Am I a non-traditional Catholic because I do not prefer the EF of the Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jwinch2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
floresco said:
In this case, my wish to have the label “traditional Catholic” is the opposite of individualism. Rather than considering myself as a unique individual within the Church, I want to focus on characteristics that I share in common with many other Catholics and to identify myself with them.
Click to expand...
Well let me put it this way: I’m not particularly attracted by the EF Mass but I love the OF Mass in Latin and with Gregorian chant; I love chant and careful liturgy, and I sing, teach and study Gregorian chant and the liturgy both as part of a schola and as a director of the Gregorian Institute of Canada. I’m doctrinally conservative, but pastorally not doctrinaire, true to the tradition of the abbey and order I’m associated with. In fact I’m associated to the oldest order in the Church as Oblate, and a conservative branch of that order that is fully obedient to the Holy Father, promotes and uses Gregorian chant, and has the most beautiful liturgies this side of 1962.

Would it be OK for me to self-identify as “traditionalist” even though I’m not fond of the EF Mass? Or do I not have enough in common with traditionalists to be part of the same “club” as it were? Is there some kind of “critical mass” of traditions I need to adhere to before I can be become part of that club? If so, who gets to say what that critical mass is?

If the definition is arbitrarily decided by a group that choses to set themselves apart, I would say that the label “traditionalist” is problematic, because unlike the attribute of being an “Oblate of St. Benedict” (or a Third Order Franciscan) which requires a formation period and a public formal promise in front of the superior (or someone standing in for him) to become affiliated to an Institute of Consecrated Life by the Church, it is being used by folks to, as Clem said, separate themselves from the Body of Christ, of which I and others not thinking the same way, are a part of. And therein lies the danger.

Actually I’m pretty sure from what I’ve read from you that you’re not guilty of the above. But you’ll have to honestly admit that many of those using that label have indeed been guilty of it. And that’s the problem. They have been so guilty of it in some cases, that they’ve fallen into disobedience and outright schism, and in others of throwing about the epithet “modernist” at those who don’t think the same way (often not realizing that “modernism” doesn’t mean simply liking modern liturgy, church architecture or devotional practices, it means they are in fact wrongly accusing others of being heretics). And in fact they have been labeling those who don’t think the same way with a label they consider pejorative (particularly the labels “liberal” and “modernist”) while appropriating an air of superiority for their own label of “traditionalist”.

So either the movement needs better framing by the Church on who can nor cannot be part of a formal movement known as “traditionalists”, or one should drop the label and simply express preferences for the particular traditions or liturgies they are fond of. And hopefully that would stop some self-declared “traditionalists” from ostracizing those who aren’t attached to them by falsely accusing them of heresy or attaching pejorative labels to them.

Maybe I’m just suspicious, but I tend to be wary of self-declared or self-defined titles.
 
To perhaps be a little obtuse, adding a teaspoon of cocoa powder to a gallon of cake batter does not make chocolate cake. With this <<I simply illustrate a principle.
 
OraLabora said:
Well let me put it this way: I’m not particularly attracted by the EF Mass but I love the OF Mass in Latin and with Gregorian chant; I love chant and careful liturgy, and I sing, teach and study Gregorian chant and the liturgy both as part of a schola and as a director of the Gregorian Institute of Canada. I’m doctrinally conservative, but pastorally not doctrinaire, true to the tradition of the abbey and order I’m associated with. In fact I’m associated to the oldest order in the Church as Oblate, and a conservative branch of that order that is fully obedient to the Holy Father, promotes and uses Gregorian chant, and has the most beautiful liturgies this side of 1962.

