nothing had changed"?
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
Fr. Serge:
Your point raises a question, which maybe you or others might know the answer to. Does it ever appear that the translation was ever changed to fit the music--ie, we need an extra syllable here or one less there, to make the music work?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
Many translators have adjusted their translations to fit particular preferences in liturgical music. Other translators find this practice abhorrent.
My personal view of the matter might be stated as follows: we must begin with a scientifically accurate, schlolarly, non-polemic and non-ideological translation - and to acheive this we need a carefully done translation of at least the LXX Psalter.
Then it becomes possible to invite the various jurisdictions, ethnic communities, and musicologists to apply this translation to their specific circumstances, Inevitably, this will mean some changes in the translated text.
Meanwhile, if we can find some sufficiently qualified musical experts - they don't grow on trees, and I'm not such a musical expert - it would be possible to develop a musical setting related to but not identical to existing musical settings, so that when we come together, be it on special occasions or be it in some parish situations where no one particular tradition has a monopoly, we can all sing together.
How's that to keep everyone busy for the next couple of generations?
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|