Would it be OK for me to self-identify as “traditionalist” even though I’m not fond of the EF Mass? Or do I not have enough in common with traditionalists to be part of the same “club” as it were? Is there some kind of “critical mass” of traditions I need to adhere to before I can be become part of that club? If so, who gets to say what that critical mass is?
Click to expand...
Using the guideline that “traditional Catholic” refers to people for whom the Ecclesia Dei Commission is responsible, you are not one. However, I would enjoy spending time with you and discussing our many common interests. I would also like to do another retreat at St. Benoit du Lac.
OraLabora said:
If the definition is arbitrarily decided by a group that choses to set themselves apart, I would say that the label “traditionalist” is problematic, because unlike the attribute of being an “Oblate of St. Benedict” (or a Third Order Franciscan) which requires a formation period and a public formal promise in front of the superior (or someone standing in for him) to become affiliated to an Institute of Consecrated Life by the Church, it is being used by folks to, as Clem said, separate themselves from the Body of Christ, of which I and others not thinking the same way, are a part of. And therein lies the danger.

Actually I’m pretty sure from what I’ve read from you that you’re not guilty of the above. But you’ll have to honestly admit that many of those using that label have indeed been guilty of it. And that’s the problem. They have been so guilty of it in some cases, that they’ve fallen into disobedience and outright schism, and in others of throwing about the epithet “modernist” at those who don’t think the same way (often not realizing that “modernism” doesn’t mean simply liking modern liturgy, church architecture or devotional practices, it means they are in fact wrongly accusing others of being heretics). And in fact they have been labeling those who don’t think the same way with a label they consider pejorative (particularly the labels “liberal” and “modernist”) while appropriating an air of superiority for their own label of “traditionalist”.

So either the movement needs better framing by the Church on who can nor cannot be part of a formal movement known as “traditionalists”, or one should drop the label and simply express preferences for the particular traditions or liturgies they are fond of. And hopefully that would stop some self-declared “traditionalists” from ostracizing those who aren’t attached to them by falsely accusing them of heresy or attaching pejorative labels to them.

Maybe I’m just suspicious, but I tend to be wary of self-declared or self-defined titles.
Click to expand...
I admit that there are people who call themselves traditional Catholics who are guilty of partisan spirit and even schism. But it is not a formal movement and I am reluctant to let those people define it. I think that the term “traditional Catholic” can be reclaimed and used by those who are obedient to the Magisterium and who reject partisan spirit.
 
This is my suggestion:

Obtain a 1962 or before Missal containing the English translation of the Traditional Latin Mass.

Take this Missal to an Ordinary Form Mass and read the English translation of each part of the Mass contained in the Missal as the priest says the words of the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

It may be necessary to do this a few times.

Really think about the words contained in the Missal vs. what the priest is saying during the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

Ask yourself whether they have the same meaning. Ask yourself if there is anything objectionable being said in the English translation of the Extrodinary Form. Ask yourself what could the reasons be that the words were changed and in the manner that they were changed.

Then determine which more closely expresses what you believe and what the Church has taught from the time of the Apostles.

This will be the determinant of whether you are a “Traditional” Catholic.
 
Comparing translations isn’t fair. You have to compare the sources, Latin vs the Latin IF AT ALL. The translated Mass isn’t the EF.
 
I don’t even understand what you are describing here. I am to take a translation done unofficially as an aid for those who didn’t understand Latin, and using this unapproved, random translation of any version of the Mass before 1962, I am to read that while simultaneously trying to listen closely to the priest praying the Church approved translation of the OF Mass. :confused:
Isolde22 said:
This is my suggestion:

Obtain a 1962 or before Missal containing the English translation of the Traditional Latin Mass.

Take this Missal to an Ordinary Form Mass and read the English translation of each part of the Mass contained in the Missal as the priest says the words of the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

It may be necessary to do this a few times.

Really think about the words contained in the Missal vs. what the priest is saying during the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

Ask yourself whether they have the same meaning. Ask yourself if there is anything objectionable being said in the English translation of the Extrodinary Form. Ask yourself what could the reasons be that the words were changed and in the manner that they were changed.

Then determine which more closely expresses what you believe and what the Church has taught from the time of the Apostles.

This will be the determinant of whether you are a “Traditional” Catholic.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, that is what I am saying.

You get a Missal which has the Latin printed on one side and the English traslation of the Latin on the other.

I say this because I assume you do not speak or understand Latin. If you do, you could simply read the Latin.

I can verify that the Latin written in the missal is exactly what the priest is saying at the EF of the Mass. If you do not believe that, you are free to verify for yourself that the Missal will contain the exact words used by the priest while he says the Mass in the EF.

The English translation of the Latin comes from the uniform English text of the Ordinary of the Mass. If you wish to learn about that you can read the words and explanation here:

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/latinmass2.asp

Of course all Catholic Missals will have the Imprimatur.

You can verify that the translation is correct by comparing what is written in your missal with the above linked translation. You can also find many other translations online and compare them with your missal. You can compare one missal with another. If this does not satisfy you that the translation from the Latin is accurate, you could purchase a Latin English dictionary and try to work out the translation yourself. I do not believe that anyone has questioned the accuracy of the translation from Latin to English in the past. Almost all priests read and understood Latin pre-Vatican II. If there was some problem with the translation, I think it would have been detected by someone. But, you are free to verify this for yourself.

Let us assume that the English translation of the EF Mass is correct, just for the sake of argument.

Take that translation of the EF Mass and read what the priest is actually saying at the EF Mass while you are attending the OF Mass. Compare and Contrast.

It is not difficult at all. I have done it many times myself.

Especially note what the priest says during the Offeratory at both Masses.

You will notice that over 70% of the words of the Mass in EF have been changed or omitted in the OF. Ask yourself why you believe this was done. Does it change the meaning and emphasis of what is being done? Which do you believe is more in keeping with the Faith handed down through the ages? Which do you believe is more in keeping with what Christ intended? What was the intention behind the changes? Why were they made? How does it change the Faith? Does it change the Faith?
 
By the way, the entire Faith as you know it comes from a translation from Latin, Greek, Hebrew, German, something.

The Bible, all of the writings of the Councils, the words of the Popes, the writings of the Doctors and Fathers of the Chruch, all of them are translations.

Nothing in the Tradition of the Church was written in English.

If you can not translate Latin to English in 1962, when could you translate Latin to English?

The OF of the Mass in a translation also. It has been claimed that the original Latin of the OF was far closer to the EF, but it was deliberately mistranslated. I however remember when it was originally said, back in 1969, it was far closer to the EF. More and more changes crept in over the years which moved it farther and farther away, so this was not as a result of mistranslations.

But I digress. No one has ever claimed that the English translations in Catholic Missals were inaccurate. They were promoted by the Pope (Pius XII) and approved by the Church. Thousands of Latin speaking Churchmen have seen them. No one has ever doubted their
accuracy. If you compare hundreds of different Missals you will see that they are virtually all the same.
 
Isolde22 said:
The English translation of the Latin comes from the uniform English text of the Ordinary of the Mass.
Click to expand...
I see what you’re driving at but they are hardly uniform. I have several pre-Vatican II handmissals and taking just one prayer, a most beautiful one at the Offertory, here are the differences:
Deus, qui humanæ substantiæ dignitatem
God, Who of human substance dignity

mirabiliter condidisti,
wonderfully has created,

et mirabilius reformasti:
and more wonderfully reformed:

da nobis per hujus aquæ et vini mysterium,
give to us through this of water and wine mystery,

ejus divinitatis esse consortes
His divinity to be partakers

qui humanitatis nostræ fieri dignatus est particeps,
Who in humanity our to become has granted partaker,

Jesus Christus Filius tuus Dominus noster:
Jesus Christ Son Your Lord our:

Qui tecum vivit et regnat
Who with You lives and reigns

in unitate Spiritus Sancti Deus:
in union with Spirit Holy God:

per omnia sæcula sæculorum. Amen.
for all ages of ages. Amen.​

St. Joseph - “O God, Who hast established the nature of man in wondrous dignity, and still more admirably restored it, grant that through the mystery of this water and wine, we may be made partakers of His Divinity, Who has condescended to become partaker of our humanity, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord. Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.”

My Sunday Missal - “O God, Who hast established the nature of man in wondrous dignity, and even more wonderously hast renewed it, grant that through the mystery of this water and wine, we may be made partakers of His Divinity, Who has deigned to become partaker of our humanity, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord. Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God world without end. Amen.”

St. Andrew - “O God, Who in a wonderful manner didst create and ennoble human nature, and still more wonderfully hast renewed it; grant that, by the mystery of this water and wine, we may be partakers of His divinity who vouchsafed to become partaker of our humanity, Jesus Christ Thy Son, our Lord: who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.”

Fr Lasance - “O God, Who in creating man didst exalt his nature very wonderfully and yet more wonderfully didst establish it anew: by the mystery signified in the mingling of this water and wine, grant us to have part in the Godhead of Him Who hath vouchsafed to share our manhood, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God; world without end. Amen.”

Angelus - “O God, Who in creating human nature didst marvelously ennoble it, and hast still more marvelously renewed it: grant that by the mystery of this water and wine, we may be partakers of His Divinity Who vouchsafed to become partaker of our humanity, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, Who liveth and reigned with Thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end. Amen.”

1857 Missal - “O God, who, in creating human nature, hast wonderfully dignified it, and still more wonderfully reformed it: grant that by the mystery of this Water and Wine, we may be partakers of his divine nature, who vouchsafed to become partaker of our human nature, namely, Jesus Christ one Lord, thy Son, in the unity of …”
Another one:

Before the Minor Elevation:

Interlinear: Per quem hæc omnia, Domine, semper bona creas,
By Whom these all, Lord, always good things you create,

sanctificas, vivificas, benedicis, et præstas nobis.
You sanctify, You give life to, You bless, and you give to us

EC Missal: By Whom, O Lord, Thou dost always create, sanctify, quicken, bless, and bestow upon us all these good things. (also Fr. Lasance)

St Joseph: Through Whom, O Lord, You always create, sanctify, fill with life, bless, and bestow upon us all good things.

My Sunday Missal: Through whom, O Lord, Thou dost ever create, hallow, fill with life, bless and bestow upon us all good things.

St. Andrew: Through whom, O Lord, Thou dost always create, sanctify, quicken, bless, and bestow upon us all these Thy gifts.

ICEL 1: Through him you give us all these gifts. You fill them with life and goodness, you bless them and make them holy.

ICEL 2: Through whom you continue to create all these good things, O Lord; you make them holy, fill them with life, bless them, and bestow them upon us.
 
Thank you Pro Vobis. I believe you have made my point for me.

Other than the ICEL translations, which were post Vatican II, all the the translations from various missals you provided, say and mean the exact same thing.

Any one of them would aptly serve the purpose of furnishing a valid translation of the Latin Mass in EF which could then be used to compare the words of the EF with the words of the OF. It will be quite obvious that the words and meaning of the two Masses are extraordinarily different. Startlingly different. Glaringly different. Irreconcilably different.

Why were the words changed? Why? What was wrong with the original wording of the Mass that someone saw fit to completely change them to the form that exists now? There had to be a purpose for doing that, what do you think that it was?

Did it change the meaning? When you completely change the words, or omit large sections, do you believe the meaning can remain the same?

When you completely change all of the rubrics, do you believe that it does not change the meaning?

What was the intention behind this?
 
Isolde22 said:
You will notice that over 70% of the words of the Mass in EF have been changed or omitted in the OF. Ask yourself why you believe this was done. Does it change the meaning and emphasis of what is being done? Which do you believe is more in keeping with the Faith handed down through the ages? Which do you believe is more in keeping with what Christ intended? What was the intention behind the changes? Why were they made? How does it change the Faith? Does it change the Faith?
Click to expand...
In the late 5th century, prior to the pontificate of Pope Gregory, the Mass was altered to the point that “… the Eucharistic prayer was fundamentally changed and recast” (Catholic Encyclopedia) did that mean that the Mass was no longer in keeping with what Christ intended? Did it change the meaning and emphasis of what was being done? Did it change the Faith?

When Charlemagne order the Mass to be changed in the 8th Century, the result was radically different then what preceded it. Did it change the meaning and emphasis on what was being done? Did that mean that the Mass was no longer in keeping with what Christ intended? Did it change the Faith?
 
Isolde22 said:
Other than the ICEL translations, which were post Vatican II, all the the translations from various missals you provided, say and mean the exact same thing.
Click to expand...
Okay, then what about the translation of “Dominus tecum” (“The Lord is with you”) in the Hail Mary and “Dominus vobiscum” (“The Lord be with you”) in the Mass? Can you still claim they are the same thing? I would say definitely not. The subjunctive in the latter takes on an entirely different meaning. The Lord is always with you but the peace of the Lord or the spirit of the Lord may not be always with you. So it would be okay to translate Pax vobiscum as “Peace be with you” but not theologically okay IMO when it comes to the Lord Himself.
 
Isolde22 said:
Let us assume that the English translation of the EF Mass is correct, just for the sake of argument.

Take that translation of the EF Mass and read what the priest is actually saying at the EF Mass while you are attending the OF Mass. Compare and Contrast.
Click to expand...
I’ve done it with the Latin-Polish translations and the Polish-translated EF is the same as the Polish OF in the Gloria, Kyrie, Credo, Sanctus, etc. If the English doesn’t match, it’s not the fault of the OF.
 
Latin became the language of the Church around 250 AD. “Very soon after the acceptance of Latin as the only liturgical language we find allusions to parts of the Eucharistic prayer, that are practically the same as parts of the Tridentine Canon.”

Pope Damascus 366-84 is considered one of the chief “compilers” of the Roman Liturgy.

The mass changed very little from the 5th C. onward. Let me repeat that. From 400 AD until 1962, the mass changed very little. For 1500 years, the mass changed very little.

Your claims of major changes in the 5th C. are misrepresented.
Dr. Drews postulates that Pope Gelasius 492-496 made certain changes in the ARRANGEMENT of certain prayers in the Canon. The prayers are ancient and were NOT changed. Only the order was changed according to Dr. Drew’s THEORY. The reason for the change in arrangement was to assimilate the Roman Rite with that of Alexandria.
“The Roman Canon which once had its Intercession after the Consecration inverted its order sometime between Innocent I and Gregory I, that is in the V or VI centuries.”
All of this is purely speculative and hardly the earth shattering change to the Canon that you are desribing. From “The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy”

Of course every Catholic should be aware of the Apostalic Constitution **Quo Primum **given by Saint Pope Pius V in which he states unequivocally regarding the Mass of all Time, the Tridentine Mass:

*We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein… *
Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult,declaration, will decree and prohibition. Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
.

Given at St. Peter’s Rome, in the year of Our Lord’s Incarnation, one thousand five hundred and seventy, on the fourth day of July in the fifth year of Our Pontificate.

PPius V

So we can say for pretty much certain that nothing major was changed in the Mass for at least 400 years.

truecatholic.us/pope/prevpope-pius5.htm

I’m not suggesting anything all that frightening or subversive. Just a simple comparison between the EF and the OF. If they are just the same then this shouldn’t present such a problem for anyone. I’m simply suggesting that people use their own powers of observation and deduction. What was omitted. What was changed. Why?
 
Isolde22 said:
Latin became the language of the Church around 250 AD. “Very soon after the acceptance of Latin as the only liturgical language we find allusions to parts of the Eucharistic prayer, that are practically the same as parts of the Tridentine Canon.”

Pope Damascus 366-84 is considered one of the chief “compilers” of the Roman Liturgy.

The mass changed very little from the 5th C. onward. Let me repeat that. From 400 AD until 1962, the mass changed very little. For 1500 years, the mass changed very little.

Your claims of major changes in the 5th C. are misrepresented.
Dr. Drews postulates that Pope Gelasius 492-496 made certain changes in the ARRANGEMENT of certain prayers in the Canon. The prayers are ancient and were NOT changed. Only the order was changed according to Dr. Drew’s THEORY. The reason for the change in arrangement was to assimilate the Roman Rite with that of Alexandria.
“The Roman Canon which once had its Intercession after the Consecration inverted its order sometime between Innocent I and Gregory I, that is in the V or VI centuries.”
All of this is purely speculative and hardly the earth shattering change to the Canon that you are desribing. From “The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy”

Of course every Catholic should be aware of the Apostalic Constitution **Quo Primum **given by Saint Pope Pius V in which he states unequivocally regarding the Mass of all Time, the Tridentine Mass:

*We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein… *
Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult,declaration, will decree and prohibition. Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
.

Given at St. Peter’s Rome, in the year of Our Lord’s Incarnation, one thousand five hundred and seventy, on the fourth day of July in the fifth year of Our Pontificate.

PPius V

So we can say for pretty much certain that nothing major was changed in the Mass for at least 400 years.

truecatholic.us/pope/prevpope-pius5.htm

I’m not suggesting anything all that frightening or subversive. Just a simple comparison between the EF and the OF. If they are just the same then this shouldn’t present such a problem for anyone. I’m simply suggesting that people use their own powers of observation and deduction. What was omitted. What was changed. Why?
Click to expand...
Interesting. Thank you.
 
Isolde22 said:
I’m not suggesting anything all that frightening or subversive. Just a simple comparison between the EF and the OF. If they are just the same then this shouldn’t present such a problem for anyone. I’m simply suggesting that people use their own powers of observation and deduction. What was omitted. What was changed. Why?
Click to expand...
Might I recommend reading Sacrosanctum Concilium and Liturgiam authenticam and find out for yourself rather than making ominous assertions.
Isolde22 said:
Of course every Catholic should be aware of the Apostalic Constitution **Quo Primum **given by Saint Pope Pius V in which he states unequivocally regarding the Mass of all Time, the Tridentine Mass:

*We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein… *
Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult,declaration, will decree and prohibition. Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
.
Click to expand...
Pope St. Pius V was not saying that nobody had the authority in the future to alter the Missale in any way. That would fly in the face of the facts, including that he himself made some revisions to it after 1570.

What he was saying was that no individual Catholic outside the Holy Office was permitted to alter the text of the liturgy of the Holy Mass or celebrate according to their own rites unless granted the authority to do so by the Papacy. Hence certain rites whose texts had “questionable” theology were to be suppressed unless they were at least 200 years old, like the Ambrosian Rite.
So we can say for pretty much certain that nothing major was changed in the Mass for at least 400 years.
Click to expand...
You can just take a cursory glance at the 1570 Missale Romanum and see that the text has a lot of differences from the 1962.

Instead of repeating the talking points that sedevacantists use, I would strongly suggest examining the realities of the changes in the liturgy. I strongly recommend reading The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development by Fr. Joseph A. Jungmann, S.J., whose first edition came out in 1949.

Did you know, for instance, that English in the liturgy didn’t come from Vatican II – the first vernacular text was promulgated by Pope Pius XII, for people to profess their renewal of their Baptismal Vows during Holy Week?
 
Isolde22 said:
So we can say for pretty much certain that nothing major was changed in the Mass for at least 400 years.

truecatholic.us/pope/prevpope-pius5.htm

I’m not suggesting anything all that frightening or subversive. Just a simple comparison between the EF and the OF. If they are just the same then this shouldn’t present such a problem for anyone. I’m simply suggesting that people use their own powers of observation and deduction. What was omitted. What was changed. Why?
Click to expand...
Nice site, there. How about this on the exact same site; “The Anti-Popes of Vatican II”

"Vatican II
Its Heresies, Errors and Rites
Code: 
This menu of the True Catholic website provides you with articles showing the heresies promoted by the Vatican II church, as well as showing why its rites are invalid."
Sorry mate, but I’m not taking anything from that site seriously.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top